Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Carlin was a great comedian.
That being said, the corruption is FAR from confined to republican administrations.
It's all of them.
Drain The Swamp
Yep, but not equally so. Trump has stocked, not drained the swamp. Carlin is speaking here of most politicians--he'd probably make an exception for Bernie Sanders, who hasn't changed his tune in 40 years and doesn't lie--but Trump fits the profile of what he's talking about to a "T," and Trump's history of lies and corruption is manifest evidence of it. He sees himself as a would-be King. Doesn't understand anything about American history or government; cares only about money and the world bowing down to him. A pathetic joke of a creature. Yet his followers believe every word he says, and Carlin was well aware of the stupidity of Americans easily taken in by hucksters.
The funniest material Carlin did was making fun of the global warming theory. He sounded like a conservative on that issue.
Actually, he wasn't a global warming denier. That shtick was against smug, self-righteous environmentalists who didn't really care about the planet, but who cared only about their own comfort, and who weren't really willing to make real sacrifices. If you do further research, he was a great Nature/animal lover and thought that humans didn't deserve either.
Of course, this doesn't stop the dumb-dumb climate change denial crowd from claiming him as their own. Sub-text is beyond those folks.
Ok, I think that I probably have more science education than you and other global warming alarmists who like to use the denier rhetoric.
I've noticed that the most passionate global warming alarmists are generally people who majored in a liberal arts program.
He didn't buy the global warming alarmism, despite what you said. I love pointing this out after liberals have gushed over him and portrayed him as the smartest person to ever walk this earth.
I love your implied premise that conservatives or 'deniers' hate nature and animals. I never stated or implied Carlin did not like nature and animals.
Last edited by ClemVegas; 09-04-2017 at 04:03 PM..
Ok, I think that I probably have more science education than you and other global warming alarmists who like to use the denier rhetoric.
I've noticed that the most passionate global warming alarmists are generally people who majored in a liberal arts program.
He didn't buy the global warming alarmism, despite what you said. I love pointing this out after liberals have gushed over him and portrayed him as the smartest person to ever walk this earth.
I love your implied premise that conservatives or 'deniers' hate nature and animals. I never stated or implied Carlin did not like nature and animals.
I can guarantee you that you do not have more science education than me; nor do you have more science education than the vast majority of climate scientists throughout the world who are urging the world to take climate change seriously. This is not "alarmism"; it's called "science." And for someone who claims to be so educated in science, the fact that you do not know the difference, and think you know more than the world's climate scientists, is quite "alarming" in itself. Global warming "alarmism" is a right-wing political term that means nothing other than the fact that they are in deep denial about the worsening state of the planet due to anthropogenic climate change. Like toddlers, they think that if they can't see something with their own eyes, it doesn't exist, so--again, like toddlers--they stamp their feet and insist on their own reality.
He absolutely did "buy" the reality of global warming (as it was called back then). Like I said, sub-text is lost on climate change deniers.
Your post is dishonest because you act as though no climate scientists are deniers. There is a climate scientist at MIT that thinks it is bogus. There is one at NASA in Huntsville, Roy Spencer, that thinks it is bogus. They are scientists right? Why should we automatically discount what they say? Because it is at odds with the Democratic Party position?
I love how you feel the need to insult people who disagree with you on this issue as being stupid. If you are so right about the issue, it seems like you could debate it rather than resorting to insults. You appear to be far more about politics than science.
You don't know anything about me but you are asserting you know more about science than me. For a person who claims to be so dedicated to science, you sure speculate a lot.
Your post is dishonest because you act as though no climate scientists are deniers. There is a climate scientist at MIT that thinks it is bogus. There is one at NASA in Huntsville, Roy Spencer, that thinks it is bogus. They are scientists right? Why should we automatically discount what they say? Because it is at odds with the Democratic Party position?
I love how you feel the need to insult people who disagree with you on this issue as being stupid. If you are so right about the issue, it seems like you could debate it rather than resorting to insults. You appear to be far more about politics than science.
You don't know anything about me but you are asserting you know more about science than me. For a person who claims to be so dedicated to science, you sure speculate a lot.
You can find outliers in any group. This has nothing to do with politics. Do you honestly think that climate scientists in Finland or South Korea give a crap about "the Democratic Party position"? Good lord. If 97% of climate scientists do not "debate" the reality of anthropogenic climate change, why in god's name--considering the dangers--would I listen, instead, to the other 3% (few of which are, in fact, actual climate scientists). Roy Spencer is a meteorologist, not a climate scientist. Chemists and biologists are "scientists," as well, but we don't turn to them for expertise on climate science. And who is the climate scientist at MIT to whom you refer?
Here's a site you might be interested in visiting:
If my position is that CO2 in the atmosphere is going to lead to an environmental doomsday, I would expect a lot of people to be skeptical about it. I certainly wouldn't call them dumb if they didn't think it is plausible.
You can find outliers in any group. This has nothing to do with politics. Do you honestly think that climate scientists in Finland or South Korea give a crap about "the Democratic Party position"? Good lord. If 97% of climate scientists do not "debate" the reality of anthropogenic climate change, why in god's name--considering the dangers--would I listen, instead, to the other 3% (few of which are, in fact, actual climate scientists).
Here's a site you might be interested in visiting:
Science isn't about a 'consensus'. That is how I know you are political, you talk about science like a political person, not like a person interested in science. Moreover, there isn't any consensus that there is caustastrophic global warming happening. That is a Democrat party talking point.
I point out there are scientists that are deniers, and you flippantly dismiss them. The only scientific opinion you are interested in is the ones that validate your opinions.
I know that in SC< the weather is similar now to how it was back in the 1980s. This is empirical evidence that there is no global warming happening yet I'm supposed to deny my own experience.
If I have cancer, and 99 physicians tell me there is no viable treatment, but 1 physician tells me that there is novel treatment that he thinks would put the cancer in remission, I would listen to the 1 physician.
By your logic, I should go with the consensus.
I'm interested in the argument, not the number of people supporting it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
