If you believe that's more likely that people like him being indoctrinated by the government to believe that shit, then you you should institutionalized for your own safety. Seriously. You - and he, except of course you're the same person - are that deranged.

I stopped reading after "I'd say the government is far more capable of determining what's in the best interest of their children than the parents"

Governments get overthrown for shit like that, and rightly so. People like ranton should be first against the wall.

While what you replied to might well be sarcasm, don't believe for a second that criminalizing this behavior isn't part of the plan. Even if you accept that the number reported are not inflated, the mere fact that the questions are being asked suggests that somebody is trying to justify something.

Those kids have to learn that the computer is their friend, er, that the government knows best for all things for all people. Or else.

Are you implying that parents are more qualified to determine what's best for their children than the government? Keep talking like that, and you'll end up in a reeducation camp.

Since you don't dispute anything he said, you have agreed with it. You have said, clearly and unambiguously, that you agree with it, even though you don't like it.

Perhaps a professional in the mental health industry could help you with your self hatred.

On the other hand, IIRC, suicide is legal in Oregon now.

Irrelevant to this case. It's not an issue of science, it's an issue of law.

The basis of the lawsuit is that there was no warning on the label that it might cause cancer. Federal law requires the label to be reviewed and approved by the EPA, which is was. Monsanto can't change it from the approved format. Under federal law, they have no liability for issues with the label. This lawsuit, and thousands of others, are in state courts, which in many cases, are based on liability laws that can only be obeyed by violating federal law.

SCOTUS gets to decide if state law can override federal law (and the odds of the state winning on that, especially with the current justices, are slim).

Mythbusters also needed a production assistant to help them spell "scientific method." They weren't scientists, they were entertainers (and damned good ones). They occasionally did some very good work, but not when it came to real science with double blind testing.

The pocket money for the case of the white guy who goes to the judges church. The long sentence for the black Jewish woman who is clearly a devil worshipper. Nothing wrong with that.

You have an awful lot of faith in judges.

Do you not understand that is the intent?

With current technology and economic reality, it will take generations to wean the west off of fossil fuels. This conference isn't willing to wait generations, they (claim they) want it now.

Technology will improve, the availability of the various rare earths and other resources necessary to built out the infrastructure will as well, but not quickly (and to even speed it up, we're talking strip mining mountaintops, which these moonbats will also object to).

Indeed. And they won't be any time soon, because the biggest consumers are countries with the highest standards of living, and the single most important factor in standard of living is per capita energy usage. The only way to cut emissions using current technology and economic reality is to cut energy usage, and that's not happening in those countries.

What you've just said is that this has nothing to do with climate change or the environment, that it is nothing but virtue signaling and a tax deductible vacation with someone else paying for the hookers and blow.

I concur.

From the article (and the summary):

". . . to hash out how to wind down and end their dependence on coal, oil and gas."

Did you reply to the wrong post? Or just not read it?

Or any other country with a standard of living the requires a per capita energy usage beyond what can practically be supplies with alternatives at this time.

Energy poverty = poverty poverty.

If I could reasonably be described a "a youtuber," I'd be depressed and suicidal, too.