Republicans, fearing congressional end-run, warn Obama ahead of climate talks

ludin said:

when someone has a gun pointed at your head money is pointless.
they don't care about what an item costs. if they need it they just take it.

the bulk of their money goes for weapons.

again your bunk arguments that global warming is their issue is just that bunk.
otherwise they would be targeting things that are causing it and they are not.

you can believe the nonsense if you want to but no one else does.

Click to expand...

You deny that resource scarcity increases overall social unrest then ? That's your claim ? There's zero relationship ?

GPS_Flex said:

Ok, so humor me and answer the question. Do you support the banishment of abortions, the outlawing of homosexuality, the repeal of women's rights to vote or drive or walk around in public without being completely covered by a burka so the terrorists will stop attacking us?

Click to expand...

No.

You cannot banish abortions. You can outlaw them and then people will continue to commit illegal abortions, putting their own lives at risk in the process.

This is What Happens When Abortion is Outlawed

You can't outlaw homosexuality. You can outlaw homosexual behavior. Homosexuals have no choice in being homosexual, only in engaging in homosexual activity. The loss of life from that (suicides/executions) would probably outweigh the loss of life from terrorists :



You could try to repeal women's rights, but they wouldn't need any male votes to block it since you'd need so much support for a constitutional amendment repealing women's rights. Ignoring the lack of feasibility, it's still a stupid idea.

You're straining to claim that we should not engage in every possible preventative measure to fight terrorism. Sure, i agree. Since i was only talking about the feasibility that resource scarcity may influence civil unrest, and that i was further suggesting that it's possible that global warming can worsen resource scarcity in the Middle East, and i wasn't talking about doing any sort of mitigation or specific policy to stop it, your weird argument is completely tangent to the discussion.

Absentglare said:

You deny that resource scarcity increases overall social unrest then ? That's your claim ? There's zero relationship ?

Click to expand...

again this has already been addressed.
if they were after those resources then they would be targeting those resources and they are not.
they are targeting innocent people, raping women. yes all of that helps resource scarcity.

again your distortions of peoples post fail.

technology has eliminated most of the resource scarcity in the middle east unless you are in the middle of a desert.

Absentglare said:

No.

You cannot banish abortions. You can outlaw them and then people will continue to commit illegal abortions, putting their own lives at risk in the process.

This is What Happens When Abortion is Outlawed

You can't outlaw homosexuality. You can outlaw homosexual behavior. Homosexuals have no choice in being homosexual, only in engaging in homosexual activity. The loss of life from that (suicides/executions) would probably outweigh the loss of life from terrorists :

View attachment 67193626

You could try to repeal women's rights, but they wouldn't need any male votes to block it since you'd need so much support for a constitutional amendment repealing women's rights. Ignoring the lack of feasibility, it's still a stupid idea.

You're straining to claim that we should not engage in every possible preventative measure to fight terrorism. Sure, i agree. Since i was only talking about the feasibility that resource scarcity may influence civil unrest, and that i was further suggesting that it's possible that global warming can worsen resource scarcity in the Middle East, and i wasn't talking about doing any sort of mitigation or specific policy to stop it, your weird argument is completely tangent to the discussion.

Click to expand...

If the only point you were trying to make is that “civil unrest” occurs when people run short on essential resources, no one would have argued with you. It’s been a fact of life since… life began.

When you “further suggest”, however, that global warming can cause resource scarcity “in the middle east”, it’s fairly obvious that you’re attempting to link the cause of terrorism to global warming.

Please clarify your position and make a real argument for something that will make the world a better place. If you aren’t arguing that we must mitigate and change our behavior to placate the terrorists, what are you arguing for?

GPS_Flex said:

If the only point you were trying to make is that “civil unrest” occurs when people run short on essential resources, no one would have argued with you. It’s been a fact of life since… life began.

When you “further suggest”, however, that global warming can cause resource scarcity “in the middle east”, it’s fairly obvious that you’re attempting to link the cause of terrorism to global warming.

Please clarify your position and make a real argument for something that will make the world a better place. If you aren’t arguing that we must mitigate and change our behavior to placate the terrorists, what are you arguing for?

Click to expand...

I would argue that we should be mindful of the possible casual interactions that affect us meaningfully.

I'll give you that the impact is likely very limited if it exists at all. I'll give you that it may be completely baseless. The problem i have is that those claims have yet to be demonstrated. I consider it good sense to seriously consider ideas that may seem false at first glance.

Absentglare said:

I would argue that we should be mindful of the possible casual interactions that affect us meaningfully.

I'll give you that the impact is likely very limited if it exists at all. I'll give you that it may be completely baseless. The problem i have is that those claims have yet to be demonstrated. I consider it good sense to seriously consider ideas that may seem false at first glance.

Click to expand...

So you obviously oppose Obama’s push to bring 100,000+ Syrian refugees to the states without the strictest assurances that any terrorists among them are denied entry into the USA right?

Honestly, I expect another - off topic, abstract refusal to answer the question directly, type of - response one might expect from an online chat-room bot, but I’m willing to give you another shot at keeping me interested in talking with you if you have anything real to say. If you can't communicate your points and positions more clearly, I have no desire to engage with you further.

GPS_Flex said:

So you obviously oppose Obama’s push to bring 100,000+ Syrian refugees to the states without the strictest assurances that any terrorists among them are denied entry into the USA right?

Honestly, I expect another - off topic, abstract refusal to answer the question directly, type of - response one might expect from an online chat-room bot, but I’m willing to give you another shot at keeping me interested in talking with you if you have anything real to say. If you can't communicate your points and positions more clearly, I have no desire to engage with you further.

Click to expand...

No.

I don't know why you keep deflecting from the fact that you haven't brought much of anything to redeem any of your claims.

Absentglare said:

You can continue to declare that my response did not have any point but, so long as you fail to actually demonstrate that in any meaningful way, you will be correct that this discussion is pointless.

Click to expand...

Well you can continue to deny the obvious, deny basic logic and common sense, deny your posts weren't relevant to the points I, and others have been making, and deny you didn't understand it all - all of which IS what's turning this discussion pointless.

I don't care if you think it's possible to talk to inanimate objects like the Aral Sea, or you think there's a link between it and the desalinized potable water the city of Dubai makes for itself - or if you find some link between those and terrorism in the middle east or even global warming, expecting us to divine whatever ethereal link it is you've made with all those in your mind.

I don't even care if you don't grasp why the words "declare" and "explain" aren't equal, but do understand this - it's getting embarrassing watching you stumble from ambiguous, disconnected thought to disconnected thought, only to have it pointed out to you clearly and succinctly, then watch you rebut with nonsense like the above, presumably expecting us to explain it to you even more clearly, then try to tell us it's our fault you don't understand what it is we're saying.

EdwinWillers said:

Well you can continue to deny the obvious, deny basic logic and common sense, deny your posts weren't relevant to the points I, and others have been making, and deny you didn't understand it all - all of which IS what's turning this discussion pointless.

I don't care if you think it's possible to talk to inanimate objects like the Aral Sea, or you think there's a link between it and the desalinized potable water the city of Dubai makes for itself - or if you find some link between those and terrorism in the middle east or even global warming, expecting us to divine whatever ethereal link it is you've made with all those in your mind.

I don't even care if you don't grasp why the words "declare" and "explain" aren't equal, but do understand this - it's getting embarrassing watching you stumble from ambiguous, disconnected thought to disconnected thought, only to have it pointed out to you clearly and succinctly, then watch you rebut with nonsense like the above, presumably expecting us to explain it to you even more clearly, then try to tell us it's our fault you don't understand what it is we're saying.

Click to expand...

Your rhetoric and ad hominem is as unconvincing as it is boring.

Absentglare said:

That calling the science false simply because the notion that humans consume lots of freshwater is ridiculous.

Maybe you should pay attention.

Click to expand...

Ever heard of the "water cycle?"

Absentglare said:

No.

I don't know why you keep deflecting from the fact that you haven't brought much of anything to redeem any of your claims.

Click to expand...

Feel free to point out the specific claims I’ve made that you feel I need to “redeem” and I’ll be happy to “redeem” them for you.
In the meantime, I have a few more points to make.

Since you don’t have a problem with Obama bringing 100,000+ Syrian refugees, who aren’t interested in becoming Americans, to your/my neighborhood without properly vetting them to stop the terrorists from moving into the house next door, what's your plan to keep yourself and your family safe from people who become radicalized Islamic Jihadists, like those in Paris or San Bernardino? Do you own a bunch of guns and have a CCP? You obviously don’t want to live under Sharia Law but your political positions are working to make that a possibility. In the real world, we have bigger problems than the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere.

You also said you aren’t willing to placate the terrorists by outlawing the evil sins that cause these radical Islamists to fervently hate us but so far as I can see, your solution for dealing with these terrorists is to surrender your liberty and property to the United Nations. I’m not sure how that makes me any safer considering your desire to take my guns and diminish my ability to protect myself and family from nut jobs who would do us harm, like those in Colorado, Paris or San Bernardino.

In other words, I believe people like you are already getting people like me killed and I believe it’s only getting worse. If you don’t have a plan that includes my security, liberty and pursuit of happiness, you don’t have a plan or a clue, do you?