DJL

Oh course the only reason there was no obstruction charge is because Trump's staff didn't fulfill his orders. There was no collusion charge because they were too stupid to know they were attempting to collude. Ahem....but (wuttabout) her emails.

Are you talking to me? Are we talking about the literalism that the world will end in 12 years? The video clarifies that she's saying we have 12 years to make that change not that in 12 years everyone would die. Didn't we already do this dance like 2 days ago?

Rush, upon review do you still feel that any aspect of this video is a valid statement about either climate change or CO2.

This should be good. The BBC/Attenborough team do good work. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00049b1

You're barking up the wrong tree on that one. I'm in the camp saying his staff members did shady shit but there was never a formal conduit between him and Putin.

They were talking about upcoming agreements over missile defense. Do you think the President should not be making agreements with Russia about missile defense? Is it so bizarre to want to do this after an election even for the most selfish of reasons that it could be used as a political tool against him? That's not having it both ways, he didn't say, "Help me with the election and you'll be rewarded", btw which Trump ACTUALLY SAID ON NETWORK TELEVISION.

Go to the 52 min mark. She's talking about the responsibility of her role and what they prioritize, what they react to, what's important. I think you can tell that she's not making a dissertation on climate change.

Yes, the President of the United States often has things to deal with concerning foreign countries. What were they talking about?

Re: Rush's Video So, a couple of people who work as climate denier lobbyists talking about something "the scientists" got wrong in 1922? That's your groundbreaking source? By the way, the article he's reading is a report from an expedition to Sptizbergen Norway, not a comprehensive report on the arctic. Also, the meter reading he shows is actually an acceptable level of CO2 inside of a room according to OSHA: 350-1,000 ppm: typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange 1,000-2,000 ppm: level associated with complaints of drowsiness and poor air But....he's not quite accurate to say that "There's nothing bad about carbon dioxide, the more the better." because (again OSHA): 2,000-5,000 ppm: level associated with headaches, sleepiness, and stagnant, stale, stuffy air; poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present. >5,000 ppm: This indicates unusual air conditions where high levels of other gases also could be present. Toxicity or oxygen deprivation could occur. This is the permissible exposure limit for daily workplace exposures. >40,000 ppm: This level is immediately harmful due to oxygen deprivation.

First, there's no requirement for Vermont to get its electrical power from sources inside the state as its borders are imaginary lines, not giant walls of porcelain. Next, sorry to say but your source (A pro-nuke energy lobbyist) is including transportation, cooking and heating to account for the increase in emissions, not electrical power. Also Sanders said "I don't believe that's accurate" so, not exactly damning. I used to live near the reactor, fished downstream of it and ate at a restaurant right next to it. It's a derelict plant and was the last of its type in operation. The state has strung it along because it provided such a large percentage of power but it needed to get shut down as components were literally crumbling. As for wind in VT the state is very protective of the mountain top but it would only take increasing from the current wind power (119 MW now, 193 MW including what's under construction) a factor of 5 to handle what the plant (620 MW) did. I know the "55 times the size of the Deerfield plant" sounds dramatic but that's not the case. Besides, Deerfield is a 30 MW facility so that would only be times 20. And again, to reiterate the first point, there's no requirement for Vermont to get its electrical power from sources inside the state (or even use 100% wind) as it's borders are imaginary lines, not giant walls of porcelain.

I wonder what Billy V will think why he finds out she had sex with someone 20 years ago.

Ha, therefore, BUILD THE WALL! Anyway, I'm still not concerned about terrorists trying to sneak into the US. Not because I don't think they can but it's cost prohibitive to build a physical barrier against both illegals and terrorists. It's simply too easy to get in by other ways and there are better ways of tracking and solving both threats to our national sovereignty and security. So to quit the one-line nay-saying what I DO believe to be the solution is a combination of E-Verify, tightening of restrictions on refugees, loosening and expanding the work visa program, US support of countries in the Western Hemisphere from which these people are coming.

There has been plenty whining about airport security. I don't find it interesting because are internationally the specific target of terrorists. There's nothing surprising about the safeguards we've put on those attempting to board an airplane. I don't like it but it's an unfortunate reality.

This is simply an example of manipulating the issue to evoke an answer to a question that isn't about the issue. Sorry Turtle, we're all smarter than that.

Again, there is no program that literally puts refugees in people's houses. I would be very happy to have a refugee family as my neighbor and I'd have them over to dinner and show them around. It's a pretty simple non-issue but your example doesn't mean people are hypocrites because they don't want to put a refugee family in their spare bedroom or couch.

I'm not going to go down the list but I'm familiar with these examples. Isreal has walls and fences in some places to stop immigration (they don't actually stop them) and in some places to prevent terrorist attacks (they kill people at these locations). The ones in Spain are actually in Morocco and they're newsworthy because they've killed people who have tried to cross the fences in the Spanish/EU territory cities. Again, your list of countries and fences is not realistic for the US/Mexico border.

Ah yes. That's a pretty ambiguous figure of speech he's using because that's not how it works. I would also say, "Certainly, we should bring them into our homes" without a second thought that he was literally asking about someone coming into my home, that's not what the issue is, that's not what the question is.

Because that's not how state sanctuary programs work, you don't house them in individuals' homes. These people also are not saying that they should be in someone else's home.

You're citing examples of countries who use walls AND lethal force, and/or they're protecting against terrorism and/or warfare, and they're installed in places requiring a much shorter length. In locations and in situations similar to the border with Mexico they also have the same shortcomings, namely that they don't actually prevent crossing unless there is also active surveillance and the ability to respond. As for liberals digging in about allowing illegals in, that's not the case at all. Liberals are trying to be realistic about border security in a dollars spent sense. The fact is that a little more border wall won't affect anything and a 100% coast to coast wall IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN because of cost, land use, land ownership, and basic construction logistics to name a few things. It is true that a well constructed entirely impermeable wall with active surveillance and the ability to respond would stymie illegal crossing and end the issue but that's simply not going to happen.

This the "elephant in the room" issue with deniers, there should at least be an equal if not greater number of studies showing that CO2/Global Warming is not on a trajectory that requires mankind to change. The data is available to everyone yet the only thing that detractor have said is "no it's not" or "your data is incorrect in this aspect or that aspect" without any studies supporting a different outcome. As BVon describes, there are many scientist who are paid to deny and only deny they are literally paid to say those things yet they have not provided any scientific validity to their words. On the other side is an entire planet of scientists who are only paid for open ended research yet again and again they reach the same conclusions.

Monica Lewinsky had a pretty funny reply to that: "If. Fucking. Only."

Snowden Tweets that this ordeal is a "Dark moment fro the press freedom"....from his asylum in Russia...

Regardless of your answer, you should keep your eye on several things we've been talking about such as La Nina (Just finishing), El Nino (Might be starting soon) and the effect of global warming on the Jet Stream. If we are about to enter an El Nino cycle it's likely that localized weather will be much hotter and drier in the Northern Hemisphere and ALSO much hotter and drier than previous El Nino periods. This will invoke legitimate concerns and cue alarmist so buckle up.

The question is whether he was ever going to face more time in jail than the 7 years he imposed upon himself.

Are you saying that NOAA is a reputable source?