Earlier tonight I heard on ABC News that "A recent poll has found that more
and more Americans are having less babies due to climate change."

Hmmm... what does that ridiculous and fake news mean by this??

What they mean to say is this:

"We want people to feel guilty about pollution so that way they will stop having babies. And we also want people to think that climate change affects people's decisions, even though it certainly doesn't."

..and all that BS comes after they spoke about the runoff election in Georgia:

"Hand-picked by Trump candidate Herschel Walker and incumbent Raphael Warnock are facing off in a runoff election.."

What they really meant to say was:

"We want everyone to think that Trump calls the shots at the RNC, when really he doesn't, and we want everyone to think of Walker as a Trump protoge so that way he can lose to the guy who ran over his wife."

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
* Origin: CompuBBS | Ashburn VA | cfbbs.scinet-ftn.org (1:275/99)

Aaron Thomas wrote to All <=-

Earlier tonight I heard on ABC News that "A recent poll has found that more and more Americans are having less babies due to climate change."

Hmmm... what does that ridiculous and fake news mean by this??

It always makes me wonder...

Did the Elitists get their Reality Distortion Field from Steve Jobs,
or did Steve Jobs get it from the Elitists?


... "MEOW"...SPLAT..."RUFF"...SPLAT...(Raining cats & dogs)
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

Earlier tonight I heard on ABC News that "A recent poll has found that more and more Americans are having less babies due to climate change."

Well, you have to think about the people who are of child bearing age and
how they think. They might also use "climate change" as an excuse not to
have any when they really just don't want any.

"We want everyone to think that Trump calls the shots at the RNC, when really he doesn't, and we want everyone to think of Walker as a Trump protoge so

hat

way he can lose to the guy who ran over his wife."

There was a poll where most Republicans don't want Trump to run in 2024 and believe their chances are worse if he does... and where most Democrats feel
the same ways about Biden.


* SLMR 2.1a * I had another drink...Drink-a-drink-a-drink-a-drink...
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Earlier tonight I heard on ABC News that "A recent poll has found that m and more Americans are having less babies due to climate change."

Well, you have to think about the people who are of child bearing age and how they think. They might also use "climate change" as an excuse not to have any when they really just don't want any.

Especially if it's a multiple choice question.

I'm wondering when and why the media/crats changed their wording from "global warming" to "climate change?" I guess there's a limit to how much money can be squandered for "global warming," so then "climate change" keeps more avenues open.

There was a poll where most Republicans don't want Trump to run in 2024 and believe their chances are worse if he does... and where most
Democrats feel the same ways about Biden.

It sounds fake. Consider the motives of the leftists; they're sacrificing
Biden with the hopes that conservatives will sacrifice Trump. (One 2024 Democrat candidate is as "good" as the next.)

There's a myth that if you say something enough times, it will become true,
and it has worked for them before. They're putting ideas in peoples' heads.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
* Origin: CompuBBS | Ashburn VA | cfbbs.scinet-ftn.org (1:275/99)

Aaron Thomas wrote to Mike Powell <=-

I'm wondering when and why the media/crats changed their wording from "global warming" to "climate change?" I guess there's a limit to how
much money can be squandered for "global warming," so then "climate change" keeps more avenues open.

Because their track record of being correct is currently 0.
First it was "global cooling", and that didn't happen.
Then it's "global warming", and that didn't happen.

"Climate change" is vague enough and, seeing how the climate has been
changing since we had climate on Earth, they can point to any short term
change and say "Look! We were right!".


... Send me a dollar and I'll send 3 cents to your charity.
___ MultiMail/DOS v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

Hello Aaron,

Earlier tonight I heard on ABC News that "A recent poll has found that more
and more Americans are having less babies due to climate change."

Whether true or not, or even if the reporter made that comment in
jest, the fact of the matter is that the population of the US is in
decline, or would be if not for immigrants making babies.

Hmmm... what does that ridiculous and fake news mean by this??

It does help to have air one can breathe.

What they mean to say is this:

"We want people to feel guilty about pollution so that way they will stop having babies. And we also want people to think that climate change affects
people's decisions, even though it certainly doesn't."

People like to fuck. No matter where they are, or where they are from,
people like to fuck. Doesn't really matter about age, as people of all
ages do it. And most folks enjoy fucking, which is why so many folks
keep doing it time and time again.

Some folks claim to be celebate, usually for religious reasons. But
many of those same folks make an exception, allowing them to do it with
little boys rather than grown adults.

Must be the pollution that made them do it. Never the devil.

and all that BS comes after they spoke about the runoff election in Georgia:

The fact of the matter is that the US population is in decline due to
the insufficient number of babies made in the USA. The way to fix that
problem is to import young women from outside the USA who are able and
willing to make babies in the USA.

"Hand-picked by Trump candidate Herschel Walker and incumbent Raphael Warnock are facing off in a runoff election.."

US Senator Raphael Warnock beat the pants off Trump's candidate.

What they really meant to say was:

"We want everyone to think that Trump calls the shots at the RNC, when really he doesn't, and we want everyone to think of Walker as a Trump protoge so that way he can lose to the guy who ran over his wife."

Trump chose who to be on the RNC, as well as hand-picking the
candidate of his own choice. Trump also made numerous appearances
with his hand-picked candidate in Georgia, before the runoff, and
failed to get the job done. Trump was too embarrassed to appear
with his hand-picked candidate before the runoff, and had his own
problems to deal with (legal and otherwise).

Yes, it was a happy crowd last night, listening to US Senator
Raphael Warnock's victory speech ...

For Life,
Lee

--
Black lives matter!

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se:4119 (2:203/2)

Well, you have to think about the people who are of child bearing age

nd

how they think. They might also use "climate change" as an excuse not

o

have any when they really just don't want any.

Especially if it's a multiple choice question.

Indeed. "Cause global warming" or "overpopulation" probably sound a lot
less selfish than "we don't want any" or "my spouse/partner want them but I don't." That latter one is probably a reason they were already covering
for.

I'm wondering when and why the media/crats changed their wording from "global warming" to "climate change?" I guess there's a limit to how much money can

e

squandered for "global warming," so then "climate change" keeps more avenues open.

People started noticing that it was not always getting hotter like they
were originally claiming. So, climate change covers hotter/colder,
more/less precipitation, more/less storms, etc. They throw a large enough blanket now so they can blame any event on "climate change" whether it is really to blame or not.

Several years ago, I had a global warming fanatic try to tell me (either in
one of the echoes or in a usenet newsgroup) that global warming was the
cause of the Sun's surface getting hotter and not the other way round.

There was a poll where most Republicans don't want Trump to run in 2024 and believe their chances are worse if he does... and where most Democrats feel the same ways about Biden.

It sounds fake. Consider the motives of the leftists; they're sacrificing Biden with the hopes that conservatives will sacrifice Trump. (One 2024 Democrat candidate is as "good" as the next.)

I dunno. There are probably a lot of Democrats that are concerned that,
while a mentally-degrading Biden could beat Trump that he might not be able
to beat someone who is sharp but not as condesending.

This morning, on a news show on PBS, a political analyst was discussing the results of the Georgia run-off and also the recent election in general.
She pointed out that voters in most districts seemed to reject the most
radical of candidates regardless of which side (right or left) they were
coming from and suggested that the voters who were "up for grabs" in recent elections were voters who chose the candidate that was not too far to one
side or the other. She also suggested that both parties, and mentioned the Democrats in particular, need to take a note of this.

There are undoubtedly some individual districts that would prove that
false, like the districts "the Squad" represent, but I believe she is right about most districts. It would explain why the candidates that Trump got
out and stumped for didn't do well, and also why some of the more radical left-wing Democrat candidates also didn't do well (if they even made it out
of their primaries).

If she is correct, the Independents and undecideds are not flocking towards fringe candidates. One things she also noted about Republicans was that
many that were not successful had "extreme" (conservative) views on things
like abortion, which make them seem too far from center.

There's a myth that if you say something enough times, it will become true, and it has worked for them before. They're putting ideas in peoples' heads.

True.


* SLMR 2.1a * In his hand a moving picture of the crumbling land
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

I'm wondering when and why the media/crats changed their wording from "g warming" to "climate change?" I guess there's a limit to how much money

People started noticing that it was not always getting hotter like they were originally claiming. So, climate change covers hotter/colder, more/less precipitation, more/less storms, etc. They throw a large

That explains it! It was my understanding that, for a while, temps were
getting hotter & hotter every year. Some clever leftists must have seen the pattern and the potential dollar signs.

I recommend that we correct people when they talk about "climate change" by saying "Don't you mean global warming??"

If you haven't already, learn about the threat of "manbearpig." :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGoEP-IqoDg

This morning, on a news show on PBS, a political analyst was discussing the results of the Georgia run-off and also the recent election in general. She pointed out that voters in most districts seemed to reject the most radical of candidates regardless of which side (right or left)

I hope she is right about that, but it's iffy. Fox News has identified at
least 3 "progressive" (iow extremist) Democrats joining the squad as a result of this year's elections. (Maybe there was less support for Republican extremists this year.)

not too far to one side or the other. She also suggested that both parties, and mentioned the Democrats in particular, need to take a note
of this.

I appreciate her saying that. It sounds like a friendly way of saying "Let's all do our part to keep extremists out of our elections."

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
* Origin: CompuBBS | Ashburn VA | cfbbs.scinet-ftn.org (1:275/99)