Yes, I heard about this... well, it's odd, to say the least. I mean, the only motivation I can think of to fudge the facts is to save face--what else is there to gain from falsifying this kind of information?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/20/climate-depot-everything_n_365754.html
Not to be mean, but that link really doesn't do anything to refute the claims and questions raised by the hacked e-mails. It's basically just an article telling people that those who argue with climate change are dangerous idiots.
Well, you have to consider that any laws passed to "prevent" "climate change" would mean higher taxes and government restrictions.
It's basically just an article telling people that those who argue with climate change are dangerous idiots.
Yeah, no [dukar]. Everything the government does requires taxes. The Iraq War, which sucked taxpayers and our federal budget dry, comes to mind. Sadly, most conservatives leave out that little tidbit when discussing Obama's policies. "OH NOES WE ARE SPENDIN' TOO MUCH MONEH!!" Give me a break. I guess it's fine when it comes to blowing [dukar] up but when it comes to health care and environmental legislation it's undoable. Also, government restrictions are needed to stop corporations from exploiting workers.
I don't want less government, I want an effective government that does its job.
Glenn Beck is a dangerous idiot even without the climate change debate.
What's more, the provision of a military and police force is the one thing government is supposed to be doing (and guess what areas are the first to get budget cuts?).
The government isn't supposed to teach [indoctrinate] your children or provide you with healthcare.
I say let's do it. We need to cut military spending to pay for health care and the environment.
It is so so so easy for you to say that because you're not living in poverty without health insurance.
So the church is supposed to indoctrinate your children?
I'd much rather be provided with the ability to make my own conclusions.
I do not understand why most Christians are conservative.
Deut. 15:7: "If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks."
Jer. 22:3: "Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place."
Ezek. 16:49: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it."
Do these passages not mean anything to you? We should be happy that the government is finally creating legislation aimed at aiding the needy. It's stupid to rationalize not helping them by saying "Oh, but it's the church's job to do that!" It's everyone's job.
EDIT: Actually it's because most American Christians are more concerned with limiting the rights of homosexuals that they're conservative.
Again, that's not the state's concern. If the church were doing what it's supposed to, and if these "scientists" were being scientific, then there would be no need for government welfare, and no need for taxes and sanctions sending people back to the stone age (because people would realize that there is no man-made climate change).
With all due respect, you have no idea as to my quality of life. I won't hide the fact that money is extremely tight around here, as it is with most middle class families. Poverty? Maybe not. But my family certainly doesn't have the money to pay for those who won't earn their own way.
And it's funny that you quote a passage mentioning the sins and faults of Sodom, and then make a statement supporting homosexuality a few sentences later. (And I do support gay rights, in that their preferences should not affect their being employed or their joining the military.)
The ice caps are melting
So many ways of interpreting clobber passages like Leviticus 18:22. This website saved my faith.
By the way, since murder and thievery are also condemned in Leviticus, are they now acceptable?
No, because Marriage is an inherently Biblical ceremony that human law should have no part of.
A government-issued marriage license doth not a marriage make. I'm talking about an actual marriage, sanctioned by God, not government (who have no authority to do that).
In a perfect world, government wouldn't make any laws restricting gay marriage because marriage would have stayed within the church, and the church would interpret scripture correctly and not allow homosexuality.
As I've said before, if they want the tax and financial benefits of marriage, then they should just get a civil union.
I am not open to religion
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nx0g.org%2Fimages%2Fpout.jpg&hash=62dd5e143b72f960877fe204eccef54e)
And therefore it's wrong
not disproving vague myths that morons make up.
Hardcore greenies are the ones who get in your face and say...
When I think of the hardcore greenies as a whole, Chris Crocker and his stupid ass videos come to mind.
It's utterly backwards to put the well-being of plants and animals above that of man, and just as backwards to send our level of technology back into medieval times over a theory that hasn't been and will never be proven scientifically.
Okay, it's honestly pretty stupid to say that humans are more important than plants.