Posted by pythrr on 2015-12-01 00:04:54

well, if you sit down and think about it....

the biggest environmental problem facing the world today is too many humans. this is true. too many of us, crawling around eating all the things and using all the resources.

so ... killing off lots of humans is an environmentally positive action.

so ... that Hilter guy. Bit of an enviromental hero, him.

discuss.

Posted by Uedder on 2015-12-01 00:16:04

I wouldn't say the problem is too many humans. The problem is too many humans using/wasting resources in a stupid way.

Posted by JimmyFantastic on 2015-12-01 00:21:09

The greatest environmentalist of all time was indeed Genghis Khan. http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2011/jan/26/genghis-khan-eco-warrior

Posted by Mr_Foulscumm on 2015-12-01 00:25:57

I'm not overpopulation, that must be you!

Posted by pythrr on 2015-12-01 00:33:33

uedder, maybe -- but you can't deny that killing off 50% of us would ease many environmental issues. that's undeniable.

Posted by Svif on 2015-12-01 00:34:16

You get a good one for this "joke" and i would add that Al Qaida show the way to ISIS to reduce carbon emissions. They did not use dynamite but planes.

Posted by Patator on 2015-12-01 00:38:25

Painstate i love your picker stuff but this is getting boring. And this time you don't even quote a source ? So this is plain disinformation ?

Do you really believe France would accept a member of an organisation / rogue state with wivh we're at war with ? Really ? And that no media would mention it ? And that other legitimate leaders would accept to talk to them ?

This is nonsense !

So talking, once, twice about politics on fumbbl, with some poor sources of information is rather bad in my mind, but three time and this time to say plain bullshit, please, stop it.

Posted by Wreckage on 2015-12-01 12:43:32

Gotta kinda agree with Patator.

As much as I enjoy political talks thats the second blog in 5 days about the same topic and then some plain misinformation.. seems like just a way to provoke.

On top of it some terribly fascist comments, no productive answers, why don't you turn it down a notch.

Being tolerated to discuss politics here is a precious priviledge and I'd hate to see it lost over the extent of extremist right wing nutting.

Posted by PainState on 2015-12-01 15:50:16

@Pataor and Wreckage

Dudes, did you actually read what I wrote? Did you actually think that serious in anyway?

I cant even make a satirical/ Humor blog and then coaches come out of the woodwork appalled at another one of PainStates blogs.

Also about referencing blogs. I have used multiple sources in my previous blogs. Right leaning left leaning and insane leaning. It seems in every instance Iam decried because my "source" is a horrible place to find "news".

Some one please tell which "source" I should use that is FUMBBL approved so I stop blowing your minds with all these crazy links to news agencies that blow your mind.

thank you.

Posted by Wreckage on 2015-12-01 17:41:57

I understood that it was satirical. Maybe the ill-intent suggestion was a bit unsuited, I know you're a nice fellow :).
It's not like satire is without context tho. You're criticizing from your point of view, which is that all this liberal hogwash is a waste of time, that global warming isn't real and that America should rather continue to do what it does best and bomb people and continue to persue its hegemonial interests and widen its global dominance.

Two problems with this:
1. There is no reason what you write couldn't be real. It's not some widely known or established fact, it's about actual events that are happening now. If you write something that could be real is read by a person that is not informed about current politics that person could miss that you're not serious. This is especially true since you're writing a lot of political blogs.

2. It is still a political blog. There are still people here who don't like to see that sort of thing and this sort of satire is inviting and has invited some really terrible (also satirical) responses. So I'd appreciate if there was some sort of silent agreement with us people who are interested in this sort of thing just not to overdo it so that no Admin gets an excuse to rush in a bombard the whole process. Don't get me wrong just because I'm trying to be polite about how you see the world: A lot of the stuff you say is so far off the grid that most people I know personally would rather run away screaming than to look for a dialogue with you ;).

As far as I am concerned, the problem isn't the source but your opinions. Then your opinions come from not so credible sources. Basically: The more outrageous the claim the more credible the source needs to be. I'm not from an English speaking area so I don't know what all the credible news are... I know the Times is a credible source as well as the Guardian, pretty much any university published science magazine (although just because something is written in there doesn't make it true, it just means the source that makes the claim is credible - studies get published when they are done but they need to be verified to be really valid). For instance you could make a credible claim that the Higgs Bosom exists because there is a credible source that says it does but it doesn't mean it's true. But to claim it doesn't exist right now would put you in a tough spot because although the claim hasn't been verified I at least don't know any science magazine that opposes the idea. You'd need a strong science based and supported argument to discredit the experiments in Cern.
Wikileaks is a court class valid source, meaning it has a higher validity than most newspapers. Wikipedia is absolutely acceptable for Fumbbl class validity I think... unless it's a very recent edit or something. :)

Fox News isn't a credible source from all I can tell.

First hand sources are always credible. If you make a claim of an opinion in the white house it's ok to link to the white house or a speech of the president.

Also: Just because people tell you to have to add sources, this isn't true. You don't have to add sources on Fumbbl. Discussions do not need to hold up to scientific standards and you can talk out of your **** after drinking 2 liters of vodka if you feel like it.
If you do however add credible sources it makes you look much more credible.

Posted by Wreckage on 2015-12-01 18:36:16

Actually I have been checking the internet for some acceptable news in English and I'm already loving this page (not really a main stream media (so credibility is not verified) but oh well if you wanna validate one of your statements with this page I'm so in. :))

http://www.alternet.org/world/john-cusack-and-arundhati-roy-things-can-and-cannot-be-said

Posted by PainState on 2015-12-01 20:59:28

I appreciate the response Wreckage, I actually do, because it is called a discussion.

I have to say Iam amused but not shocked at some of your responses.

"As far as I am concerned, the problem isn't the source but your opinions. " -Wreckage

That is fine, I understand that my opinions are not well recevied with most of the European coaches on this site, I understand it and get it.

BUT

"You're criticizing from your point of view, which is that all this liberal hogwash is a waste of time, that global warming isn't real and that America should rather continue to do what it does best and bomb people and continue to persue its hegemonial interests and widen its global dominance."- Wreckage

I do not agree with your opoinion at all at your broadbrush apporach to my opionons and the United States in general.

So, what should we do? We both come from the opposite sides of the aisle on these political discussions. You dont like my views and I dont like yours.

No shame in that, that is called life.

I quess we can continue to vote down PainState blogs into the 2 range so the neophytes do not read it Or we can discuss things as us laymen do.

I have to say Iam a little miffed though that I have not reached legendary political blog level by getting a 1 rating. It seems there is some support for me left in Europe that the prats always rate me in the mid 2's.

Posted by PainState on 2015-12-01 21:08:57

"This is especially true since you're writing a lot of political blogs."-Wreckage

This makes me sad.

I have made 5 political blogs this year and 18 Blood Bowl blogs this year. Does anybody read my non political blogs? Am I only know for my few, fly off the handle blogs at world events and my very fun an humorous blogs are totally ignored?

When coaches on FUMBBL look at the blogs and they see PainState do they only read it if the title hints that it is political in nature they take the time to read it, otherwise they move on to better things?

Iam amused and confused at the same time. :}

Posted by PaddyMick on 2015-12-01 21:26:35

I laughed. But yeah man-made climate change is real, so is the threat of The Caliphate. We have the means to solve both but not the will (at this time).

Posted by Wreckage on 2015-12-01 22:19:10

If you think I have a bad opinion of America you should talk to people outside of Europe. Hell, these days talk to anyone outside the United States.

Posted by Wreckage on 2015-12-01 22:55:28

"I do not agree with your opoinion at all at your broadbrush apporach to my opionons and the United States in general."

Actually if you want to discuss it, you probably should not just deny my suggestion of what you mean but also make a suggestion of what you meant yourself.
I feel like I've been attentive enough to your views to reasonably make that sort of assessment.

Posted by PainState on 2015-12-01 23:11:37

Ok, here it goes.

Lets discussion the Climate summit going on.

I will be keeping a close eye on the news coming out of the summit because I believe that very few of the talks are about solving global warming and more to do about money transfers from the United States into the UN's redistribution program to third world nations.

This transfer of money will be glossed over by politicians waving documents saying they have taken the first big step to solve the worlds problems related to Global Warming.

There you go, that is how I feel, totally unfiltered.

Posted by koadah on 2015-12-02 01:33:04

Jus gotta make sure they have snow in Green Bay come playoff time.

Posted by Wreckage on 2015-12-02 06:52:09

That response makes me really feel a little lost as to your sense of humor.
Now if what you say is true.. and it might as well be... although I haven't heard about it... and am not sure why you would mention that. Would there be any issue with that?

Posted by PainState on 2015-12-02 16:54:39

sorry koadah due to the 8 year cycle of El Nino in the United States it looks like Green Bay will have way below average snow this year.

It all moves south into the great plains and around Texas where every 7-8 years we get pounded with Ice and Snow.

So Cowboys at Green Bay Next sunday will most likely be sunny and in the 40's.

Also, are we sure Green Bay is even going to make the playoffs the way they are stumbling down the stretch? Detroit could beat them this weekend.

Posted by koadah on 2015-12-03 01:58:32

Somehow I think that Dallas will need more than a bit of sunshine. Even if their division does really stink.

I am not a cheesehead. That is Mrs K. Tell your boys to really beat them up before they go to Oakland. Who is your heaviest guy? Get him to do a Siragusa belly flop on Rodgers.

Posted by thoralf on 2015-12-13 01:20:11

Seems that climate talks ended with an agreement, with everyone in the world at least agreeing that the Donald, after having overcombed, will implement Agenda 21 before anyone else does. Katrina Pierson is suggesting that it will be rebranded as the "Agenda Trump":

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/meet-the-nutters-of-team-trump-the-people-behind-the-candidates-quest-for-the-white-house/