Joni Ernst's family took in $460,000 in farm subsidies.

Floridatexan wrote:
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/q8pyub/bright-prospects-for-the-gop-in-2016

KarlRove wrote:by polecat Today at 12:12 pm
So if Joni Ernst was born in '70 doesn't that mean her family was in poverty and breadbagging it when Reagan was President?
----
Wow how illiterate in US History are you exactly ?

boards of FL wrote:

KarlRove wrote:by polecat Today at 12:12 pm
So if Joni Ernst was born in '70 doesn't that mean her family was in poverty and breadbagging it when Reagan was President?
----
Wow how illiterate in US History are you exactly ?

Ho...ly...shit...

boards of FL wrote:

KarlRove wrote:by polecat Today at 12:12 pm
So if Joni Ernst was born in '70 doesn't that mean her family was in poverty and breadbagging it when Reagan was President?
----
Wow how illiterate in US History are you exactly ?

Ho...ly...shit...

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

KarlRove wrote:by polecat Today at 12:12 pm
So if Joni Ernst was born in '70 doesn't that mean her family was in poverty and breadbagging it when Reagan was President?
----
Wow how illiterate in US History are you exactly ?

Ho...ly...shit...

Don't you mean 'Waming' Shit?

After all one must follow ones fanatical faith unwaveringly.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Tdu4uKSZ3M

knothead wrote:Waming . . . . . hmmmmmm . . . . that a word?

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

KarlRove wrote:by polecat Today at 12:12 pm
So if Joni Ernst was born in '70 doesn't that mean her family was in poverty and breadbagging it when Reagan was President?
----
Wow how illiterate in US History are you exactly ?

Ho...ly...shit...

Don't you mean 'Waming' Shit?

After all one must follow ones fanatical faith unwaveringly.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Tdu4uKSZ3M

There is nothing "fanatical" or faith based in acknowledging the unanimous global scientific consensus on climate change.  

Not that this has absolutely anything to do with this thread.

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

KarlRove wrote:by polecat Today at 12:12 pm
So if Joni Ernst was born in '70 doesn't that mean her family was in poverty and breadbagging it when Reagan was President?
----
Wow how illiterate in US History are you exactly ?

Ho...ly...shit...

Don't you mean 'Waming' Shit?

After all one must follow ones fanatical faith unwaveringly.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Tdu4uKSZ3M

There is nothing "fanatical" or faith based in acknowledging the unanimous global scientific consensus on climate change.  

Not that this has absolutely anything to do with this thread.

Is that why they don't throw out the theory after the predicted model fails the test.

Yep! That's really sound science ya' got there bubba.

I may not know all that much but...

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2HRrjpiM7Y

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

KarlRove wrote:by polecat Today at 12:12 pm
So if Joni Ernst was born in '70 doesn't that mean her family was in poverty and breadbagging it when Reagan was President?
----
Wow how illiterate in US History are you exactly ?

Ho...ly...shit...

Don't you mean 'Waming' Shit?

After all one must follow ones fanatical faith unwaveringly.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Tdu4uKSZ3M

There is nothing "fanatical" or faith based in acknowledging the unanimous global scientific consensus on climate change.  

Not that this has absolutely anything to do with this thread.

Is that why they don't throw out the theory after the predicted model fails the test.

Yep! That's really sound science ya' got there bubba.

I may not know all that much but...

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2HRrjpiM7Y

This really isn't that complicated.  There is a field of scientific study that focuses on the earth's climate.  There is a 100% consensus among respected organizations within that field with regard to climate change and man's part in it.  

Note that I'm not talking about any specific predictive model here.  I am instead talking about the broad scientific consensus on climate change.  That is, "Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities."

I will repeat a line that republican senators like to use lately, "I'm no scientist".  As a result, I'll defer - again - to the unanimous global consensus that exists among organizations that study this field.  This is the exact opposite of "fanatical" or "faith based" behavior.  I am deferring to the unanimous consensus among the scientific community, as opposed to right-wing american politicians and AM radio hosts.

Bob wrote:I didn't know this thread was about climate change.  I thought it was about some big mouthed hypocrite politician who bitches about government handouts when her family is bigtime on the government teat.

Bob wrote:I didn't know this thread was about climate change.  I thought it was about some big mouthed hypocrite politician who bitches about government handouts when her family is bigtime on the government teat.

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

KarlRove wrote:by polecat Today at 12:12 pm
So if Joni Ernst was born in '70 doesn't that mean her family was in poverty and breadbagging it when Reagan was President?
----
Wow how illiterate in US History are you exactly ?

Ho...ly...shit...

Don't you mean 'Waming' Shit?

After all one must follow ones fanatical faith unwaveringly.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Tdu4uKSZ3M

There is nothing "fanatical" or faith based in acknowledging the unanimous global scientific consensus on climate change.  

Not that this has absolutely anything to do with this thread.

Is that why they don't throw out the theory after the predicted model fails the test.

Yep! That's really sound science ya' got there bubba.

I may not know all that much but...

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2HRrjpiM7Y

This really isn't that complicated.  There is a field of scientific study that focuses on the earth's climate.  There is a 100% consensus among respected organizations within that field with regard to climate change and man's part in it.  

Note that I'm not talking about any specific predictive model here.  I am instead talking about the broad scientific consensus on climate change.  That is, "Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities."

I will repeat a line that republican senators like to use lately, "I'm no scientist".  As a result, I'll defer - again - to the unanimous global consensus that exists among organizations that study this field.  This is the exact opposite of "fanatical" or "faith based" behavior.  I am deferring to the unanimous consensus among the scientific community, as opposed to right-wing american politicians and AM radio hosts.

So what you're saying is that the 'global warming' scientists and the people that follow them are fanatical in their faith even though no predicted model has meet the gestalt of proof they require for their unwavering confidence in their dogma.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juhBVAnLkHk

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:I sure wish that "unanimous scientific consensus" was present when I was working on my Masters Degree in Biology and Coastal Zone Studies at UWF in 1991-1992. Not a peep about climate change or global warming from any of my professorship, or in any of my textbooks. We studied all aspects of the coastal zone, its processes, and even discussed sea level rise.

Perhaps the professors in my coursework were lacking in knowledge themselves. Climate change should have been covered in my coursework, just 5 years before Kyoto. Because of this, I will always be suspect of the climate change movement, its constant striving for political power, and the nonsense 'tipping points' it keeps spouting. I am thinking there is somewhat of a herd-mentality going on with the so-called consensus on this. In no way will I ever believe that our coastal cities will be swamped by the oceans in 2030 if the world does not submit itself to a global climate-governing body.

I am still a registered Republican and sometimes it is hard to suppress those feelings, but on the issue of climate change, my views likely will not change.