That's fine Chuck - it wasn't meant to be flattery. Just, remember (when you throw terms like pretentious around) who started this conversation excited about the opportunity to put naive lemmings who don't ask the right questions in their place (and who posted twice begging for my response). With apologies to Darius and others, this post really needs a response - but it will be my last thoughts on the matter.
Sure. Your party got paid to flip on what was a critical issue for them (perhaps even more so than the Dems). They profited for their denials - what's the benefit to you in all this?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html
You have nothing to stand on in this debate if your resorting to this type of attack. Seriously Chuck, are YOU unable to do many things in your own life as a result of posting on this message board? That would be sad to hear. Personally, I (like most everyone else, I assume) am able to post here, have a job, a social life and more - and all in addition to supporting, donating to and actively fighting for many things I believe in. But if you need to convince yourself of the virtues of your own beliefs by pretending that anyone who doesn't work for Climate Change 24/7 doesn't really believe either than do your thing (and if you need to convince yourself, maybe that's a clue in and of itself)...
LOL, I ignored this in my last post because I honestly thought you were joking. To recap, you posted a link to a bunch of random twitter posts in what I thought was humor but apparently was another source of yours on Climate Change. The fact that you would assume Obama purchasing ocean front property could ONLY mean he doesn't actually believe in Climate Change is the perfect illustration for how deeply you've buried your head in the sand, how biased you are and how disingenuous your arguments are on this topic...
It may be low hanging fruit to make that sort of joke (practically scraping the ground to be honest), but that's not what it has to mean at all. Does it not occur to you that Obama might care about Climate Change BECAUSE he likes the ocean and wishes to live on the coast - or does it just not fit your narrative? In a concept especially foreign to your party these days - perhaps he understands he has the means to take the risk of living on ocean front property and cares about Climate Change issues out of empathy for
other people, both now and in the future...
I don't have any ocean front property - but I wouldn't sell it to you. I love the ocean and the seacoast. I'd move to an ocean front plot in Rye, tomorrow, if that was feasible at this stage of my life. That's why I give a ****. I don't live in an area that might flood (now or 50 years in the future) but I can still appreciate the risk for those that do (and will) because its not all about me...
Honestly, one could possibly disagree with timelines, severity or how to best stand up to Climate Change - but there is zero reason to pretend it doesn't exist unless one is looking to profit from said denial or validate ones political standing by doing so.
Were not only disrespecting the climate threat at this stage, were actively rolling back policy previously preventing things like dumping waste into rivers and pumping whatever gases/amounts we can into the air. Apparently out of spite as much as profit. I'm not sure you have to even believe in Climate Change to not want to see this level of pollution. Its quite simply dirty and gross. If there is a long-term added benefit too preventing this level of pollution all the better right? Apparently not for some...
So when predictions don't materialize exactly as laid out, its proof of Climate Change being a hoax. When predicted symptoms do pop up - its a fluke - and if the flooding doesn't stay permanently its not Climate Change and its not a big deal. Sure, you're the only objective one here
...
---
As for political conversation on this thread in general. Talking points from the right have been dropped into casual conversation a number of times over the years, by Chuck and others - this is just the first time they've had to deal with some push back. If the preference is that is to be avoided in the future, than maybe political points (in jest or otherwise) shouldn't be injected in the conversation to begin with. All of these issues can be discussed in the Cafe after all...
