aikohualda said:
Baalzamon said:

Just because they are paid for by taxpayers doesn't mean they can say whatever the hell they choose to and represent it as the opinion/fact of the government. This is in no way limiting their freedom of speech on a personal level. My tax dollars pay for lots of things that I don't have access to, including I'm certain tons of studies the government has performed and not released to the public.

And how you can say global warming isn't political is astonishing to me (Keep in mind, big difference between something being a political issue and something being false). There are absolutely enormous tax complications that can come out of global warming, such as emission taxes. Numerous industries have been given mandates (such as MPG standards) that ultimately arise from global warming issues. The fact of the matter is, even if global warming is 100% legit (and to take it a step further, it is indeed caused by humans which is the important matter), there are a buttload of enormous political issues involved with it.

what scare me is that what is accepted  by majority of scientific community is not accepted by government... and donald trump prohibiting them to tweet because it doesn't meet his criteria like i dunno tweeting about 3 million fraud voters without anything to back him is OKAY?

like i said i DID NOT Say it is not a political agenda... i said barely compare to the politician who are recipients of the oil and gas company... and guess what most of them are republican and apparently most republicans still do not buy the concept of global warming... could it be political? esp that the sitting president is from the GOP? could it be more political than a tweet about real numbers about global warming?????

but hey you are the one backing a guy who thinks global warming is hoax by chinese people...

You are really stretching your argument a lot here. First off, I don't think I said anywhere that Donald Trump should be sending tweets about 3 million fraudulent voters, whether it should be allowed or not, etc. It is, quite frankly, completely irrelevent to the argument (if donald trump was a murderer, it doesn't mean its then ok for everybody else to be a murderer)

Also you are going on some huge ass tangent about Republicans not believing in global warming. Pretty sure I am with a lot of people that aren't necessarily denying global warming, but rather the cause of it, and whether the solutions are worthwhile/reasonable.

You then make a final comment about backing Donald Trump. Keep in mind the difference in backing a candidate versus trying to shut down an argument that I find foolish against him.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.