Wideleft

Adams definitely slowed down there. Not sure who (but I can guess) didn't understand where the ball was supposed to end up on that play. Adams turned and put his hands out and then kept running with his hands out when he should have put them down and gave 'er to where the ball was landing. Looked like an 8 year old playing outfield on that one.

"Here, Ford is clearly borrowing from the playbooks of former prime minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President Donald Trump. For Ford, as for Harper and Trump, abolishing independent agencies has little, if anything, to do with saving money. The Ontario Conservative government’s real purpose is to silence independent voices that are not 100-per-cent onside with its agenda." In a nutshell, "modern" conservatism. http://rabble.ca/news/2018/11/doug-ford’s-government-abolishes-ontario-environmental-commission-days-after-it-issues

How I took that comment was that the Bombers didn't get close enough to the red zone to bring Streveler in. I'm not sure if that's what O'Shea meant, but it makes sense having watched what they've done for most of the season.

So how will doing nothing help convince other countries that they must pursue alternative forms of energy? How will doing nothing encourage innovation (that can exported) within our own country?

You expect the bad guys to do bad things, but you attack the good guys who say the bad guys are doing bad things because you perceive hypocrisy that may well have been drummed up by the bad guys. The argument that it's ok for bad guys to be bad guys as long as they're being bad is about the silliest thing I've ever heard.

It's absurd to say that his opponents haven't stretched for the smallest criticisms or perceived hypocrisies to weaken his message. And how do you know that his houses aren't energy passive?

If the force of Suzuki's argument that man-made climate change is real would be increased by him lessening his carbon footprint, then therefore, the force of the argument that man-made climate change is not real would be increased by industry increasing their carbon footprint. That is logic. And again, this is exactly how the U.S. government is thinking right now and it is not good for anyone except oil, gas & coal owners and shareholders.

It's a red herring anyway. If Suzuki rode around in an electric car, people would complain about the lithium extraction required for the batteries. If he has a CFL bulb in his house, they would complain that it wasn't LED. Again, the playing field in regards to expectations is completely tilted against him. People don't want to listen to what they don't want to hear and they would rather shoot the messenger than learn.

It's not dumb because that's what the U.S. is doing right now. You cannot apply that logic to Suzuki without applying the same logic to his opponents. If not, then you are saying that Suzuki was right all along.

So you would feel that polluters would be even more believable if they polluted more, because you're saying Suzuki would be more believable if he polluted less. That my friends is an uneven playing field.

So by this logic, you are encouraging oil and gas to pollute even more so they can make their argument against climate change even more impactful.

Suzuki is criticized for leaving a bus running. Meanwhile, Manitoba's biggest polluters - the Koch Brothers (funders of all sorts of climate change denial) are given a pass. That's an uneven playing field.

No, you are asking him to play on an unlevel playing field. The oil and gas industry can pollute and lie all they want, but David Suzuki has to advocate with the carbon footprint of a medium-sized butterfly.

Or it could be that he had a legitimate concern. Come over to the Climate Change discussion thread and we can discuss further. https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/14/watch-warming-ocean-devour-alaskas-coast-this-striking-time-lapse-video/?utm_term=.bc5bccac2ffb

Re: third wife - my apologies - I misread that. As for the hypocrisy, I don't entirely agree with this notion that someone who is respected internationally can effectively champion environmental rights without stepping on a plane at some point. Although I don't know for sure, I'm pretty sure he's not burning old tires in the back of his lifted 2018 F450 just for fun. If he never stepped on a plane or used a phone or computer made from precious metals mined unenvironmentally, how could he do his work? Are you asking biologists to stop studying lakes because they burn gas in their boats? Should a person advocate against noise pollution by not speaking? How would they do that effectively? As for sacrifices, I would imagine Suzuki has received more death threats and has been the target of more character assassinations than your average person.

Where's the tundra going and why?

You brought it up, so you'll have to explain. What I am saying is he is being attacked for not being perfect by people who would collapse under the same weight of scrutiny they apply to him. If the message is good and based on evidence, I don't care if the messenger is rich, poor or middle-class.

Yeah, I'm going to need examples. Speaking broadly, he's never been wrong about the big picture issues of environmentalism, sustainability, overharvesting of resources, pollution or climate issues. Are you saying you're against environmental regulations?

Certain jobs kill a lot of people. Don't understand your point.

If you can't even get the fact that he's been married to his second wife since 1972 correct, your other character assassinations ring pretty weak and if his "actions" were such a joke, he wouldn't have been a target of the petroleum industry for so long. Do you even know what the Suzuki Foundation does? They have a website that you can check out. I've had it up to here with people comparing science to religion and scientists to evangelists. They might be the falsest of equivalencies foisted upon us. People expect a level of purity from Suzuki that they would never expect from the self-proclaimed Holy Men knowing full well there is a cost (whether financial or environmental) to all actions. If it's ok to spend a dollar to make 2, why isn't it ok to kill one tree in order to save thousands?

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/andrew-wheeler-epa-fossil-fuel-agenda-755332/ "Wheeler’s second method of undermining the regulatory powers of the EPA is through changing the way the costs and benefits of environmental regulations are assessed. You can see echoes of this in the latest rhetoric of climate deniers like Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who argue that, yes, climate change is real, and humans might be responsible, but it’s too expensive to do anything about it. This is an obvious lie — look at California, where the economy is booming but carbon pollution is in sharp decline. In fact, the economic and human impacts of a rapidly changing climate dwarf any costs associated with cutting carbon pollution. If cost were the real criteria for action, fossil fuels would have been outlawed a decade ago. But that’s not what this is about. It’s about protecting the empires of Big Coal and Big Oil."

The problem is, you can't even be honest about what you're posting. There's a difference between a NOAA study and a study by a retired NOAA employee who's using his study to try and get movie rights to his sh***y novel based on his nutty study. I will agree that the title of this thread should not have been worded to encourage the scientifically illiterate to participate.

Someone on twitter yesterday was arguing that mental health checks for firearm ownership was a bad idea because it would leave the mentally ill unable to defend themselves. My inference is that the spouse and children would necessarily have to arm themselves for protection from mentally distressed parent. I really don't get why Americans are so scared. Their paranoia alone should disqualify them from gun ownership.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/domestic-threat The Bureau has been investigating the criminal activities of white supremacy extremists like Ku Klux Klan members since as early as 1918. Today’s extremists are more challenging than ever. They’re affiliated with a variety of white supremacy groups, and they can be motivated by any number of religious or political ideologies. We’re also seeing more lone offenders and small, violent factions of larger groups at work, which makes detection of these crimes tougher.

Florida permits concealed carry with permit South Carolina permits concealed carry Ohio permits open carry and concealed carry with permit See 1 Arizona: unrestricted concealed and open carry Texas: open and concealed with permit Tennessee: open and concealed with permit. Kentucky: unrestricted open carry, concealed with permit.