Greta took away President Trump's Time "Person of the Year" award, so he sent this tweet:
"Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend!" Trump wrote of teenage climate crisis activist Greta Thunberg. "Chill Greta, Chill!"
Greta is a 16-year-old climate activist with Asperger's Syndrome.
Isn't it below the office of the President of the United States to behave this way? Shouldn't we expect more?
It's almost as bad as that time when the POTUS convinced one of his interns to perform oral sex on him.
Very disappointed in the President, once again.
She's a puppet, like so many puppets in the past. Her arrogance is beyond comprehension - she's uneducated on the subject, she's immature, and she's not a spokesperson for the world. Throughout history the worst tyrants on earth have used darling little girls with pigtails to preach hate, subversion, and control.....save me the boo-hoo speech that the President shut her down - she brings nothing but hate and anger to the table so she gets it in return....
She spoke the way she should speak but not Mr. President
Trump doesn't have the knowledge, intellect, or temperament to address her positions so he behaves like a petulant child. He isn't capable of playing at her level.
The face you make when people tell you, you shouldn't attack children.
You realize you're missing the entire point of this, right? That the President is so petty he decided to attack a 16-year-old.
One of my friends posted a FB message about this, too. But when a child (and her parents) decide to enter the adult world and participate in adult activities and discussion then she is open to the same rebuttals any adult would get.
Doesn't excuse Trumps words, though - he was out of line whether Greta was 6, 16, or 60. Her being a child wasn't what was wrong, and him treating her as the adult she is professing to be wasn't either.
Here we see all the trees Time Magazine cut down to print their person of the year issue.
The whole climate change thing is a hoax; therefore, I feel bad for Greta. She is being exploited by the elite. Trump wasn't putting her down. She definitely needs to chill out.
This "climate change is a hoax" might as well be "science is a hoax". This is the kind of idiocy that makes it impossible for me to ever take the Right seriously. Anyone who says this doesn't have a basic comprehension of scientific principles. Hey, science is a hoax! This from the same people that brought us Pizzagate and Inaugural Crowdgate.
You can argue with the proposed resolution. I have no problem with that. Nobody is suddenly going to stop driving their car. But to say it's a hoax shows an incredible lack of comprehension and intelligence.
I don't think so. Just watch these short explanations to see the other side of the debate.
1. https://www.prageru.com/video/climate-c … tists-say/
2. https://www.prageru.com/video/climate-a … -hysteria/
3. https://www.prageru.com/video/what-they … te-change/
There's no other side. There is no other side to a scientific fact. This is all propaganda. If somebody doesn't understand the basic science, then I might as well try explaining the science to a monkey because I'll have the same success. You might as well argue that the earth is flat (something about 1/4 of people believe) or that the sun orbits the earth (something people also believe).
This sort of ignorance of basic scientific principles is so dangerous, I couldn't even begin to describe it, so I won't try.
There is no other side? Wow! The MIT professor is not talking about basic science or even logic? However, I don't want to argue with you. Watch the videos or don't watch them. I just threw out another view point.
Congratulations, you understood. There's no "other side" to a basic scientific principle with a proven explanation.
Can there be an "other side" to the conclusions, extrapolations and predictions arising from that basic scientific principle, particularly when that principle is only one of a whole raft of principles in play - a mixture we have only scratched the surface of understanding?
There is always another side. Like I said, there's another side to the theory of gravity, the theory of heliocentricity, and the theory of the round earth. Do you believe any of those?
Somebody who tells me climate change theory is "a hoax" is a person with very few analytical skills not worthy of my time, much like a monkey or a child.
If you want to say stuff like "technology will sort this out" or "we're overreacting", that is entirely different.
Deflection or misunderstanding? Or total faith in computer models that consistently fail?
As CO2 levels rise, will a latent, dormant gene in some or all plants kick into high gear, giving higher growth rates and removing more CO2 from the atmosphere?
We're losing atmosphere all the time - will more CO2 have an effect on how much and what elements are lost? How will that affect the atmosphere?
As CO2 levels in the ocean increase, what will happen to plant life there? Will it grow further beneath the surface or will the need for sunlight still trump the air needs? As we've never seen it it seems rather unlikely that we can have an answer.
Will higher levels, and the resulting acidic oceans, lakes and rivers result in higher erosion, tying up CO2 (or O2 or C) in mineral formations?
The point is that we do not understand any but the very beginnings of climate change: to think we can make accurate predictions of global climate with only a smattering of knowledge of what goes into it is ludicrous. And that shows up in the gross failures of predictions as to what will happen.
The science is not refutable. The predictions are another matter entirely.
As you are providing some educated responses and are not a person prone to hyperbole, this is a reasonable response that does not deny there is a serious problem.
That said, those making the predictions are generally in agreement and the best experts on the planet, so I am inclined to believe them. I generally prefer to put my faith in educated people rather than morons who found links on the internet saying something else.
I can appreciate people reacting skeptically to others running around screaming "fire" in a crowded theater.
The earth is warming. Observations along that line are, as you say, irrefutable.
And the scientists giving predictions are among the best, if not necessarily "the best" we have. That does NOT mean that some of their guesses (predictions) are not influenced by politics and/or paychecks; there is far, far too much money involved here to think otherwise.
An example: my electric company is, and has been for some time, fighting what they are legally obligated to pay for solar power. They want to pay what they would pay for other sources; the solar companies complain that that would put them out of business as they require nearly 3 times as much in order to profit. A great deal of this kind of thing can be traced directly to the climate controversy and money talks. It always will.
Wilderness, the scientist involved in the climate crisis science come from a thousand different countries, and with different social and religious backgrounds. 1+1=2 no matter your political point of view.
Of course there is money involved in research etc. But this is kids play compared to the oil, coal and other industries who are heavenly polluting the environment. This fast industry is trying for years to fuel the climate hoax theory. Sewing doubt and playing for time. As they well know that things have to change. Which means the economic system of growth and the disposable society we live in has to change. Clearly they see this as a threat.
All very true. But the 1+1=2 does not bear up in that the dire predictions are NOT coming true, and that makes one think that, just maybe, those predictions are being massaged to maintain an income.
I agree it's not as hard edge as 1+1=2 and I have no doubt there are a lot of predictions that didn't come true. I agree that there are people out there who are writing a kind of Nostradamus Climate Change books with scary pictures. Sells big time. People make money everywhere.
But the bigger picture is true. The global temperature is rising and had a boost since the 80`s.
And even without rocket science it's only logical that humans with a massive population of 7.5 Billion people. (That's double of what it was in 1970 !!) have an impact on the environment and therefore the weather.
We don't actually have much disagreement here. There is zero doubt we're warming - the only question is how much, how fast and what the result will be. Which are, after, pretty major questions, questions that remain unanswered IMO.
I'm not convinced that humans are the primary cause of warming, but they certainly play a part, and a fairly large one. Individual species have, many times, affected the "climate" in the area they inhabit, and humans inhabit that globe everywhere, just as the bacteria that produced the atmosphere we enjoy today did. We play a part.
Kudos to you, Dan, for having a very logical conversation I would be glad to have with anybody about the climate, even though we disagree some. It's clear we don't disagree a lot and that you do not see the warming of the earth as some kind of hoax.
Predictions are always going to have errors. It is simply not logical to expect them to be right all the time. However, there are many predictions that have been correct regarding the warming of the earth. A LOT. Conservatives consistently focus on those predictions that are wrong, which is fundamentally disingenuous because it lacks a basic understanding of how science works. It ignores the data. It's like complaining that your weatherman predicted the temperature was 70 and it was 65 that day.
Think about it. Weather predictions are actually shockingly accurate, but it's very easy to harp on them when they are wrong. If you do the latter, you're ignoring all the science at work when they are right. But saying they are wrong once and thus, a hoax, is monkey talk.
And here are a few links for you to go read:
https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Ri … indzen.htm
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/0603 … nald-trump
And if you want, I can find an outlier scientist somewhere who believes the earth is flat and another who thinks the sun revolves around the earth. Is that all you need to believe those two assertions? Anyone who believes Lindzen, based on the evidence, has to be somebody who cannot form logical thoughts or opinions well.
Religion and its adherents could be said to be a hoax as well. There's no proof of a god we can see or no proof one exists in any culture. But then, many still make the claim.
You more than likely don't believe in evolution either, but still want the best medications science can provide if you or a loved one becomes ill. Go figure...
Well, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
The same for me re a religion of any sort. There are so many gods it's for sure one would be pissed off I didn't choose it instead of another.
Saw a Christains billboard outside of westgreenboro Baptist church that said.
All anti-theist, Atheist, gays and Christian eaters are all going to burn in hell.
I wonder what Christains taste like?. I will find out after a few BBQs in hell.
The gall of those people.
Yes and there was never a moonlanding! And the earth is flat.
That's the level of understanding science you are add.
Just flabbergasted about this naivety.
I don't know about the other 3 photo how trueful or important they are for the world, seems a little shallow for 2019
Yet, Greta honesty over Trump and Greta's cause of the natural environment is most beautiful. Along with a world record number of protests worldwide.
The natural environment is the greatest threat to humanity and all living spieces on earth. I can't imagine a greater deserved honor and privilege to be selected as the person of the year, than Greta.
Mini aoc was/is an infinitely better actress. Greta should consider paying mini aoc for some acting lessons and ask for a refund on the ones she got.
Actually, the worst tyrants in the world have used crotchety, hate-spewing, white old men a lot more for their puppets.
Racial, ageism and sexist. You hit the trifecta...
So you prefer crotchety hate spewing old black women instead. Skin color or gender do not dictate value or character. And if you support Democrats then you have no moral high ground to Republicans.
Greta repeatily said that she not a scientists. She asks everyone to go to the 97% scientists for answers in which they will approve Greta's message anyways.
She writes her own scripts with her parents help. Who she had to drag them into climate change practice a few years ago. So she educated them, on the importance, like an adult and mature person. She claims her handicap is her superpower, as she can not lie. Unlike Trump superpower as a career liar.
Lawyers and media more often suck, yet sometimes they get something right. Exspecially when they are forced by 80% of the concioussness of the public. The priority in human life is to survive, hopefully thrive. There is nothing more important in life as the health of the planet and your own health. Otherwise, you have nothing. Health is wealth.
Dr. Curry is part of the 3% eggheads.
Dr. Curry made her name predicting hurricanes would become much stronger due to climate change.
She just doesn't go so far as to predict the future, saying it isn't something we can know.
Much like God.
Dr. Curry Stopped predicting hurricanes causes. She claims she just doesn't know enough, which is fair enough.
She says human activities are contributing to global warming, but she bridles at the IPCC consensus that humans are "largely responsible" — in other words, that more than 50 percent of global warming to date is caused by human activity.
Gets no media coverage? Here she is on NPR:
https://www.npr.org/2013/08/22/21389479 … ate-change
She seems like a reasonable person who firmly believes in climate change, but not the answers.
If there were anywhere she can be without plastic oil or diesel products. Believe it, she would be there.
First Governments have to allow alternative natural material products like hemp or 100s of other natural choices. Rather than being mercenaries for the wealthy synthetic products.
I doubt it. That kid doesn't have a real thought in her empty little head.
I've said this from the beginning. Child Protective services should step in and make sure she is not being used by adults or parents as a puppet for an agenda.
I think I know what Greta is experiencing just there.
In one year I performed in China, holland, Ohio State fair, CNE , Oklahoma State fair, Winterlude Ottawa and a dozen others as the major features with a combine crowds of 18 million people. I was so exhausted, I was so brain-dead my speeches got sloppy and absence minded.
Greta has set a world record for the largest crowds ever. Mostly from people who took time off work to be part of
largest natural environmental protest in world history.
She has made dozens of great speeches and the best ones I have ever heard in my lifetime of importance since JFK Kennedy. Greta is now taking some well deserved time off.
BS on puppeteer running her, nobody except parttime
her parents helped. Nobody would be able with asound mind. To Give so many correct answer to, if it didn't come from her own mind.
Nobody, I have ever seen, avoids answers like Trump.
I wonder if Melania tells Baron she wants him to grow up to act like his father?
What does it say about a person who can only communicate with memes?
Maybe. If you tell me you make your own memes, then I think it changes the answer.
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand...
Chosen One 2020
Come on bud, memes are entertaining - as long as you don't form an opinion from them. I think some of the creations - matching images with quips are near brilliant.
I´m not quite sure memes are so innocent GA. Lies spread faster then the truth and memes are simplifying things and shutting of a conversation.
They stop critical thinking. No matter the political or social point of view.
They can be great on t-shirts or bumper stickers but they do not contribute in a dialogue.
I have to stand with my original thought Peterstreeep. If memes are dangerous because some may believe them, then the problem isn't the meme.
I also disagree with the thought that they can't contribute to a dialogue. I have seen multiple instances where discussion of a meme's message has sparked very informative discussions.
At times yes, yet there is far too much of it.
Oh, absolutely, memes or T-shirt slogans can definitely start discussions. But if you are discussing a topic on the internet and somebody throws in a meme into a discussion it more often then not stops the dialogue. As it is always a simplified version of reality.
It's to often an easy way out trying to avoid the issue at hand with a joke.
That is a valid perspective. I have another, I think of that old adage that "A picture is worth a thousand words', where the poster of the meme feels it says what they would say if they typed it out.
Of course, there are dumb and not-brilliantly designed memes that some may use because they don't really have anything to say, but those are not the ones I meant when I spoke of some memes sparking good discussions.
I think I agree on that GA.
And I guess, you've got to see those memes on there own right. It's a different way of communicating. Not a substitute for a discussion but it can definitely spark one or make you think.
I have run across memes that almost leave me in awe of the wit & talent of its creator. I may very strongly disagree with the message of the meme, and the perspective of the one posting it, but I am, sometimes, still left with respect for the creative connection between image and message.
What do you want? A meme battle! And what would that solve?
If you want to have a dialogue it's not the way to go.
A certain amount of creativity goes into a meme. Also a meme oftentimes is an undeniable visual that cannot be spun. Both aforementioned attributes provide difficulty for lefty.
So according to you creativity and visual craftsmanship is difficult for the lefties. That explains probably why most of the artists, musicians, authors, musicians and actors are right-wing....!!
Isn't a meme battle, fighting with yourself.
Congress can't fix basic problems, but some people believe for some magical reason they can lower the earth's temperature by taxing us into poverty.
Here is a good example Peterstreep. Whether or not one agrees with the intended message or the context in which it was posted, do you disagree that this meme is very thought-provoking? My first thought was to our own hubris. And the power of the 'politics of a cause' of course.
says Oxfam ... 2015 · The richest 10% of people produce half of Earth's climate-harming fossil-fuel emissions, while the poorest half contribute a mere 10%, and only can afford up to a motorcycle.
Poverty and climate change are the two top killers on the planet and go hand and hand.
I have been in the Top 10% of the richest for most of my life. I say lets, stop murdering the poor, to be unpolitically correct.
the numbers as negotiators from 195 countries met in Paris to wrangle over a climate rescue pact
How can poverty be the top killer when the poor only contribute to 10%? If you make them rich by that logic, aren't you killing the planet faster?
Each and every country of the world is looking forward to eradicating poverty so that even the poor and vulnerable people also enjoy equal rights to economic resources, healthy living conditions as well as access to basic infrastructure. No doubt that poor nations and poor people are more severely vulnerable to effects of environmental damage than the rich.
Over the past few decades, average living standards have risen and the gap between the very rich and the very poor has broadened. More often than not, many international reports claim that poverty contributes to environmental degradation. Due to lack of sufficient resources and improper knowledge poverty-stricken people tend to overuse every resource available to them when their survival is at stake. But generally, we tend to forget that poor people are the most undefended ones when it comes to the effects of environmental pollution, climate change and global warming.
All economic activities are directly, indirectly or remotely based on natural resources and any pressure on natural resources can cause environmental stress. Environmental damage can prevent people, especially the poor, from having good and hygienic living standards. As poor people rely more directly on the environment than the rich for their survival, they are mostly on the receiving end of environmental problems.more pressure on the environment which results in larger families (due to high death rates and insecurity), improper human waste disposal leading to unhealthy living conditions, more pressure on fragile land to meet their needs, overexploitation of natural resources and more deforestation. Insufficient knowledge about agricultural practices can also lead to a decline in crop yield and productivity etc.
Environmental problems add more to the miseries of poor people. Environmental problems cause more suffering among them as environmental damage increases the impact of floods and other environmental catastrophes. Soil erosion, land degradation and deforestation lead to a decline in food production along with a shortage of wood for fuel contribute to inflation. In short, the worst consequences of environmental deterioration, whether they be economical, social, or related to mental or physical wellbeing, are experienced by poor people.
More rigorous efforts should be undertaken by the governments of all countries to eradicate poverty and in turn,
to save deprived people from the dreadful people living in poverty are linked to the world through their participation in social, political, and economical spheres along with their active participation in environmental regeneration.
I strongly believe that there cannot be any environmental solution without alleviating poverty from the world.
"Generation Greta" - Inspiring Change in Younger Generations are the Gamechangers in the fight against Climate Change
Then there will never be an environmental solution for you will never eliminate poverty from the world. Even if you alleviate it (rather than eliminate) as soon as you have done so we will change the definition to make more people "poverty stricken" and we're right back where we started.
Wow! Why try and make anything better then, Dan? Didn't you trust Melania when she said "Be Best?"
Why try? Because Castle is flat wrong: there ARE solutions that encompass poverty.
I didn't say there were no solution, what do you think, I give it, a good stress for, eveyday.? We need to know what the main problems are first. Before making the first step and give it a better direction for a solution. The third world countries are making
faster advancement economically for themselves.
The enviorment is in far worst condition. Greta is a beam of hope bringing it to the light and Trump trying to sink it further into the darkness. He may be the first man to actually make it to hell digging up the earth to be number One in the world for oil and fossil fuel.
"I strongly believe that there cannot be any environmental solution without alleviating poverty from the world."
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/346 … ost4111562
Perhaps I misunderstood the comment. But I haven't misunderstood Greta: she is a star-struck child, crying for a utopia she cannot have. She doesn't even know what the problem is, let alone what the answer is.
From what I have studied and abserved she has given consistently the correct answers from the questions asked, like a genus. In line with 97% scientists and 195 countries who want climate change by whatever means.
It the world leaders who are out of line and have consistently given the wrong answers and done very little for change, in many cases they gotton alot worst. Mainly they the main obstacles standing in the way.
There is a hotline for angry middle age men who have a serious problem with a little Swedish girl. Where she continuously breaks the world record for natural enviormentist protests. The hotline will complete any of your unanswered questions with Establish scientists standing by.
*shrug* when "scientists" can't provide accurate, or even semi-accurate predictions of the future temperatures and water levels you can bet Greta can't either.
Yes, she may be breaking records for protests (if I understand what you're saying). Running all over the world carrying a sign on the street is not going to produce a viable answer to the problem, even if we understood what the problem is (we don't). But it will stroke an ego, and do so very, very well.
We must not fail for health is wealth first. Not world record breaking shock markets and largest corporations growth. With Politicial leaders promises of entertal economic growth. It's mainly bs for most of us. I trust like throughout human history they will take back from them and advance further humanity.
We must not fail in what? Destroying our civilization in an effort to fix a climate that is not broken? Or doing so in an effort that will not work?
Two questions that have yet to be answered, by Greta or anyone else. Is there a major problem and how can it be fixed without destroying a civilization that depends on energy for the very life of it's citizens?
Melania says she could be the most bullied person in the world, for the abuse she gets online. Not counting her husband's tweets. These attacks inspired her “Be Best” anti-cyberbullying initiativeo.
If I sculpt a Trophy for Trump as the worst environmentist in the world. So, she would get on top of me for being a bully to the worst bully in the world.
Then I'm suppose to, Shut Up!!! and chock on his fossil fuels, that shorten my life expectancy.
I am going to do whatever it takes for my daughter's life and her health at stake.
Melania has a snowball chance in hell on earth, and I can't be stopped. So
Not sure what this has to do with poverty and the environment.
From my post above, where poverty and natural enviorment gose hand and hand with the abuse by the rich. The rich and poor gap has broaden more than ever by Trump by of him giving too many breaks to the wealthy and not to the poor. He never says a word to the homeless that sit around his Trump Tower. Trump is also the worst environmentist agree upon by environmentist.
No other President like Trump has selected certain news media as fake news and bad for the public. That is according to Larry King that knew Trump for most of his life.
I dunno, Castle - it sounded (and still does with the comment about fake news) more like just another rant about the evils of Trump.
Certainly the gap between rich and poor does not produce poverty (you cannot create wealth by dividing it) and neither do claims of fake news. Melania commenting on her being bullied does not create poverty and neither do silly claims that Trump is the worst environmentalist in the world.
You can't give a tax break to the poor as they do not participate in the needs of the country by paying taxes anyway. So that, too, has nothing to do with poverty and the environment.
No President has ever attack the Press ever like Trump. It's not like Melania can't excape a bully like in a high school yard. Just push the button scam, or block and most of all ignore.
I can't think of one Green party or enviormentist group that don't find Trump the worst.
Like, Trump pulling out the US out of the Paris climate agreement. He told the White House: “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris”. He claimed the agreement, signed by the US and nearly 200 countries. Trump claim its unfairly disadvantaged the US and negatively impacted jobs and factories.
Bears Ears was cut from 1.5m acres to 228,784 acres and Grand Staircase-Escalante almost halved from approximately 2m acres to 1,006,341 acres – marking the biggest elimination of public lands protection in America’s history. In August 2018 officials announced plans to allow more mining on the land and to sell some of it off . Endangered Species Act – prompting conservationists to warn it could put vulnerable plant and animal species in more dangerEmissions spew from a coal-fired generating station
Rollback of the Clean Power Plan
His plans to dismantle the Clean Power Plan
Cuts to clean water protections
Trump administration plans to remove protections from thousands of America’s streams and millions of acres of wetlands, which is feared will harm wildlife and enable pollution to enter drinking water. Under the proposal, fewer waterways would require permits to pollute – including agricultural runoff and industry waste. Currently, protected waterways provide drinking water to approximately 117 million people.
Trump administration announced its plans to repeal rules that aim to restrict methane leaks on public and tribal lands.
Can't even imagine anyone else a worst enviormentist than Trump.
Meanwhile conservatives are going to theses overwhelmingly liberal big cities and cleaning up tons of garbage.
Left or right, the top ten% are polluting the most.
Wow! It's most peaceful being a part anarchist.
On one hand we have conservatives actually cleaning up cities they do not live in and on the other hand we have an angry Pippy Longstocking liberal mascot doing nada.
Ps. Merry Christmas to ya Mr. Castlepaloma
In a couple of decades this could be what Iceland looks like. Do you want that on your conscience?
They have alot of palm trees, and some bananas, succulents growing all year long in Vancouver BC.
Canadain farmers are enjoying an expansion month and a half growing season. California not enjoying their wild fires.
What do I care, its their own fault.
These longer growing seasons could potentially feed a blooming population. Still my only concern is that little debbie is being used by some climate cult to further some agenda that tries to capitalize on fear.
As soon as people are forced to attack an individual, you know they have no answers to what is being said.
But why take notice at all? What are the wunderkind's many crimes?
She is young, small, foreign, female, get's angry and speaks her mind. There is no way back from there for the dinosaurs.
Did I mention, that she is also a mammal? The future is scary, lol.
Edit: this post assumes a basic knowledge of evolution (for comic effect. only)
I've been an environmentist all my life. Seriously in the bussiness of it, in the pass 15 year. Have not seen a single person who can holds a candle to Greta for actually changing the minds of world leaders about Climate change. When the protesters workers and students take time off work, the Powers to Be, are force to take notice. It shows they don't have complete control over us.
She's not a scientist. I sincerely doubt she is a/the speech writer. She utilizes all the accommodations an industrialized world produces. That makes her and her handlers hypocrites.
If only the dinosaurs had Greta back then theyd all be alive now.
You all are so predictable. An entire thread bashing a young girl expressing her outage over political inaction. I don't recall this much outrage over Joe the Plumber doing the same thing.
I wonder why?
I don't know that it is about bashing Greta so much as bashing the media and people that have elevated her to near goddess stature, placing her on a very high pedestal...for no more reason than she is passionate (as most young people are) about her cause.
If she had solutions, if she had accurate predictions, then she might deserve that pedestal. But as is, all she has to offer is passion and that simply does not equate to the stature she has been elevated to.
The same media that would go after a conservative child with reckless disregard.
The POTUS bashed her and there is plenty of bashing on this thread. The media elevates all kinds of trivial people and crap. That doesn't excuse POTUS' low-life behavior, which was what the OP addressed. Others felt the need to attack her instead of addressing the original point.
I know, it's just another day, another stupid tweet from the leader of the free world so.let's focus on a well-meaning teenager instead of our boorish, toddler president's childish mud slinging. I guess he has nothing better to do.
Agreed. The focus should be on bashing the POTUS not the child with demonstrable anger issues.
The thread was about his tweet. Do you defend it?
Also, if you think any adjective I used to describe Trump is inaccurate, just tell me which ones. Boorish? Check. Chikdish? Check. Todfler? As a noun, incorrect. As a modifier? Check.
Lol, "anger issues."
Do you even know how ludicrous that is?
Oh. I see. It appears I was mistaken. Greta is a very happy, well adjusted child.
I have no idea whether or not she has anger issues. Does it somehow alter the content of her positions? Why should I care? She's not an elected official or government staff. Why do you care?
Who is going to pick up the pieces? This petulant child of 9 act will become tiresome. When she is older, like 14 or 15 it won't be cute anymore. In the future they will toss her aside for some cuter, even more petulant child, like some washed up hollywood child actor. Could wind up dodging the dookie on the syringe strewn streets of San Fransisco. Later in life when she wants to have a good life, settle down, family, no conservative man will want that baggage.
Is this the voice of experience Phoe? Sounds like you've been there before...either that or you're "Trumping it."
"I know more about child psychology than anyone. Windmills too!"
Anyways, I wish the kid the best of luck. Happy New Year PP
LSU and OU in 30 min. Serious business now. Good Afternoon.
Happy New Year to you, too! I am an Oregon Duck fan. Rose Bowl on New Year's Day.
Sorry, but the part that was so funny to me was that no conservative man would take her. Perhaps she wouldn't be interested in a conservative man. Perhaps she would prefer a conservative woman, or a liberal man, or a liberal woman. I just found your assumption to be pretty myopic.
Anyway, I'm watching the game, too Go Sooners!
..."not interested in a conservative man..."
Lol. That's funny.
Ps Good luck Ducks
Hmmm, Barack Obama or Donald Trump?
Bono or Ted Nugent?
Justin Trudeau or Boris Johnson?
LSU scored already!
Yea that Gretel kid an environmental dynamo
Sadly, it appears the Sooners will be Goners.
Being a woman it is completely understandable that you don't understand the subtleties and nuances of a Man's game like college football. On the surface perhaps it might look like the Sooners lost. An easy mistake.
I asked my husband to explain. He talked about penetrating the line, holding, the sack, and domination.
I said sure, but no fumbling or unnecessary roughness, and I expect a two-minute warning and no pass completion until overtime.
Still don't get how the Sooners aren't Goners, though.
Okay, this is a joke. I guess my humor is as bad as GA's assessment of my sarcasm. ;-)
Yep, your humor is on par with mine also. Folks just take us too seriously. They don't understand our mastery of subtle nuance. ;-)
Oh, so that's it.
I guess we'll have to go low brow if we want to elicit any chuckles around here. ;-)
I am seriously considering getting DISH or Direct again. Apparently there has been some program changes over at ESPN I was unaware of.
I have expressed my concern of using a 7 or 8 year old child for an agenda. I think, once again that child protective services should determine if its in her best interest. Do you also agree that some child protective service should get involved to see if its in her best interest or does the agenda work better if it can be an unchallenged opinion/agenda of a child.
You can challenge her agenda and opinions all you want as far as I'm concerned. This thread does far more than that, though, as does the POTUS.
I don't have a problem with CPS checking on her welfare if there is legitimate reason to do so. Children often willingly engage in political activism, charitable work, or paid work like modeling or actibg. Do they automatically need to be referred to CPS?
About 97% of scientists don't approve of this message. If we do nothing.
What is more true, if the so called leaders of the world do nothing? Or we do something?
I know the children will suffer the most. Like how most of the wildlife that are dead on earth in the last 50 years.
I'll bet you Al Gore's beach front property that he doesn't even believe in global warming.
You just want to hear, what you want to hear.
From experience, I had to stop my snow sculptures and Ice hotels business. That went on for 40 years professionally, yet due to global warming, it was ruined. A few ice projects I did were done in the Arctic. That part of the world has changed more than any area in the world, your assume science is BS.
Good news, it's expanded my urban farming seasons in Canada by a month and a half. Bad new, some of the southern places of the world are burning up.
Envy will get you no where.
He will know when to sell it when it gets it high. I am moving to the beach myself, just not flood zones.
According to the global warming people, every beach in the world will shortly be a flood zone. When sea levels rise at one point they rise at every point on the planet, and it's going to rise several feet - enough to drown out every beach in the world. Can you imagine what the Bay of Fundy is going to look like? A horizontal Niagara Falls!
I'm not sure I've seen predictions of sea rise in feet, but perhaps you should go ask people who live in Miami how sea rise is working for them.
I'm moving to the Bay of Fundy area next month, half hour from shoreline. From building sand sculptures around the world I have noticed the shoreline beaches have shorten up alot.
Is that you peeing in the water, Joey?
I remember the same mess at spring break, when I was a kid in Florida. Not the same kids that March with Greta.
It don't compare to the 10% riches the make most of the mess here on the whole planet earth.
I've been living near the water in Hawaii for the last fifty years and they said my property would be under water by 2010. So far so good. I guess the fear mongers were just that, fear mongers. The whole global warming thing is complete bull shit. Just follow the money. Whoever has made the most money from spreading this disinformation should be called out and sent to prison for a long time.
Yeah, the oceans are going to rise. That’s why Obama recently bought 15 million worth of beach front property. I guess he was right at his June 4, 2008 speech on winning the Democratic primaries when he said:
“This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal.”
He must really believe that.
The oceans are not going to rise. The water level of the oceans is rising.
The ice on the north pole is not going to melt, it is melting.
The temperature on earth is not going to rise, it is rising.
And if you look at the scientific data, the rise of temperature, the rise of the sea level is increasing and not a natural phenomena.
Scientific data is right. If it was not, other scientists would correct the data.
But if 98 of the 100 climate specialist tell that we have a climate crisis. Then I trust the 98 specialist who agree on this instead of the other remains 2 who doesn’t agree.
If I go to 100 doctors and 98 of them tell me that I’ve cancer and 2 tell me that I’m healthy then I trust the 98 and try to deal with the grave situation and do not stick my head in the sand.
I guess you would be sending 97% of the scientists to prisons, shame they are often most honorable.
Of course the politically leaders like Trump is full of sh_t. That's why you got change Presidents like diapers evey four years or they just get too full of themselves.
Who is they?
In addition to not understanding basic science, principles and data, the other clear problem you have is that you're being fed alarmist garbage from your biased news sources in order to make you scared and you buy it and then blame those alarmists when things don't happen, which is sort of like blaming Nostradamus for all the wrong predictions or your Tarot card reader for being wrong. Extremists are going to be wrong by definition.
The temperature rise of the earth as a result of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a fact and to call it b.s. is like calling gravity b.s. and it makes you look unbelievably dumb.
I wonder how you expect to sway liberals to your point of view when your positions are based in pure ignorance and lack of basic education. So you and other conservatives go ahead and keep telling me how great Trump is out of one side of your mouth while also trying to convince me that Sandy Hook was a hoax and there's a child porn ring in the basement of some pizza shop from the other. It's oh, so convincing.
You understand that it is the very nature of science to make predictions and to be wrong, but that being wrong about any one prediction does not negate the data upon which the prediction is being made?
Many predictions have come true, but as is typical in science, the most extreme ones are the ones most likely to be wrong. If you focus on only the predictions that have not come true, then you are merely displaying your ignorance about science itself.
Here is what the signs now say: "When they will completely disappear depends on how and when we act. One thing is consistent: the glaciers in the park are shrinking."
What was wrong in the prediction was not that the glaciers will disappear, but the rate of melting.
If you think “ the very nature of science to make predictions and to be wrong” you have no clue as to what science should be. The whole point of science is not to make predictions that are wrong and if the science is sound they won’t be. You have just destroyed the notion that anything you say about science has merit by expressing that one thought.
You don't know what you're talking about. Here's the definition of the scientific method:
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
Precisely what is happening with climate change, prediction and hypotheses being roughly the same thing. Please stick to something you know, like finding clever memes on the internet or the like.
You said “ the very nature of science to make predictions and to be wrong” then you refer to scientific method to justify your statement. They are not the same. The nature of science is to provide theories which have been proven By diligent research, experimentation and establishment of facts or laws that therefore enable predictions to accurately be made every time. If “your science” produces false predictions and you call that result science you have no idea what the nature of science is. That is bad science. Scientific method is the approach to answering questions and drawing conclusions. If those conclusions are wrong the science is not settled. If the nature of science was to accept false conclusions (predictions) as “the nature of science” then you are saying science doesn’t have to be correct to be called science.
You are the only one who doesn’t know what he is talking about nor the meaning of words.
Well, people can judge for themselves, like referencing this article you wrote:
https://hubpages.com/religion-philosoph … an-atheist
You're welcome for the traffic.
Scientists make hypotheses all the time. They do not always turn out to be right and some people focus on those things more than the science itself. Of course just generally making false statement is not science, but attempting to generate a hypothesis based on data and research (I don't know, like "if the earth continues to heat up, glaciers will melt") and being wrong by some factor and then being called out because your factor was incorrect but the basic assumption was correct - comes from people who don't understand how science works. In most of these situations, the underlying premise, the underlying science, is still correct.
You are apparently somebody who doesn't think evolution is valid science and that the Bible is fact, so you're a loon.
The diversity is astounding, they can tell everybody that 99% of scientists agree in catastrophic world ending climate change, and when it doesn't come to fruition it's because you people just don't understand science.
I trust more of the scientists predictions to come true, it's all comes in degrees and parts of it will be wrong. Yet it can be corrected in the future.
Where as Trump calling it all a hoax, and do nothing plan is extremely harmful. Presidents job is only to protect the people wail, their promises anyways at best come true 25% of the time. Presidents have gotten consistently worse all round since JFK.
Our Green party voted
Trump as the worst environment ist in human history. Since more people will die more from poverty and the unnatural environment than anything else, your life priorities are out of whack.
Again, you're just displaying a massive ignorance. Show me anything, anywhere, that says 99% of scientists agree on catastrophic, world-ending climate change.
All that statement shows is that you get your news from sources perpetually reporting on fringe statements and you accept that as the norm.
I rarely even watch the new, its full of worries, distraction, fear
and junk. I build tiny houses in and urban farming to act in my part in my health and the planet's. Never claimed the world is going the end, although the life expectancy of Americans has dropped 2 years. First time in modern history. Cancer has gone up 4 times since I was young.
These organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2
American Association for the Advancement of Science
"Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening." (2014)3
American Chemical Society
"The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities." (2016-2019)4
American Geophysical Union
"Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. There is no alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence." (2019)5
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2019)6
American Meteorological Society
"Research has found a human influence on the climate of the past several decades ... The IPCC (2013), USGCRP (2017), and USGCRP (2018) indicate that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century." (2019)7
American Physical Society
"Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century." (2015)8
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases ... Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013)." (2015)9
International Academies: Joint Statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions."11
U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
U.S. Global Change Research Program
"Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities." (2018, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13
“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems
My second home is in Santa Familia Belize. Average age life expectancy is 92 . My hero is a 107 years old man, who rides a bike and farms everyday and occasional has sex. Not some daily lying orange monster who tag teams with other megalomaniacs to destroy everything in sight.
Where in the world do you get your stats? Average life span in Belize is 68.2 years - below the world norm and far below the norm for industrialized countries.
I checked out many hot spots places in Centro and south America where life expectancy were over 90 years old. Santa Familia Belize was one of them. I bought land and built a house to study why this towns people lived so long. It's mainly in the river water wells and the organic food and medicine they grow. They are also happier people with a lot less stress than back home.
US compared to other countries has Spain is set to become the country with the longest life expectancy by 2040, with citizens living an average of 85.8 years. Currently, Japan holds the designation of highest life expectancy with an average of 85.7 years. Other nations with high life expectancies include Portugal, Singapore, and Switzerland—the U.S. isn't even in the top 50, for comparison.
Oh, wow, that one is super smart. Who made it? Where did you find it?
She's much better at impressions, than acting. She looks angry enough to invade Poland, any minute. Sad!
This one is just stupid. I am glad I wasn't the one that posted it. You are slipping Onusonus.
Wow, you've got a problem dude!
It looks as if you are losing a debate and desperately try to make your point but can't find any well-founded arguments.
It shows that the left can even win a climate debate with a bartender and a high school drop out. Imagine the level of intelligence of the climate crisis deniers!
Yep, geniuses compared to the Trump flunkies, Peter!
You need to learn a few things about debates - that doesn’t win any debate, it makes a of garden of their debate and you are young enough to live to see it because when you turn 80 you’ll have no choice but to wonder how they won the debate while you and the planet are alive and as well as ever, well the planet anyway.
I think a debate is not posting pictures with one-liners. The climate crisis debate is not anymore about if it is real or not. (It is scientifically proven real.) The problem for a lot of people is to except that their first idea was wrong. And as it was wrongly made into a left-right thing, people who voted right find themselves in a difficult position to admit that they were wrong and to agree to a so called left point of view.
The climate crisis is not a left or right wing choice. It is not a choice to make, as it is a scientific fact. Just as gravity is not a right or left issue but simply a scientific fact as well.
It is real. But the real questions are "how far will it go with current human activities" and "what will the result be if it does?" As none of the predictions are even close to coming true, these are valid questions, unproven scientifically.
Let me try to see things from omusonus point of view.
Its not climate change that is the greatest killer, it's stupidity.
Hell an adverage household air quality is 9 times more toxic than outside. We got oil made products and energy by Fossil fuel.
So what if the average American life expectancy has dropped by two years, that's not me.
So what if 90% of the big fish in the ocean are died or mammal weight wildlife of the earth is down to 4% weight mass. It cost too much money to hunt and fish anyways, guns are for killing people. We got all we need in chemical products meat at the stores along with bottled water from NJ.
About 75% of the world trees are cut down. We got a hard concrete jungles to walk through daily. Who needs lungs of the earth or Beauty of nature. Cancer has increased 4 times, we got chemo as our main cure with a 2.3 success rate. Chemo is muster gas with even a Wilder side effects to trip on. You get to meet up with other sicko who l
are heavy into drugs along with cute nurses. So what if the the medical profession is the leading cause of death, who really cares anyways.
Who needs Hitler Greta, when Trump will take care of you personally. Because Trump and billionaire R US. mafia family will honestly take care of you and us.
Go back to sleep and continue the America dream, because you don't have to be awake to experience it.
Before you post something, it's better to check if it's accurate. This tweet is fake news. Greta Thunberg is writing her own Facebook posts.
A guy in India started a Facebook page as he was a fan. She is now posting on his Facebook page. Nothing wrong with one Facebook page and two administrators.
Wasting your time, Peter. He knows they're fake when he posts them here. It's his MO and has been as long as he's been here. You'll notice he isn't too keen on discussing politics. If he does actually type some words....you'll understand why.
Thank you. This "fact" is important for several "truths":
1) Memes are often lies designed to elicit intense feelings about a person or topic
2) Some people don't care whether a meme is true as long as it serves their purpose.
3) Greta T. is the victim of a smear campaign because thoughtfully discussing climate science and what it is currently telling us is viewed by some people to be a losing proposition. Attacking a person is much more effective, in their view.
A lot of people who disagree with Greta become frustrated as it is difficult to attack her. As she considers herself only the messenger. All she is saying is; listen to the scientist and act upon it.
But her critics don’t want to be in a dialogue with scientists as they will lose it or even worse feel out of their depth. The potential impotence makes politicians and other people (especially men) angry. Even worse if the message is brought by a girl/women. (Who is she to lecture us!! - crystal clear in the message of the bartender / school drop-out meme.)
It is exposing middle age men bs and disquise, is why they are so angry.
I apologize to my younger generations for dropping the ball, when I was a flower power hippy for the natural environment. I got caught up being a boomer rich and famous and all the stuff that surrounded me was not making me happy. I was livinging my dreams, except people surrounding me were not and were suffering, I can't be happy with that.
The greatest killer and suffering in the world today is the natural environment and poverty. Picked up the ball again and actually happy with being of true service again. These world leaders should be ashamed and angry with themselves, it's a great start.
That's great to hear Paloma.
The world is changing big time. And I think many people have problems with adjusting. We can't live as we used to with a disposable society. Buying plastic stuff and throwing it away. Driving diesel SUV's and fly for cheap. Producing tons of meat.
There is a lot that simply has to change. And it is tough to deny a person his hamburger and car. These well fought for liberties are now a burden.
Things will change the next 10/20 years, and the extreme right is roaring as they find themselves set in a corner. And many conservative people are getting more conservative as they fear the change.
People are reluctant to change in general, but we have to. If not the world will wither and die.
I would agree with all your post...except the meat. The human animal evolved to eat meat and while it is possible to do without and maintain health and development it is very difficult.
I can ride a bike--I don't believe I've forgotten how--but I don't know if I could do without an occasional steak or hamburger.
The problem with meat and dairy products is the huge amount of methane thats thrown into the world. Same with rice paddies. Both products have an incredible carbon footprint. You don’t have to become vegetarian but it would help a huge amount if everybody only ate meat once a week for example.
Another option could be growing meat in factories. Instead of feeding and “taking care” of animals..
I don't see a good color in the skins of vegans. Although I am finding a better alternative in growing mushrooms that I put in the sun for an hour and it replaces the Vidamins D that we need from meat. The greatest problems with meats its the highest in retaining diseases.
Mild meats like fish, eggs or organic meats people can be OK with, it's just people don't study enough about the health effects of meat.
I'm vegetarian but I did not really want to go into that discussion on this thread.(when I need vitamin D I take some Marmite...)
It's just that the meat industry is contributing big time to the methane emissions that affect the climate. And it should be addressed if we are serious about solving the problem.
Greta writes her own stuff, because she would be unable to respond to, so many and so correctly for so many questions asked. She always gives the most credit to professional scientist who are either standing by for response or backs her up. She is honest to a fault.
Unlike Trump, a world champion of lies. He pulls things from his a_s and if you don't praise him for it. He will ethier ignor you or bully you in response. Scientists won't touch Trump with a toxic radiation active 10 foot Pole.
You should know, the king of parroted propaganda MO!
1. Greta never said I demand everyone to.....
2. the picture below is very vague and could be taken anywhere.
That's the problem with these memes. They are not just innocent jokes. They are spreaders of fake news.
Are you happy with that? Spreading lies and presenting it as the truth.
He's overcome with joy, Peter. He can't address an issue without posting his silly propaganda.
Yes, he has a whole photo album full of the stuff. A true collector! I wonder what he will do with the stuff next year. Clean up his hard drive or save it for nostalgic sake...
Probably tattoo them on his body and join a sideshow Called, My Life as a Meme Addict.
He is amusing though...
Haha. Yes best not to take him to seriously..
Indeed! Most of us have learned not to.
Pathetic! A couple of guys wasting their entire lives spending hours on line trashing people you've never met. Checking your sources, making lists, fact finding, thinking you're actual lawyers pretending that you've accomplished something.
I'd rather spend two minutes posting a good meme and watch your goddamn heads explode. Other than that, I've got a life.
Aha, Refreshing to see an explanation and observation based on intelligent reasoning. A picture is worth how many words?
Every 2 minutes their heads explode anyway. Even without a meme. Fish in barrel. Lol
I did not take it as a joke. I took it as a comparison of an almost young woman who is being portrayed as a small child. Who seems to me, to be brainwashed by liberal parents. Who appears to be acting, badly. Claiming her childhood has been lost, because the world is ending. A spoiled 17 year old, taking advantage of what a modern world provides but hypocritically decrying it at the same time. In contrast to a real child that has to eke out a basic survival existence.
PhoenixV I do not think that that Greta Thunberg is more or less “brainwashed” then you or me. Actually, her parents where not really enthusiastic about her plan when she said she wanted to do a school strike for climate actions.
She has an opinion and a strong message and she is using social media to tell this message to the world. A much more important message then Kim Kardashian who is using social media too, don’t you agree?
It appears you are conceding that a meme has not offended the Great Oracle and Keeper of the Truth, as you suggested earlier. Otherwise we would not be quietly...moving on.
To the best of my recollection, Kim had a strong social media presence even before Facebook and Twitter. That took foresight and a tremendous amount of work. Our dear Greta is a synthetic prop. Pretty sad to admit that by comparison, Greta is the superficial one twixt the two.
In this synthetic and superficial world the world leaders have set us up in.
Greta is as opposite as you can get. Very refreshing for honesty and a great change from garbage politicians bs.
With Climate Activists Refusing to have Children, Experts Predict Critical Shortage Of Child Climate Activists Within 12 Years
https://thepettyprophet.com/with-climat … MjaQadYNU4
I'm shocked that the president of such a huge country with a population for 2020 of 330+ million people https://population-hub.com/en/us/popula … erica.html is doing this.
by Scott Belford 2 years ago
Former Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe said on CNN's Anderson Cooper when asked if Donald Trump was a Russian asset.His answer was - "It's possible" saying that is why the counterintelligence case was opened.Much to do will be made about him being a so-called "known liar"...
by Jack Lee 3 years ago
I have been accused by some in HP of being a Trump apologist and defender...As I explained many times, I am a conservative and call it as I see it.I did not vote for Trump but I also defend him when I see the criticisms were unfair. I also call him out on things that did not get accomplished as he...
by Credence2 4 years ago
Dangerous slippery slope sponsored by your strident reactionary neighbors and this current administration, have a read if you please....https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gu … democracy/Rightwingers: be on the watch, for we are coming at you from ALL SIDES and from Every Direction.
by Castlepaloma 22 months ago
https://youtu.be/29v0hphT-PgWhen someone can take their own weakness then turn it into a strength.Then take it beyond, like Greta. That disability can turn into your abillity of your own superpower.
by Castlepaloma 7 hours ago
Wealth is health and Trump administration is a harzard to it. Not just revamping nuclear arms race , killing Mexicans at boarders and Fossil fuels. Across North America 76% doctors approve of medical marijuana and nearly 90% of the public approve of its use. Trump opposed marrijanna, so cruel.Even...
by Ralph Schwartz 19 months ago
Every day another news story hits the cycle about how President Trump is doing terrible damage to America and hurting the American citizens. The Economy is better than it's been in 50 years, unemployment is low, the Stock Market high, and the number of drone strikes & military...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|