http://www.wthr.com/article/startling-number-of-americans-think-chocolate-milk-comes-from-brown-cows
Because there are a lot of idiots in the country.
For those who demean those that disagree with your position
- Thread starter davegolf
- Start date
Because there are a lot of idiots in the country.
It was 7 percent, zeke. I don't find that all that startling of a number. I mean, it does take a special kind of idiot to think that chocolate milk comes from brown cows. But it's not like the number was 30% or something like that.
And I have no idea what it has to do with Donald Trump or politics, regardless.
We already made and broke a commitment, so whatever wrath we have to abide is already coming.
The history of modern civilization shows that countries meet important goals better when they don't go on their own. Fact is, you can't justify dropping out of Paris. You're ideologically tied to it, and just like CO.H, no matter what facts you are presented with, you'll use them as justification for a belief that you have no intention of examining critically, even when some of that reasoning is mutually inconsistent.
That's a decent question. I think the upside would be a better Paris accord. One that is longer on meaning and shorter on theater. But a lot of that depends on the ability of the Trump administration to pull that off.
Good lord. Then why all the hand-wringing over Russia? We have substantial mutual interests in Space and rocket science.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Don't you have other business to attend to, Mr. Manafort?
fake news.
lots of idiots around, but i don't believe for a second that 7% of people think chocolate milk comes from brown cows.
that said, if there are brown milk cows, then that 7% could be 100% correct, if the question didn't specify "all" chocolate milk).
Last edited:
You missed the 48% that don't know where it comes from? What it has to do with Donald Trump/politics was the remark that was made that I must think there are lots of idiots in the country. This was an example that yes, there are indeed.
It's Trump logic with a better grasp of the language.
You have absolutely any logical reason to think the Trump admin will lift even a pinkie to work on a "better" agreement? That's so laughable I can't believe you bothered typing that.
This issue is in the drawer until after 2020 when his entire presidency is cast into the dustbin of really bad ideas.
What do you know? You laughed at me when I said Trump would win! So you really don't know shit!
I don't think it was Dave whose father I knew. That is a blank to me - someone else must have known his family. Or I forget.
And which is an actual treaty and is ratified by the US Senate before it is given the slightest force of law and then followed exactly as we read it..
I've milked white and brown cows. I can vouch that all milk comes squirting out of those tits white. Lol.
Not as much as I laugh at you, its people like you that contributed to the softball shooting! People like that nut job shooter was listening to your views not mine.
Last edited:
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I see today that Ted Nugent has said he is going to tone down his rhetoric in response to the shooting.
You've wandered into the realm of the absurd if you think this Administration will pursue something like that. It's too busy eliminating domestic environmental efforts, for one thing.
DougS's is by far the worst. Compare the relative importance of Doug being wrong and Dave was and still is dying from cancer and Doug being right and we're getting played. A grave health condition versus an online trivial butthurt. Shame on DougS. But he's not the first. Others play this attack dog game of speculating that they're getting played, as if it matters. But this time, it's simply and utterly uncalled for. By DougS's very words, acknowledging that Dave once admitted his health issue.
Last edited:
The Paris sham? Can you even name, specifically, what it entails? So you like keeping company solely with Nicaragua (who wanted it to be tougher) and Syria?
As for healthcare, you've mentioned a few times now that you seem bizarrely excited by what is happening in that area. How in the hell is the plan they're trying to shove forward in any way, shape, or form better than Obamacare? It's a disaster. And they're doing it in secrecy. And actually, even Trump apparently thinks it's "too mean."
Trump really hasn't done anything other than promote himself and act like a buffoon. I think I've asked you this before, and you refuse to specify.
You have no idea what the Paris agreement actually says, do you?
There's nothing to "renegotiate." And we're not even technically out of it until the day after the 2020 election.
My biggest issue with the whole thing is that I think it's pretty obvious that Trump doesn't even know what the damn thing says. He blatantly lied a few times about what was required of us and what it actually says.
People have been told to keep things to one page so Donnie can better follow along and understand
Most people who voted for Trump were not voting for the man, obviously. They were voting for his positions against big government, open borders, unfair trade deals, weak foreign policy and against HRC.......get it?
306/232
Welcome to La La Land Bruce
You won't change Zekes mind no matter how hard you try.Your bias is overwhelmingly funny. "Other Govs will likely stick to their commitments?" China? LOL, sure they will, just like Iran is doing on the nuclear deal. on the other hand maybe they will since they are allowed to continue increasing their emissions until 2030.
http://www.cfact.org/2017/06/03/china-sticking-to-the-paris-agreement-in-name-only/
You might have missed my point. Lemme help. The Paris accords - whatever it was called, SHOULD have been treated like the treaty it is and that requires ratification by the Senate. Obama conveniently decided to try to give it the force of a treaty without having the Senate ratify because he knew damned well that it could never get ratified if he followed the Constitution. I'm not talking about any future ratification. I'm noting the extra-Constitutional effort by a former President to wire around the Constitution - not an unusual feature of his term, but distinct from anything to do with present or future.
If that was your point, why did you begin your post as a follow-on statement to CO Hoosier's post about the upside of renegotiating Paris?
As far as your latest point, the only way that makes any sense as a reason to withdraw would be if you wanted a more binding accord.
What is your point? Oh, you have none. The article says they remain committed to the agreement. So thanks for agreeing, I guess.
Making the Iranian comment - which is an entirely different issue - is a nice attempt at distraction and deflection, though.
Regardless, my comment was in relation to a discussion I was having regarding leaders in developed nations.
You support a clown and con artist that will likely lead to total Democratic control of govt by 2020....while achieving next to nothing in the 4 year interim. I don't support that....and the sooner I can convince other Republicans that the best course of action is politically dumping him, the least amount of damage it will do. So yes, I'm biased.
Last edited:
Similar threads
