Paid ‘Climate Leave’ May Be Next Employee Benefit

By | November 17, 2017

  • November 17, 2017 at 8:24 am
    PolarBeaRepeal says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 18

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    • November 17, 2017 at 9:19 am
      Doug Fisher says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 20
      Thumb down 11

      Yogi,

      Those socialists and millenials in the Trump organization have fallen for the climate change hoax now, too! Can you believe it?! This is a virus that is taking over the world, even in the highest echelons of government!

      Re: WC Laws: No, there is no workers comp law that addresses the issue of personal safety in traveling to and from work, unless you are a worker who travels FOR work. You would know this is you were actually an industry worker, and not just a troll with nothing better to do than spoil every discussion on an open insurance forum.

      Just because you are ignorant of what they do, doesn’t make them unknown in their respective business. Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange are widely known resources in that industry. You are as ignorant on this topic as you are every other topic, no surprise.

      Once again, to make sure you are paying attention: the Trump Administration believes that there isn’t any logical explanation for climate change other than man-made causes. Do you dispute that? Do you dispute that climate is changing?

      I do not dispute that this is self-promotion, but that is what smart companies do: draw attention to themselves through publicity. You are thinking about Fog Creek for the first time in your life…mission accomplished. They don’t want the business of the purposefully ignorant, they will instead be satisfied by getting their name out to other people.

      • November 17, 2017 at 10:25 am
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 16

        Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

        • November 17, 2017 at 12:20 pm
          Ron says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 10
          Thumb down 3

          You went from, ” I find it hard to believe there aren’t worker comp laws that address the issue of personal safety in traveling to and from work, and unsafe workplaces.” to “Some state WC laws have been interpreted by courts as covering workers traveling to and from work in specific instances.” in 2 hours. you should able to easily cite those court cases.

          This is not about employees actually being injured trying to drive to and from work, but keeping their jobs, and getting paid, in the event they cannot safely travel to and from work.

          Also, nice job criticizing a non-union employer for stepping up and voluntarily providing a benefit their employees find to be valuable.

          • November 17, 2017 at 5:44 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 8

            After the case laws were ruled, I assume SOME states codified those rulings, so as to avoid confusion as to what type of transit qualifies as ‘exposure as an employee’.

            Are you and the DF competing for Troll Of The Month? If so, you are lagging behind the DF, but there are several days left in November.

        • November 17, 2017 at 1:49 pm
          Doug Fisher says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 10
          Thumb down 5

          LOL, always in character, Yogi. That’s what we have all come to appreciate about you.

          Remember: Trump’s admin are a bunch of Hoax Believers now, too. The walls are closing in around you. Pretty soon, you, bob, and Agent will be the only ones left who are smart enough to know the truth.

          • November 17, 2017 at 5:38 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 6

            What does your post have to do with the article?

          • November 18, 2017 at 12:48 pm
            Doug Fisher says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 1

            What does your presence here have to do with insurance? You are a character.

          • November 18, 2017 at 2:21 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 7

            I see you are irked by my presence, as my insight into insurance and related political issues is a roadblock to your agenda of dominating this media site. You want me to leave because it is the only hope you have to censor Conservative opinions, and to receive no rebuttal to your failed Socialist policies…. after your app-hole BOT makers were neutralized by IJ’s IT response.

          • November 18, 2017 at 2:22 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 6

            “The walls are closing in around you”

            LMAO at your desperation due to loss after loss after loss.

          • November 21, 2017 at 4:12 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            I love that you bring me up, but I already replied to why your hoax believer thing is hog wash.

          • November 21, 2017 at 4:13 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Also:

            Yes. I am better researched than you on climate change, how it is represented, who says what, what the actual debate is, etc.

            I am smart enough to know the truth on this one. I’m glad you’re throwing that out there!

            ;-)

          • November 21, 2017 at 4:48 pm
            Doug Fisher says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            you also know more than every Fortune 100 company worldwide, too. right? And every country on the planet? I do mean EVERY country, by the way, since even the EPA has said as much.

            Damn, you are a genius. What are you doing wasting your time on an insurance forum? With your intellect, you could be, you know, actually doing something!

          • November 21, 2017 at 5:14 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            “you also know more than every Fortune 100 company worldwide, too. right?”

            You’re still not arguing data. You’re still arguing points of authority. I don’t subscribe to your God.

            “And every country on the planet? I do mean EVERY country, by the way, since even the EPA has said as much.”

            Arguments of authority again. Every country agrees with what I just said regarding the points of data. They feel it is more worth it to act by the way. I don’t. You are also misrepresenting the scientific consensus and refuse to debate the data. I just again gave you yet another chance and all you could do was this.

            “Damn, you are a genius.”

            I am. My IQ is 156.

            “What are you doing wasting your time on an insurance forum? With your intellect, you could be, you know, actually doing something!”

            If you haven’t noticed, I left my posts for over a week. You’re here more than me, does this mean you are an idiot? Or do these rules just apply to me? You solely know how to argue ad hominem. I throw in insults with debate, but my insults don’t MAKE the debate nor are they intended as methods to disprove another’s debate. It’s basically just me calling you an idiot.

        • November 20, 2017 at 8:57 am
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 9

          re-posted to avoid censorship by Hoaxers:

          Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

          Some state WC laws have been interpreted by courts as covering workers traveling to and from work in specific instances.

          I am not ignorant of what laws do. You are ignorant of court rulings.

          Your feeble attempts to discredit my points failed again. This is an article about a company seeking advertising through use of a Climate Change ruse intended to grab the attention of Hoax Believers. My lack of a list of such court interpretations is due to time constraints; if you want to locate the cases, do so yourself.

          Trolls are people who have nothing to add to discussions, but who intervene for the sake of disruption to seek reactions, or personal attacks on those whose opinions contrast with their own.
          Reply

          • November 20, 2017 at 1:13 pm
            the downvoter says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 0

            Yogi–please loosen up the tinfoil hat and turn down the Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, Alex Jones etc. There is NOT a concerted effort by “Hoaxers” to hide your comments, nor has anyone ever used BOTs on this website to censor you (despite what your “IT guy” told you months ago). At one point, the site did allow you to repeatedly click the downvote or upvote buttons to make it appear you received dozens of them. Now if you get a downvote, it’s because people genuinely don’t agree with either what you said or how you said it. I can promise you it’s not an anti-conservative conspiracy.

          • November 21, 2017 at 1:55 pm
            the downvoter says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Good point, Yogi. Here’s an upvote.

          • November 22, 2017 at 7:20 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 2

            ‘Society’ should read ‘Socialist Society’. bear culpa.

      • November 21, 2017 at 3:25 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 1

        “Once again, to make sure you are paying attention: the Trump Administration believes that there isn’t any logical explanation for climate change other than man-made causes”

        Your last sentence is not true in any event, and the first is manipulated. I’m not sure this entire post will post, due to the links contained, and I kept it short for certain areas you can confirm yourself (mm ocean rises). If it doesn’t post with links, I’ll post it without.

        You likely read this headline:

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/11/03/trump-administration-releases-report-finds-no-convincing-alternative-explanation-for-climate-change/?utm_term=.f33d7d86bfe4

        And thought, oh, the Trump Administration made a report and agrees with scientific man mad global warming! Great work Doug! Your researching capabilities astound me!

        Then you neglected to read past the headline to where WAPO mocks the Trump admin for allowing the report to go out (since it isn’t a Trump report), even though the report is currently mandated by law to happen (So they would have had to have changed or violated the law to not release it). This was not a Trump admin report, or Trump commissioned report, nor was it done by, signed off on, or agreed upon by, Trump officials.

        The report itself is still open to heavy debate, and makes wild predictions such as 8 foot sea level changes by 2100. Let’s just do some basic math here. Per year changes have been somewhat high compared to recent times (last 100 years, though the long term tracking I posted for Confused over thousands of years shows that for a warming period, which we are currently in, the levels are 400% off of where they should be, which is again likely where this 8 foot of rising in the next 85 years comes from) but current rates would not hit that level unless they exploded rather suddenly by comparison to what has occurred in the last 23 years. These are predictions based on theory that is unproven and manipulated as I have shown many times, and many scientists have spoken out that their data is being misrepresented in consensus studies. I also provided links for this, I do not just say things like you do. When it looks like misleading is being done, and scientists say their data is being misused, and we have climate gate, in which scientists went with models that made their point look more extreme but were not necessarily accurate, (also 100% true) we have a problem. Since 1993 to 2016, which was 23 years, the sea levels rose 88mm. Do the math, at equal ratios over 83 years to get to 2100, the rise would be 1 foot. Not 8, and that’s assuming a constant. Also, scientists are unable to explain the warming differentials from the late 1800’s until 1940, and from the actual carbon explosion since then until now, and when they do, they then add oceanic data from the early 1900’s in order to explain what is known as the pause. That’s not ok! I cannot go over enough how not ok it is, and then they do an equation to compensate for it. That is not science, that is a hypothetical, based on other theory. I am not saying a cliché phrase there. Think through what that line reads. They are taking theory about oceanic temps, and then are working up numbers based on that theory (so a hypothetical based on theory of past oceanic temperatures) and they include that by making a level of confidence and margin of error, which is so large, there may even be no warming on one end, and the world may be over on the other.

        I don’t know how to explain this to people like you, because you believe you’re not indoctrinated but you are.

        Ok, I’ll start from this chart.

        htt p://ww w.marketcalls.in/statistics/population-vs-global-warming-interesting-facts-and-charts.ht ml

        Carbon release from 1940 onward is a big one. There was a huge explosion, however, there was a lot of surface warming excluding oceanic (which we have bad data on from that time period) in the early 1900’s, and also, the late 1800’s. This, THIS is what scientists call the pause. Why the warming didn’t explode. They then said, well, because the ocean is absorbing massive amounts of carbon. We then asked how much? How much can it hold? How much will the world warm? They then said, we don’t know.

        Until the NOAA decided to add oceanic temperatures, for which we have tar for beans data from back then, the curve did not match. Everyone knew it. That explosion from 1940 onward did not match Earth’s surface temperatures. That is why the NOAA added the oceanic temperatures. However, what you don’t realize, or refuse to acknowledge, which conservatives do debate back, and you lambast them as being against “science” for saying this is the following:

        The NOAA not only made an equation to compensate for unreliable test methods back to the early 1900’s, and lack of sufficient temperature monitoring availability, and locations, they also combined several different oceanic monitoring methods, and they only did this after it was shown their numbers didn’t work (in other words when proven false we still operated with the theory as being true, instead of being a falsifiable theory, this one suddenly refused to be proven wrong, it was right by default). I believe it was 3 monitoring methods if you include the old ones. The depth of monitoring was a point of contention. The locations were another. The curve changed several times. This would be part of why they estimate an explosion in this scenario of 8 times what we have had in the last 23 years in terms of a worst case scenario sea level. To anyone who even thought about science instead of claiming to, and stating they are on the side of scientists (not science) through consensus studies, (which is all you have quoted on the matter) they would realize this doesn’t add up.

        This is no small thing you can simply wipe away. This is THE climate argument. Your argument is petty. Yours is not about science. You mainly want to believe other people are anti science. It’s an ego thing, unlike mine. Yes. I believe I’m right. I’m willing to debate the facts on the matter. You believe you’re right, and the other side is wrong, based on a consensus study, and anyone who doesn’t agree with that, is against science. That it true ego.

        • November 21, 2017 at 5:02 pm
          Doug Fisher says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 0

          I am not hand-waving anything away here, but if you want people to take you seriously here, which may be past the point of reality, given your history, you may want to use scientific sourcing, not graphs and charts with no sourcing. This is some dude’s graph and chart, as far as I know. He makes no mention of where he gets his data or how he interprets it. Come back with something scientific and we can have a conversation that isn’t disingenuous.

          Doing away with all the accusations and insults will help, as well.

          • November 21, 2017 at 5:24 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 2

            “I am not hand-waving anything away here,”

            Yes you are, that’s why you say anyone who disagrees with blah blah consensus is against science.

            “but if you want people to take you seriously here,”

            Always spoken when someone wants to find a way to discredit everything except my facts.

            “which may be past the point of reality, given your history,”

            Name my history when I have been against reality.

            “you may want to use scientific sourcing, not graphs and charts with no sourcing.”

            I don’t need to source NOAA’s methods of measurement, it’s right on their reports. Everything I just listed can be confirmed there.

            “This is some dude’s graph and chart, as far as I know. He makes no mention of where he gets his data or how he interprets it.”

            Find another chart, do you debate the PPM carbon amounts? You could just as easily confirm this, but because you quote consensus studies you are credible right? You told me to disregard insults, but here you say I have a history of not sourcing, whereas you do not source your data, and when I disproved the methodology on consensus with line item areas of contention, you then said of course, it’s a conspiracy right? You learn how to debate people! I don’t!

            “Come back with something scientific and we can have a conversation that isn’t disingenuous.”

            When you decide to stop arguing like this, I already have made the points in a way that isn’t disingenuous. You have always started at this point: Anyone who is against man made catastrophic climate change is a tin foil hat, and is against 99% of science and all countries, as you just said, you’re the one being disingenuous with your beliefs.

            “Doing away with all the accusations and insults will help, as well” I already addressed this.

            All you have to do is find SOLELY surface temperatures, which are listed on NASA and I have sourced before, I do not RE SOURCE each time I go through a point of contention. Go google .gov sites showing PPM matching that chart I gave you. Regardless of this, you simply must know that the carbon exploded past 1940. It’s not on me to prove that when you know it. You simply must know how the NOAA weighs their temps, and where the flaws are because I’ve pointed you right to it. All the data is already there, easy to find. I sometimes give charts from different sites, because the sites that have the data DON’T DO CHARTS and when they do, the NOAA do you think they are going to give the charts that don’t push their narrative? NO!

            What in what I just said was incorrect? List it. I gave you everything you needed to realize why the global warming issue is a problem with NOAA’s numbers. The PPM, the sea level rises as MM, the thing here is you DO NOT know these numbers, and you argue them as fact, and here you are saying for someone to take me seriously, as I give constant facts, I have to what precisely? Not use charts, not separately show the data, which I have, and not get ticked off that you are harassing people into your belief system, literally harassing saying “we all believe this” which IS bullying.

            You should expect anger, and side step it to the argument.

            What you have done here is not ok, and you act like it’s all me. You have degraded me. Do not say “you have too” it is expected in conversations like this! And you use it to say “for anyone to take you seriously, talk how I do m’kay?”

            This is why Trump won by the way. NO is the answer. NO. We talk how we talk, and we focus on facts. DEAL WITH IT.

            The pc crowd has serious risks of ignoring facts when their feelings are hurt. Get over it, stay on task. I am in fact the cure to that, and what you just did is the disease, ergo why I railed on you. Take me credibly when my data adds up. Don’t brush me off because of how I talk. That’s weak. I don’t do it to anyone, I listen to everyone, and it makes me more of a man than you.

          • November 21, 2017 at 5:34 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            Observe:

            The Government, their PPM carbon charts. What do you notice?

            https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

            They cut off before a certain point, unless they go to the 100,000 year chart, because then you cannot pinpoint 1880-1940. Why do you suppose they cut off this area?

            The PPM lines up with my PPM 1958 and beyond. I’ll give another link in a moment.

            Do you REALLY believe this is a coincidence Doug? It is not because I’m paranoid I came to this conclusion the governments are being misleading on this. We had climate gate, it was real, we saw that behind the scenes they WERE for a fact manipulating data to make it appear worse than it was.

            I will find another .gov link for 1880-1955 soon.

            At that point, I will not hear you side step this argument anymore and say that the data isn’t there. You will need to explain away what I pointed out, I simply know you cannot, and I will finally have you trapped admitting there is no proof of massive global warming.

            At that point you need to apologize to everyone here, and the right, for saying they are anti science. They aren’t. What it is, is the left is pushing a consensus type of scenario to force belief, and, as I said, Sanders wanted the DOJ, and I source linked it, to PROSECUTE climate change deniers. And you believe this is ok? IN WHAT WORLD IS THIS OK FOR SCIENCE FOR THE DISSENTING OPINION TO BE PROSECUTED??? And when the government is pushing this, how much of the science community do you believe won’t push data misleading to the consensus for fear of losing their job? This is mass tyranny. Not from the right, but from the left.

          • November 21, 2017 at 5:37 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            NASA quotes the same data, and then points out that it is indeed the NOAA:

            It cuts off beyond 1958. Do you still believe there is no narrative being pushed?

            https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

            Also, when you go to download the data it cuts off the same.

          • November 21, 2017 at 5:50 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            Back in 2005, again, clicking “full record” same year. 1958.

            https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html

            Another .gov site.

            Now here we go, the coup d’état:

            http s://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/Fig1A.ext. txt

            1850-1955: 285 million ppm to 311 ppm. An increase of 36 million ppm.

            1958-2000: 315 vs 370 55 million ppm. This means a couple of things. First of all, those charts are all over exaggerated. They show these huge swings that look many times above that.

            Second of all:

            Let’s see how the NOAA tries to cover this up:

            htt ps://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade

            So they show this. They show: “Surface temperatures” however, their surface temperatures do for a fact include oceanic, of which, they again rely mostly on 1958 to present. See the tables on this chart.

            Why do they keep restricting it? The chart that says surface temperatures is separate from solely the oceanic for a reason. The NOAA did equations to say what the PAST oceanic temperatures were based on trends from what we saw already. This is why I said it was a number created based on theory, not data, which was then applied to another theory, to state global warming was occurring. The data is not reliable Doug! You surely must know this!

            Surface temps excluding Oceanic from 1850 coming next. Keep in mind I used those years on purpose. Yes, temperatures after 2000 and carbon have shot up, but for this purpose, we are going to compare 1850 to 1950, the carbon levels increase vs temps over a hundred years, a good but still narrow temperature monitoring term, to roughly 50 years of an increase that really isn’t that much more, 36 vs 50 means that greater than half the warming should have occurred in these 1850 to 1950 time frames at some point, but it didn’t. And that’s why there are two terms for the Pause. The NOAA usually calls it a decade of pause in recent times, conservatives are referring to why the carbon took so long to manifest in higher earth surface temps.

          • November 21, 2017 at 6:05 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            Berkeley is where my brother went to school, it’s not dedicated to solely climate, but I thought I would note that.

            https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/global-surface-temperatures-best-berkeley-earth-surface-temperatures

            They clearly point out that the NOAA does include an interpolated estimate for the surface oceanic temperatures, and offer an alternative with their estimates for merged land and ocean temperatures over time.

            This shows the weakness I mentioned is in nearly every weight of temperatures. I understand why they do it, the good scientists. It is because they want to be more complete, and, if we had good temperature monitoring, we probably should make sure the ocean temperatures are not eating up the carbon increases if they occur and are not making the surface land temps temporarily low. However, that is why I’m going 1850-1950. 100 years of no real temperature increases from huge amounts of carbon release, to now saying that our last two decades of temps are drastic and sudden changes also cannot fly to state we are for some reason now catastrophic despite the pause so to speak.

            This is a big point of contention, as to why. Currently scientists say it is the ocean, ergo why they extrapolate past oceanic temps, but those calculations are extremely volatile past 1958 and they know it. It’s why they rarely give the full prior 1958 oceanic temps, because that is theory, not data, at this point.

          • November 21, 2017 at 6:07 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            And just to show the NOAA does do this method, when you google even surface land temperatures:

            https://www.climate.gov/news-features/videos/history-earths-surface-temperature-1880-2016

            And the link says “history-earths-surface”

            “About these maps
            The official NOAA global surface temperature product does not interpolate over the Arctic, the Antarctic, or parts of Africa where there are no observations. In an interpolation, a computer algorithm estimates some missing values using statistical inferences. This animation is based on an interpolation of the official NOAA global temperature monitoring data set (the Merged Land and Ocean Surface Temperature data).  In this case, we’ve interpolated across some of the missing data areas to minimize the visual distraction that results from the areas of missing data jumping around from map to map over time. The official maps are available from the NCEI website.”

          • November 21, 2017 at 6:13 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            Literally every .gov site doesn’t link their surface land temperatures 1850-1950.

            You check my work. Do you think given their history, there might be a reason why?

            I’ve proven all my evidence except for surface temperatures for 1850-1950. From there though the important points stand. The NOAA uses an equation to model past oceanic temperatures, and then they assume we are accelerating based on that equation. The short term could indeed be a limited warming event. Surface land temps are likely not available because we didn’t really monitor back then in any way that is credible for sourcing. I’m putting my guess at that.

            And again, it is not on me to prove global warming doesn’t exist. It’s on you to prove it does, and then I point out the flaws with your theory.

            I have done that well enough. Anyone here who claims I haven’t made my point is a fool Doug, and you should be well aware of that. I have made this case with data better than anyone here, and you know it.

          • November 21, 2017 at 6:20 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            In conclusion:

            The government sources the NOAA, Berkeley tries to merge land and oceanic as well, I showed a link a few weeks back that tried to say our ocean rising in light of current supposed warming should be 400% higher, the recent report you mentioned from the “Trump” admin, which by the way, you mocked me and Agent regarding claiming the Trump admin was on board with the hoax too (do you admit you were wrong on this now that I explained it?) claimed an 8 times our current rising over the last 23 years rate extrapolated to 83 to 2100 (which is outrageous and makes me not trust the report for good reason). Instead of arguing what the report said, you were more focused on finding hypocrisy in others. This is a serious weakness Doug.

            I don’t care about anything other than the facts, and I would join your side if you made your points.

            Why did I TURN conservative Doug? I asked for years for liberals to make their points, and they refused. I was castigated like you have me (unacceptable) for asking these questions. I was told to OBEY not to THINK. And that’s what you are doing now. Use your head! It is getting old that I have to explain this all to you.

            At the end of the day that is a part of why I’m not democrat. They say Obey, and I say “NO!”.

          • November 21, 2017 at 6:51 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            Here is what I believe regarding global warming, and I am not the only conservative on this boat, you tell me where I’m unreasonable, why you have to label people who are against the way the government portrays climate change, and as an aside, Agent and Polar are in many ways in the same boat as well:

            Man affects climate to some extent. It is likely not enough to destroy mankind more than the immediate need for fossil fuels. I am in fact even buying an electric car and as well solar panels. I believe in personal choices for conservation, not government lead brute force. This does not mean I oppose taking an action, like many conservatives on many issues. Similar, conservatives believe in giving time and money, and they give more than democrats, but they do not believe in government forced charity. So, conversely, not supporting government wasteful programs, is not me hating the poor (and I’m getting sick of that one) when I spend more of my time and my money for the poor. Ron and others here have demeaned the right as pro wealthy anti poor. They claim taxes are needed no matter what (no they aren’t). I believe that the government dictating what science is acceptable, is not acceptable (DOJ prosecuting climate change deniers) I believe that Churches should not lose their tax exempt status for putting their beliefs into consideration with political candidates (that a priest leader should be able to say someone is not the proper option and why, or why certain things aren’t ok and it must be weighed at the very least). I believe someone should be able to refuse to bake a cake, and the government should not be able to force compulsory business instead of voluntary transactions. I believe that facebook comments about gay behavior should not be treated as criminal liability (as they are currently in WA State) I believe that celebratory fees should be allowable for churches that do not allow gay marriage, so I can fly my priest to HI if I want the wedding there (that would be considered a celebratory fee, and any churches who charge celebratory fees are not allowed to decline gay marriages in current law). I believe forcing churches or anyone to give birth control is wrong. I believe that businesses can provide better for people than governments, and every piece of history confirms this. The more the government gets out of the way, the better the people do. I believe nanny states don’t work. If you don’t believe that 40% of local, federal, and state spending creates a nanny state, you’re out of your mind.

            I believe in minimal government assistance for absolute need, while allowing maximum wealth building for all those who work hard. Right now, the democrats are trying to keep the child tax credit removed for anyone with $110,000 income, they want to remove it entirely in their proposal. Trump’s tax plan creates reason for my wife to return to work. I believe we can get the LPR up for part time women, and for women in general.

            I believe the government is not the solution, it is the problem. (Reagan). I believe in personal freedoms, and the second amendment. You do not. You claim you just want enhanced background checks, you do not. Those have already been offered and are not the issue when considering gun violence.

            Now the typical liberal come back is: You don’t support gay marriage! Yes. I do not support making marriage what it is not. The vast majority of heterosexual marriage perks (if you can call them that, I actually paid more marrying my wife) have to do with what happens in a natural marriage (child bearing). I support recognizing gay marriage through churches, not through the government porting over current marriage laws. That simply put, is not ok, it is not moral, it is you virtue signaling. The majority of conservatives that are anti government gay marriage, are against the government being involved in marriage. They look at it as a religious type of aspect, while you as a millennial will then say “but marriage has been around even in non religious countries” that doesn’t matter. In the U.S. I’m talking the perspective of those here, this is why they are against this. So, allowing marriage through churches, and civil unions through the government, solves the problem. But your side won’t accept that, and in my state, that’s why they took the fight against religions here, and let’s not kid ourselves, they bragged in public about it. That is not the middle ground.

            I am conservative because nothing has shown me your side will do anything other than resort to tyranny to prove it’s points, and win. They will go after dominating the science community, they will go and dominate schools, they will isolate family members, and you can find this online not from idiots who are not educated, but especially from the college educated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URpxJ1-578g

            You see schools having teachers go into these fits, we aren’t talking some southern racist idiot, who has no presence in the schools, and whom we both hate, we are talking people in control of schools.

            I am not democrat because I do not, and will not, support bullying, tyranny, and I do support helping people climb up the ladder as per above.

      • November 21, 2017 at 6:11 pm
        UW says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 0

        He doesn’t even know insurance, Geez.

        • November 22, 2017 at 7:57 am
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 2

          Please explain insurance to everyone. Thanks in advance.

        • November 22, 2017 at 1:51 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 1

          And you don’t know jack about the housing collapse.

          By the way, I replied to your example on this page:

          https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2017/11/03/470341.htm/?comments

          I just was out of here for weeks so I just now replied.

          I have explained in the past why in order to merge, buy, sell, or change your bank charter, or debt to net capital ratio you had to have a high cra rating. I have also provided numerous times, companies who were declined to do such a merger or buy or sell due to not having a high enough CRA commitment to low income borrowers.

          Low income borrowers were targeted by banks, it wasn’t fraud, it was done with the blessing of the government, and by force of the government.

          Regulation caused this collapse, and I have explained precisely how.

        • November 27, 2017 at 5:46 pm
          Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          Bob. I wonder why all the predictions of the Climate Change/Global Warming Hoaxers have not come true. I suspect that they all puff the weed and are lemmings who jumped in the pit after their Master’s.

          • November 28, 2017 at 2:25 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Some have, but would have likely not differed much in any event.

            What I mean is some of this warming now makes sense in that we should have an upward trend given long term scales. It is possible we changed this upward trend, but I do not believe by as much as they say.

            Their models have been correct, in as much as the old Green Peace founder said that “shark attacks increase with ice cream sales” which both have to do with people going to the beach when it’s hot, but this does not mean ice cream sales cause shark attacks.

            Not all their models have been wrong, but their data as to what our affect will cause have been wrong many times, in as much an 8 foot sea level rise, and another I showed weeks back claimed sea levels should be 400% higher right now, and because it isn’t yet, he predicted we should very soon have an explosion in sea level rise, instead of questioning the current methodology. It is so easy to see that they want to believe what they believe, data be darned, and some of them are just as corrupt as our politicians.

            I do however agree with liberals in that we should be energy conscious. I do not believe the government should force this through costly means. The government doesn’t care. They only care about getting what they want, putting them in charge makes ZERO sense. I don’t understand how any liberal would entrust this to governments instead of individual leadership.

    • November 17, 2017 at 2:10 pm
      Jack Kanauph says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 2

      Pretty soon it will be easier for employers just to print or announce the days employees are expected to come to work!

    • November 17, 2017 at 2:18 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 8
      Thumb down 10

      Polar, these people in NY are sure softies, aren’t they? Guess that comes with the Commie Mayor they have and all the taxes they pay up there. Wonder what they will do when the first blizzard hits this year with the massive Polar Vortex. Did you cause that? I recall a few years back that the city didn’t even get their snow plows out for many days and left people stranded. Government at work.

      • November 17, 2017 at 5:39 pm
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 9

        These app-holes aren’t concerned with weather related benefits. They want to attract attention to themselves as a geek org catering to Socialists.

    • November 20, 2017 at 8:56 am
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 10

      re-posted to circumvent censorship by Hoaxers:

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      Bloomberg actually paid the author of this article about paid time off work when a natural disaster strikes? I find it hard to believe there aren’t worker comp laws that address the issue of personal safety in traveling to and from work, and unsafe workplaces. If not WC laws, then OSHA regulations must exist to cover these situations.

      It isn’t surprising that the software company leading the way for this unnecessary benefit, Fog Creek, isn’t widely known for anything substantive. I must assume these app-holes are using this to promote the Climate Change Hoax, and to draw attention to itself as a means of self-promotion with Socialists and Millenials.
      Reply

  • November 17, 2017 at 2:33 pm
    Hmmmmm says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 0

    There are some businesses that need to stay open as long as possible before the storm. If you were watching the news, people were buying water, food supplies, flashlights, batteries, plywood, etc etc. I would bet most of those retail store people would have preferred not to come to work. But if the stores shut down, it would be bad for the public that needed items. The nursing home employee – yes, unless we can evacuate all of the patients, employees need to come in. It would be nice of the employer to say – “bring your immediate family if necessary” if they have storm shelter capability. What if police and firefighters said – oh the weather is bad, I am not coming into work.

    • November 17, 2017 at 2:41 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 4

      The Police and Firefighters would never say that, but the sanitation, snow removal people did say that. Let it pile up and too bad.

  • November 17, 2017 at 4:34 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    Because of all the talk about Climate Doom, I am getting very anxious.

    When do I get “safe space” days off?

    • November 17, 2017 at 5:04 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 7

      Craig, you are not “ENTITLED” to any safe space, just liberal Democrats who think they need a free ride. Someone needs to work in this country to support these n’er do wells.

      • November 17, 2017 at 5:41 pm
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 3

        Agent; I interpreted Craig’s comment as sarcasm. Clue: quotes around ‘safe space’. I LOL-ed at it.

  • November 20, 2017 at 1:45 pm
    FFA says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    I saw a road crew running a grinder in a lightening storm. I cant believe there are no OSHA Standards about that.

    A friend of mine in the Southern Keys had her house flattened. You have seen the footage on the National News. She just set her office up in a travel trailer parked on he now vacant lot. I can understand people worried about losing their jobs after an event like that. I also understand that business must go forward.

    • November 22, 2017 at 7:59 am
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 1

      That crew was likely violating OSHA rules.

    • November 27, 2017 at 5:48 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      FFA, people that live in the Keys are asking for it. They do very well with the tourists until a big storm comes in. Guy Fieri may not have any restaurants to visit for a while.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features