Done. ng, ng.

Done, had to start over.

quicky ng ng

Done

start

ding

Well pinhead, Germany was responsible for 1 and 2, the second being due to an excitable charismatic leader prepared to be ruthless to undesirables and relying on support from extremist thugs. Sound familiar? Of course you can't compare Hitler to Trump yet, but Hitler started out in very similar circumstances. I think it unlikely Trump would exterminate thousands of innocent people, but nobody thought Hitler would either. Extreme view? Probably

done

Hahah. Trump is Hitler... Tomorrow can you provide me a laugh about white privilege being real. That would be great.

Almost makes me want to scroll down the chat, but sadly, you're comedy is not that good, but keep watching CNN and you'll get there!

White privilege is real. If I wasn't white and did some of the things I have done when I was younger, I would be in jail now. If I wasn't white I probably wouldn't have the job I have now. If I wasn't white I would probably call kaosangel a right wing racist for insinuating that white privilege isn't real. But I am white so I won't

Kaosangel, as I inferred,Trump isn't Hitler, but many of the underlying issues and support are similar. I don't know anyone who watches CNN, thankfully our news coverage is far more balanced and rather more on the side of telling what is happening rather than opinions. But I think you should actually look back on the history behind Hitlers rise and his rhetoric early on and you'll see an awful lot of similarity with Trump and his supporters. You also have yo look at the fact that often war is used to garner patriotism and support, naturally enough, no-one wants to not support the troops, and all too often it's done for the interests of gaining something over another country and it's peoples. The US has a long history of being involved in wars indirectly and also directly that it really had no business being in, had no exit strategies and frankly tries to bully smaller countries. It doesn't actually seem to look at how their actions are viewed around the world, or doesn't seem to care.

As for white priveledge,my wife recently had a great chat with a black female US born medical practitioner. She said there is a great deal of racism, sexism and hierarchy in the US. In order of White male, black male, white female, black female, other males, other females. Now I don't live in the US so have nothing to compare, except what I see with reported police shootings and the fact that you are pretty much the only country in the world that doesn't have maternity care.

I will choose only to defend my country. I choose not to presume or guess what actions they may take. Although I have been to Australia.

Phil white privilege is not having to have "the talk" with your children. "The talk" is where you have to instruct your children how they must act so that they are not shot by police when they are pulled over for being non-white.

tuco said: "... why some refuse to accept the overwhelming scientific consensus. What is their reasoning? Are they just being contrarians or is their refusal to accept more on the line that if I question this belief do I have to question other beliefs I have?... WHEN the science is incapable of rendering a conclusion which factually substantiates elements into it's conclusion such that the conclusion IS a fact, THEN some of us "deniers" would move to the other side. Three cases in point, being the impact of CO2 transfere rates across the surface (which happens to be the largest surface area on the planet), adjusting for or allowing for the "unpredictable" natural disasters which DO IMPACT the atmosphere such as volcanoes, tropical storms, fires, and the differentiation between emmissions of human and non-humans. TRUE science has answers which INCORPORATE these elements HOWEVER, NON-science simply moves them to the "must impact negatively" side of the ledger...even though they do not KNOW... you asked WHY...what is the evaluation method of these "non-believers"...it's not about not believing, it is more about understand what is being used as the foundation of the conclusion and acknowleding the holes in the "science" which undermine their conclusion...

when science is missing or obfuscating data...THEN the motivations are power, greed and control...See Solendra.

Yes, Solyndra was a disaster but the reality is that all over the world including the U.S. renewable energy is adding jobs, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Throwing Solyndra around as justification of a premise that climate science is bogus is ridiculous. One has nothing to do with the other.

Using Solyndra in this way would be like saying the science of building bridges is suspect because a cement sub-contractor went bankrupt.

Solyndra's scandal was why is the government giving money to these renewable energy companies if they are going to be corrupt and waste the money. Not that the science of renewable energy and climate change was incorrect. Apples and oranges.

This is how the Right's talking points work. I have heard the same rant against climate change from Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh when driving to and from work. They get huge amounts of money from the American Petroleum Institute. Power and Greed? hmmm.

And you are how the left responds. An argument is presented
that is based on opinion masquerading as facts. Then
when actual facts are presented, the source is marginalized
or outright rejected because they are in conflict with some
contrived narrative. This is why all of these posts in the chog
are so ridiculous. Your mind is made up. You do not want it
confused with facts. You base your arguments on false
assumptions and memes like "white privilege." As I have stated
before Tuco, you will change no one's mind. You are fooling
no one. No one on this site gives two hoots about all the
baloney you write.

Easy. 14.

Penguin, I have so far been unable to find any confirmation of your claim that "the weather service" described the flooding from Harvey as the second ten thousand year event in two years. Am I correct in assuming that you meant the NOAA National Weather Service? Even if you didn't, all the online references I have found call the flooding from Harvey either a 500 year or a 1,000 year event. Can you document your statement, please? Also, what was the other claimed "ten thousand year event" in the last two years?