Media always fails to ask and climate change advocates always fail to state what percentage of climate change comes from man. The climate of the earth has been changing on its own forever. We’ve had ice ages and hot periods. This situation is not unique. Mars is warming too, which gives credence to sunspot explanations. In any event, give us the precise percentage, according to “climate science” that is being contributed by man, please. And if the Commissioners are honestly so concerned about the value of energy stocks, why do they want them sold at a loss now when they are low because of global economic weakness and low energy demand? This is all about a political agenda. They even want insurance companies to spread the word about APG climate change! Why should they? That’s not their job.
Incredulous1, they won’t do that because they can’t. By the way, when this was a free country, companies could invest in anything they wanted. If they took a loss, bad investing. Now, the Progressives want to tell everyone what they can invest in and their pet project is Climate Change. After all, the President said it was this country’s most serious security problem, right?
The science, backed by about 97% of climate scientists agrees that from 1951-2010 almost 100% of the warming was directly attributable to man. That’s from the IPCC report summarizing peer reviewed research. It’s a probability distribution, and the likelihood that they are responsible for less than 50% is close to 0. The actual mean estimate is 110%.
I originally found this through “the media” who I agree never mentions this enough.
The sunspot theory has been debunked for something like a decade now, update your taking points if you want to pretend to take this seriously.
The rest of your comment regarding the economics of the situation is a rambling disaster, so I won’t bother with it, but the people contributing to this are creating massive externalities, which they should have to pay for, and I would consider including investors in that.
UW – You said “It’s a probability distribution..” Face it, it cannot be measured to determine which fossil fuel, if any, is causing anything, much less to any degree. It is all theory.
According to the NOAA climate study report, they are estimating what temperatures are in various regions in the world that they cannot physically obtain true data. Triangulating the surrounding data seems like a reasonable approach to “guess” what the actual temperature is, but the credibility is significantly flawed. They eventually are averaging estimates of estimates.
Additionally, unless they are taking the temperature of EVERY observed location at the SAME ELEVATION and TIME, EVERY DAY, several times a day, they cannot possibly predict a fluctuation in the temperature on a global scale with any accuracy.
The trend they are purporting over a span of time is so minute that it should not be called a trend, much less a crisis. Especially since there have been natural fluctuations in climate since the beginning of time!
This is an agenda that someone is trying to get rich off of and they need to make it a “social issue” to make it happen. The returns on investment from the “wind” and “solar” industry are not there because the technology is getting better for those using fossil fuels.
Just remember…figures lie and liars figure. The data for climate change can be manipulated so easy to reach any conclusion they want it to be.
You are completely full of crap, Integrity. Aside from not knowing what a probability distribution is you also embrace a view in which conveniently for you literally nothing can ever be “proven” because at most it will just be a theory. Yes, you can see how much the earth has changed, and why, by looking at how different factors from the past have changed it before.
As for your line about elevation, it is based on a lie that was disproven at least 5 years ago. It also ignores the study I was referencing, which is an aggregate study of all the recently published work. Saying they must take the measurements at “EVERY” observed location at the same time, elevation, etc., is equally moronic when combined with your statement about the studies not covering enough area; you can, and will, just limit it more and more, until you are literally saying the entire earth wasn’t measured, and the data doesn’t count. It also ignores the fact that many more observation posts have been added by many different groups over the decades and not only have they confirmed the theory, but have actually shown they are underestimating the rate of change in their models. Furthermore, many of the observations posts do record at the same time, elevation, etc., because they are fixed, and record at intervals which are for all intents and purposes constant.
The trend, which you claim cannot be measured accurately, and then say has been measured as being too minute to be worth any real concern (idiotic premise, again), is incorrect. It flies in the face of all the science. It is made up to support your preferred position, not based in science.
And, of course, as always with you idiots, you have to turn to the conspiracy theory about thousands of scientists, for decades, who get paid regardless of how the study turns out, uniting in a massive conspiracy theory. Oddly, the oil companies also joined this conspiracy, and then hid the work because it was damaging to them. Explain that away.
Just remember…climate change deniers lie non-stop, and you are quoting them, and supporting at least 4 different disproven, idiotic conspiracy theories here. Just a total joke.
We might have to officially appoint an extra to the Three Stooges–maybe you should change your name to Mr. Sitka.
Probability distribution – a function of a discrete variable whose integral over any interval is the probability that the random variable specified by it will lie within that interval. This means that it is not 100% true. Have they disclosed what the probability percentage is for the chosen temperature? In your mind, it is probably “almost 100%”.
It’s funny, UW, that scientists that do not believe in global warming because their science disproves it, their science is tossed aside by the scientists that disagree with them. And, there is proof that there have been many global warming scientists have manipulated the data to falsely justify their theory. Deny that!!
Hence, my position on it is all theory.
Also, it does not take a scientist to know that the temperature is different at different elevations. Similarly, the temperature is different during different times of the day at the same elevation and location. Of course the observation posts are at fixed locations and elevations.
My point is that if they are averaging temperatures all around the world, a more credible analysis would include the temperature at consistent elevations (i.e. at 500 feet, 1500 feet, 2500 feet, etc) if the locale had the ability to record such elevations.
I know logic is hard to grasp for some of the people on the left.
Have you ever considered that there might be too many variables that affect the temperature at a given location? Wind, clouds, the timing of cold and warm fronts to name a few.
All of these conditions exponentially effect the credibility. Lack of credibility reduces accuracy. On top of all that, the “scientists” are going to theorize that a man made action/condition is the root cause of the problem when there are billions of other actions/conditions that might have contributed…or not.
The bottom line is they are trying to measure a cause and effect that has too many variables to reach a credible conclusion. I am almost 100% sure that the odds of picking the 4 digit lottery number are better than the credibility of the global warming predications being made.
Next time, see if you can respond in a professional, adult-like manner; void of the insults.
June 8, 2016 at 1:08 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
3
6
“Have they disclosed what the probability percentage is for the chosen temperature? In your mind, it is probably ‘almost 100%'”.
That is incoherent rambling, and shows you don’t know what a confidence interval is, nor do you understand the basics on this. The temperature in earth has increased, according to all (actually 97%) the published literature during this time period the amount of this increase attributable to man is about 110%, the probability it is less than 50% is close to 0%, and just as likely as 160%-without looking into the data, based on the distribution in the link below it would be about 0.3%.
You can again fail to understand stats 101, say it’s “theory”, and ignore the preponderance of the evidence, but that does not make your ludicrous claims true. It also shoots down all of the field of statistics as just a theory. Of course, you have to embrace conspiracy theories left and right to justify your predetermined beliefs. What else do you far right-wingers like to call just a theory? Oh yeah, evolution. Do you believe in evolution? Do you believe the earth is 6000 years old?
Do you just have to label and lump groups constantly?
He must subscribe to the 6,000 year old Earth eh?
I was raised Catholic. Do you know how many people I ever heard suggest that theory? Zero. I didn’t even know it existed, until you or one of the liberals here brought it up.
You need to quit acting like religion is why people don’t have knowledge.
Since I have become Catholic again, I have become more complete. More knowledgeable as I interweave science and bible aspects to be more complete in understanding. The bible doesn’t contradict science. It compliments it and goes along with it.
June 10, 2016 at 3:01 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob, I have to admit I still do not understand how you fail to grasp the fact that just because you don’t know something does not make it untrue or invalidate it. Actually, by definition it just makes you ignorant. The same goes for your numerous declarations that something is not true, which you believe is some sort of evidence.
A disgustingly high percentage of people in the US do not believe in evolution, and believe the planet is between 6k-10k years old according to some polls, which I have a few problems with. But, it is not debatable that a lot of people believe in that utter nonsense. Those people overwhelmingly belong to 1 party, and espouse the same nonsense he spouts constantly. It’s a valid question, particularly when he is going out of his way to deny established science on something many of those people believe cannot happen due to their interpretation of God.
June 6, 2016 at 8:51 am
Yogi Polar Berra says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
14
10
Your logical argument got under UW’s thin skin. The Left’s Climate Change discussions are intentionally vague because the facts don’t support their agenda. Challenge them with facts and confront them with the stories about Climate Change Researchers censoring or altering the data to fit their agenda and they start making personal attacks and using vulgar language due to their arrogance about their opinions being ‘facts’ and ‘already proven science’.
Man affects climate change to a very minor degree. Changing man’s behavior has no significant impact on the ebb and flow of the climate over centuries. The Climate Change Scam has been revealed to be what it is; a scam and a power grab by liberals who think they can fool the majority of the public.
Have you and integrity matters noticed that libs like UW always insult when their logic fails them? Generally, they’d rather use emotion, but we know that logic is required for a serious discussion of this topic.
June 8, 2016 at 8:02 pm
Yogi Polar Berra says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
Yes, I noticed. I never let my cubs read the comments on Global Climate change, knowing what trash talk will be written by proponents of Global Climate Change – who realize they are fighting a losing battle and things will become much more difficult for them after January 20, 2017.
June 9, 2016 at 9:41 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
James,
Have you noticed that Bob and Agent use the exact same tactics?
June 9, 2016 at 6:22 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
No Ron, we don’t. I use link after link, and break down methodology.
I don’t say hey Frank did you hear about XYZ and then make a comment similar to him.
Provide an example please, how I am similar to agent.
June 3, 2016 at 10:20 pm
Yogi Polar Berra says:
Like or Dislike:
10
5
“…. almost 100%….”
LOL!
I’d say “almost 100%” is a very liberal use of the word ‘almost’.
Let me give you an example; “I ALMOST made a hole in one on every golf hole I played last weekend, including the par 4’s and par 5’s.”
Yogi, 97% of my golf partners thought I would make every putt I looked at on Saturday. Unfortunately, their belief system was as screwed up as the true believers espousing Global Warming on this blog.
A few excerpts for those that don’t want to read for themselves.
“To calculate a global average temperature, scientists begin with temperature measurements taken at locations around the globe. Because their goal is to track changes in temperature, measurements are converted from direct temperature readings to temperature anomalies-values that represent the difference between the observed temperature and the long-term average temperature for each location and date. Across inaccessible areas that have few measurements, scientists use surrounding temperatures and other information to fill in the missing values. Each value is then used to calculate a global temperature average. This process provides a consistent, reliable method for monitoring Earth’s surface temperature over time.
Though warming has not been uniform across the planet, the upward trend in the globally averaged temperature shows that more areas are warming than cooling. Since 1976, every year including 2015 has had an average global temperature warmer than the long-term average. Over this 38-year period, temperature warmed at an average of 0.50 °F (0.28 °C) per decade over land and 0.22 °F (0.12 °C) per decade over the ocean.”
Pay close attention to the following statements”
“Because their goal is to track changes in temperature, measurements are converted from direct temperature readings to temperature anomalies-values that represent the difference between the observed temperature and the long-term average temperature for each location and date.” and
“Though warming has not been uniform across the planet, the upward trend in the globally averaged temperature shows that more areas are warming than cooling.”
In summary, they are using averages of averages and eliminating anomalies. I understand the purpose, but it skews the results. Even if the results were accurate, the increase in temperature has been a half of a degree per decade over the past 38 years. So the average temperature might go up another 5 degrees in the next 100 years. At the rate of our debt increase, we will be bankrupt before we burn up, die of starvation or drown due to globally ice melt. By the way, 38 years is a short amount of time to consider this a problem considering how old the earth is and knowing that the earth naturally goes through climate cycles.
That isn’t at all what that says. They are taking a measurement, and comparing that to the average temperature, if it’s higher, they record how much higher, if it’s lower they record how much lower. This let’s them look at the change, and also see the variance by location and time period. It also allows them to see the amount of change in subsets which the average of average would not do to the same extent.
Nowhere in there does it say they are eliminating anomalies. You are just 100% clueless, and either misread it, which is doubtful since you post it all the time, don’t understand it, and/or being intentionally dishonest.
You go on to show you don’t know basic economics either-the US cannot go bankrupt, we have sovereign control of our currency, at worst we would devalue the dollar.
97% of climate scientists agree that 100% of the warming was attributable to man? 100%?
So nature had no impact? You just make more and more polarized comments. Even a moderate would see that as fishy, one that agreed with climate change would see that as fishy.
The 97% number that people quote is inclusive of scientists that do not yet even have their degree. You might see the problem. Here is an analysis of actual researches papers regarding the matter. Only .5% of the papers saw humans as the primary cause.
Bob, feel free to read the other comments, and look into the basics of the studies presented, after that do yourself a favor and learn the BASICS about statistics. Aside from the fact you “refute” an entirely different study, you also ignore that polls of climate scientists by GMU, Harris Interactive, and others have come to the same basic numbers.
Also, you pseudu-intellectual moron, you don’t seem to understand the basics of statistics, or what a confidence interval is, which explains your idiotic, pretentious, incomprehensible defense of Agent’s equally confused comments on forecasting. As I stated, the actual upper end of the interval is 110%, meaning human caused warming potentially overcoming some cooling.
You know absolutely nothing. You claim to be into data, but embrace conspiracy theories and any “data” that supports your predetermined view. Almost all climate scientists agree, but you find a few cranks and embrace that. You did exactly what you did on the minimum wage dwbate: you lied and supported disproven ideas, as well as showing again you don’t even know elementary statistics.
Really, I’m supposed to read the study you didn’t provide the link for UW? And to break it down when I have no numbers, or take your word for it? Show me the numbers then kid. I am not a pseudo intellectual. I use numbers and facts AND THOSE ARE ALL THAT MATTER. When I use facts and numbers and you call me a psuedo intellectual, you sound like a southern hick. Now note: This FINALLY shows my liberal BIAS you idiot!!! I do perceive conservatives to be far worse at communication and intelligence. It is why I defend Agent, I believe him to be bad at talking, bad at putting up facts. I believe it of most republicans, and it is why I insist on only facts.
All of what you put above doesn’t matter. Your study is not a collection of thousands of papers. My study goes over how many papers actually believe climate change is majority man made. The answer is incredibly low. My study also goes over why the 97% number is false. Your study, if you read mine, is taken into consideration in my study. Though I don’t have a source for yours, you’re clearly quoting the 97% number, which my link debunks kid.
It debunks it 97 times.
You stated that 97% of scientists believe that 100% of climate change is man made. Whether or not you added a 110% upper interval (which actually increases the amount of human caused climate change, it does NOT decrease it so why the hell did you add that comment?) is irrelevant. You are overstating and exaggerating the numbers of scientists who agree with climate change being man made, and are WAY over exaggerating how much of it they believe is man made. You just said 100% kid! Or maybe you need to learn how to write and you meant to say that the climate change man is now causing is 100% their fault?
June 7, 2016 at 7:10 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
5
2
Why don’t you just disprove my link, how about we start there instead of your horse crap tirade of saying how I know nothing.
You just basically said nothing that disproved my link. Not one thing. It was a slew of insults, all saying you know nothing you psuedo intellectual you’re a liar with disproven ideas and you don’t know elementary statistics.
WHICH STATISTICS WERE WRONG?? QUOTE THEM NOW!!!!
WHICH NUMBERS WERE WRONG???? PROVE THEM WRONG AND SHOW YOUR FREAKING WORK!!!
June 8, 2016 at 12:43 am
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
1
5
“My study goes over how many papers actually believe climate change is majority man made.”
Bob, you stupid POS, you didn’t link to a study, you linked to a blog post citing sources like Breitbart, Forbes, etc. There is no debating this with you because you don’t even know what a study is. The “debunking” of the Cook study relies on counting non-climate scientists.
“He tries to argue that our paper is an outlier — is different to all the other studies in their estimates of the expert consensus,” Cook said. “But the way he arrives at the expert consensus is by using groups that include non-experts, which is a classic technique to try to obtain lower estimates of the scientific consensus.”
“When defining experts as scientists who actually study and publish on climate change — the people who are best qualified to take a position on the subject, in other words — the surveys consistently find consensus rates well above 90 percent.”
You are full of crap, an outright, 100% liar, incompetent on every subject. All you can do is copy and past links from right-wing garbage sites. You have proven you don’t understand probability, don’t understand confidence intervals, and don’t seem to understand why studies on the aggregate of all published work by experts is better in almost all cases than 1 random study. You are also weighting non-climate scientists equally with climate scientists, and more importantly, as always, lying and saying it proves climate scientists are not in agreement. As noted in the article many papers do not state a position The multiple polls I mentioned also support the over 95% of climate scientists being in agreement, and the recent IPCC paper supports 97-98%.
Now skip reading these, Google them, and post the first link without reading it and call it a study, like you always do.
June 8, 2016 at 5:52 pm
actu says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Bye Bobby, data, statistics and people who read the studies, time to declare victory, go post in other threads, link to Forbes and call it academic studies.
June 8, 2016 at 6:18 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
UW:
We can assume you know what I meant about the study, so instead of arguing how I said what I said, argue my data. Also, my “study” is a study of studies. It goes over them.
Moving on:
Do you know how to read? The 97% data statistic used data that was misleading, and 63% of the authors of the studies from your study, said that their studies were used in a misleading way. That 97% isn’t so 97% when the papers are misrepresented. My “study” is a compilation of all research papers regarding global warming.
What do you not understand about that? If 97% of all scientists agree that global warming is primarily man made why do only 65 out of ELEVEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND FORTY FOUR come to the conclusion that the primary factor of global warming is man made?
“Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.”
June 8, 2016 at 6:20 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
And by that we are talking studies for that total.
If 97% of scientists agree I would imagine we would have thousands of papers proving global warming is primarily man made, but it is in fact only .5%.
June 8, 2016 at 6:22 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“actu says:
Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 0
Thumb down 0
Bye Bobby, data, statistics and people who read the studies, time to declare victory, go post in other threads, link to Forbes and call it academic studies.
”
How was my data not data?
When I source quote Forbes, and they put a number, I use the number and come to a conclusion. Do you debate that out of 11,000 papers only about 50 came to the conclusion that global warming was primarily man made?
The one who didn’t look at the study was UW, when he quoted the 97%. I specifically proved that 63% of those scientists say the 97% number does not accurately represent their opinion. Do you disagree?
June 8, 2016 at 6:32 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“Now skip reading these, Google them, and post the first link without reading it and call it a study, like you always do.”
I do not skip reading your links. I often say how they are wrong and then you make crap up.
You do not get to talk to me like that and expect not to be called a moron. Back on topic:
Do you debate that 11,000 papers were written on climate change and only 50 showed evidence that climate change was man made?
That is what my link showed. Your links do not disprove that, so you’re the one who isn’t reading links.
Clearly the majority of scientists cannot believe the global warming is man made (97%) if .5% of papers say the same. The numbers don’t add up. My original statement is accurate and you have tried to derail it with new links, kicking the argument into other areas.
97% of scientists are not in agreement that 100% of climate change is man made.
I just finished reading your first link, and it does nothing to support it’s position other than basically saying that someone else included non experts, and then does not reference who it’s experts are. This means your study has narrowed which scientists can comment on climate change. How did they decide this? Do you know? Or did you just knee jerk accept that fact?
When reading through this his comment directly contradicts my study, and one has to be wrong.
Mine says:
“Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.”
Yours says:
” They also added that the 97.1 percent consensus established by the independent raters was further supported by a second phase of the study, which asked the authors of the examined papers to rate their own studies in regard to their positions on anthropogenic climate change. This self-rating phase returned a consensus of 97.2 percent.”
One of these two numbers is incorrect.
You believe it’s yours, you have no proof of that. Mine actually breaks down the numbers, yours just says vaguely that the wrong scientists were chosen without demographics.
Mine says the number of papers. Yours tries to dismiss that by association not by contradicting numbers by proving them. It is you who doesn’t read your own material, and you take vague comments as facts.
My link contained 97 links within it. If you can’t look at the 97 and then try to disregard it with one page that doesn’t even show it’s work, you have a problem buddy.
Is not a study you ignoramus. AGAIN, busted lying, as freaking always. And AGAIN 100% incompetent. You view Forbes blog posts as equivalent to peer reviewed studies because they confirm your beliefs. You complain that some publish work is authored by people who don’t have their degree and then post articles by people who aren’t even climate scientists, and aren’t peer reviewed. Also, since you clearly don’t know how academic research, or any research for that matter, works, I will tell you. These people are done with or mostly done with their coursework and do research. This is done with one or more professors in close consultation. They then submit it, and other experts in the field approve it before passing it on for at least a second round before publication. It is then rebutted in other work if people don’t agree with it, or confirmed.
I’ve already commented on the “debunking” of the Cook paper to one of your partners in stupidity, so just look that up; it’s confirmed by multiple polls of climate scientists and the reasons stated for criticizing them simply don’t hold up. The science is in and anywhere from 90-97% of climate scientists agree.
The fact that you genuinely seem to think that is a study is astounding and absurd, no wonder got but into so much BS. Stating that the authors disagree with the findings, and then saying only 4% responded AGAIN shows you are clueless, that’s an insanely small sample that almost has to suffer from response biad, which again is confirmed by later work by Cook, and by multiple large polls, and again you will deny without knowing what it means.
Also, Bob, when you have to constantly freak out and say to multiple people, “YOU %$&@# KNOW WHAT I MEANT WHAAA WHAAA,” it should be an indication your writing is pure crap once you start your meltdowns.
Finally:
“Whether or not you added a 110% upper interval (which actually increases the amount of human caused climate change, it does NOT decrease it so why the hell did you add that comment?) is irrelevant.”
This isn’t a thing, an “upper interval” is a Bob creation. You obviously have No Clue what a confidence interval is, so stop whining about math, and stop commenting on anything related to data, you aren’t competent.
I did not add what I assume you would call a lower interval, I mentioned an extreme value on the lower amount of climate change the confidence interval, based on peer reviewed literature, would attribute to humans. Don’t comment on it, because you clearly don’t know what it is.
You dismissed a massive study you didn’t read, and clearly didn’t understand, whined about people supposedly not having degrees and then linked to blog posts you called a study, all while showing close to 0% knowledge about statistics. You are a total clown, below an intellectual lightweight.
Now freak out, give in to your potential Aspergers and focus on the most irrelevant point, while ignoring the rest and pretending you are making sense.
June 9, 2016 at 12:17 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Bob, your article is garbage. The first article, one of the few academic studies (Tol) has been thoroughly debunked, and suffered from serious math problems, including the creation of 300 nonexistent rejection papers, as well as using the wrong sign, e.g. negative instead of positive. But, this paper “disproving” it also agreed the literature overwhelmingly supported the climate change hypothesis.
“Cook et al., 2013 (C13) found that 97% of relevant climate papers endorse anthropogenic global warming (AGW), consistent with previous independent studies. Tol, 2014 (T14) agrees that the scientific literature “overwhelmingly supports” AGW, but disputes C13’s methods. We show that T14’s claims of a slightly lower consensus result from a basic calculation error that manufactures approximately 300 nonexistent rejection papers. T14’s claimed impact on consensus due to the reconciliation process is of the wrong sign, with reconciliation resulting in a slight increase (<0.2%) in the consensus percentage. Allegations of data inconsistency are based on statistics unrelated to consensus. Running the same tests using appropriate consensus statistics shows no evidence of inconsistency. We confirm that the consensus is robust at 97 ± 1%."
You know nothing, every statement you make is wrong, dishonest, or thoroughly debunked everywhere outside the far right-wing bubble. You have proven you know nothing about statistics. All you can do is memorize a few talking points and paste your few bookmarked links you haven't read, and declare you are right and intelligent.
Also, do some research on what bullying and racism mean, because you clearly don't know.
June 9, 2016 at 12:40 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Allow me to show the work since you won’t. Your link clearly narrowed who was considered a scientist, and did not mention what that number was, or what qualified as a climate scientist.
Wall Street goes over why many studies are wrong. To show why the “who” of scientists is important, which again your link does not quantify, this one shows how one of them excluded all scientists except for 79 that they wanted to respond.
Another went over 200
Another was 39.5 percent or 1854
Then we have what wording did the study use? Was it that they believed man mad climate change simply existed? Was it that they found it to be catastrophic?
Let’s move forward why your study doesn’t hold water:
A petition in California signed by 31,000 people with education on the matter, 9,000 with phd’s do not find global warming to be a threat to the world. This was out of California alone, a liberal state.
So are you going to disregard 9,000 phd majors as not knowing what they are talking about for your cherry picked number that you can’t even tell me how many there were?
And then disregard the 11,000 papers, saying the argument your link cited, which is not credible and not quantified?
And you call me a fool UW????
Wake up kid. I do my research ten times better than you.
Also, Actu, stop mocking my name. I have not mocked your names. It is a sign of bullying, that you accuse me of.
This is the article I mentioned.
By the way UW: It mentions your IPCC number and why that doesn’t hold up.
June 9, 2016 at 12:47 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I’m going to add real quick here, because this is getting really old:
Both you and UW say I insult when proven wrong. Technically, you believe you just proved me wrong.
Were there swear words in my latest reply? Or was there anger, and then a bunch of facts telling you to show your work?
I give you chances to remove your insults and to focus on honest debate, and you insist on keeping them in while calling me “bobby” the bully.
Knock it off.
June 9, 2016 at 2:12 pm
actu says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
God you are a fucking idiot Bob. Your bullshit link cites meteorologists, it doesn’t change anything. It mentions stupid polls, but ignores the huge ones that have already been brought up. The petition in your article is of physicists and chemists, not climate scientists. Just STFU already. You didn’t even address his/her link shooting down your bullshit claim. This link is just like screaming NO. It has also been brought up that the papers don’t take a positive position saying it exists because it is accepted in the community, it would be like a physicist declaring they think gravity existed, eg stupid and unnecessary. The 97% claim is accurate. You agree with the 3% because you are a nutty insane conservative.
You have no reading comprehension. They didn’t exclude people they didn’t want to respond, people just didn’t respond. You deny the poll based on the wording even though you don’t know the wording. In your stupid “liberal state” petition only 0.1% of people had a background in climatology. It is propaganda and you bought into it like the stupid rube you are.
Just leave please.
June 9, 2016 at 2:53 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“God you are a fucking idiot Bob. Your bullshit link cites meteorologists, it doesn’t change anything. It mentions stupid polls, but ignores the huge ones that have already been brought up. The petition in your article is of physicists and chemists, not climate scientists. Just STFU already. You didn’t even address his/her link shooting down your bullshit claim.”
Yes I did. His link claimed that over 90% of the scientists agreed with the assessment of their claims. My link said 63% disagreed. One of them is wrong, his doesn’t cite who.
Moving on:
My poll does not ignore his studies. They are all separate and in addition to each other. We do not throw out pieces of information just because.
Do you deny that 11,000 papers were written on this matter and that only .3% drew the conclusion that climate change was majority man made?
That isn’t a poll. It is a study of studies, a compilation. If UW’s study is representative of ALL scientists, it needs to be ALL. It cannot be cherry picked people that you designate as specialists, and then disregard 9,000 phd majors who studied on the issue.
As a side comment: Only so many people can be accepted as climate scientists and get a career in that field. The amount of those in the field who get through are minimal, and have the SAME exact degree as the people you just said that should not be allowed to comment on the issue.
” It has also been brought up that the papers don’t take a positive position saying it exists because it is accepted in the community, it would be like a physicist declaring they think gravity existed, eg stupid and unnecessary.”
Wrong. Climate change is not like Gravity, when papers 10,000 papers study climate change and they all accept it occurs, the degree of which it is man made is completely relevant in the papers. Accepting that a majority of climate change is man made is not like gravity. It requires evidence.
“You have no reading comprehension. They didn’t exclude people they didn’t want to respond, people just didn’t respond. You deny the poll based on the wording even though you don’t know the wording. In your stupid “liberal state” petition only 0.1% of people had a background in climatology. It is propaganda and you bought into it like the stupid rube you are.
Just leave please.”
Screw you. You don’t get to talk to me like this. YOU need to clarify your poll wording, because it’s relevant. I clarified mine. And I just showed how the highest number we have have people involved with climate change, is 39.5%. Not 97%.
I have debunked the number. Get over it.
June 9, 2016 at 2:55 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I have given 97 links, 97, showing that the number is wrong.
But they are all just dumb people right?
They all gave numbers as to why it is wrong. Many dealt with the lies that UW’s paper cited, you didn’t read my links. They did go over what he said. I went over what he said. And I debunked it.
June 9, 2016 at 3:04 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“You have no reading comprehension. They didn’t exclude people they didn’t want to respond, people just didn’t respond. ”
When only 79 people respond, and they then ignore 31,000, they excluded the people they don’t want to respond.
You have reading comprehension skills. I made it pretty damn clear what I meant. They were finding ways to make the amount of credible scientists lower.
They didn’t seek out the 9,000 phd majors who deny it is majority man made, did they? And they then called it as you do, non credible. What do we call that actu?
That is excluding.
June 9, 2016 at 3:09 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Here, let me direct again what you said I didn’t:
“In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.
The scientists actually argued they had been misinterpreted. Two sources saying the same thing.
In UW’s source he tried to claim that over 90% of the people agreed with how they were represented but this is easily proven wrong. Then we just move forward and see that the person was clearly manipulating consensus.
June 9, 2016 at 3:05 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Are you done basically denying every single piece of evidence that shows there is not universal agreement on climate change?
Bob, are you through trying to reason with the likes of UW, Confused and Actu the robot? All of these young punks think they are smart and they have been brainwashed by liberal professors to think the way they do.
June 10, 2016 at 8:08 am
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
what a great (sarcastic) way to add to the conversation, agent! just keep posting insults to detract from the topics being discussed…stay classy.
June 3, 2016 at 4:21 pm
integrity matters says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13
3
They continue to push their agenda on a variety of fronts. Defunding fossil fuel companies by requiring private companies to not invest in them is the financial tactic.
The news yesterday showed that California lawmakers are trying to legislatively make it illegal to basically disagree with the Climate Change advocates under the Unfair Practices Law.
They are trying to make it illegal to even disagree with the “science” behind it. Watch out…soon they will make it illegal to believe in God since “science” can’t prove He exists.
integrity, we forgive you, but the word parsing trolls won’t. I got the gist of what you said and agree with you.
We really need to restore freedom in this country again. The Progressive side is doing everything they can to impose their will on the people. Good thing Obama is a short timer and the line up they have with either Hilliary or Bernie will not fly election time.
I am very concerned about this election because the uninformed voters and the dishonesty of the democratic party can easily swing people to Bernie or Hilliary.
Seriously, who in their right mind could possibly vote for HilLIARy?? With her bold face lies, corruption and ineptness, how can she possibly have as much of a following as she does?
Trump is no knight in shining armor but at least he doesn’t try to make excuses or blame other people.
People following Bernie fall basically into three camps:
1. They want free stuff and don’t want to work for it and think those who have earned it the old fashion way should be forced to share.
2. They have an ounce of sense and can’t bring themselves to vote for the corrupt liar, Hilliary.
3. They do not have common sense to figure out there is not enough money out there (from rich people or otherwise) to pay for everything Bernie is promising them.
“Trump is no knight in shining armor but at least he doesn’t try to make excuses or blame other people.”
Except for when the media plays a clip about something he said and he freaks out saying they are being unfair, or when he raped his wife because he was embarrassed about his bald spot and the work the plastic surgeon she recommended did, or when he talked about his dick in a debate because he “had to”, or when he went bankrupt multiple times, or when he got caught taking an illegal loan from his father to save his failed casino, or when he paid off a witness so they wouldn’t testify, or about 1,000 other incidents.
You are such a clueless fanatic living in a fantasy world.
You believe everything you read on the internet and what MSNBC tells you and you call me clueless and living in a fantasy world!!??!!!
I guess you really believe:
– it was a video that caused the Benghazi attack
– Hilliary told the truth about that video…for months
– Hilliary had permission to use a private server and really turned over all her emails and NOT ONE email she ever sent was classified or top secret
– Bill never had sex with Ms. Lewinsky
– Bernie really can pay for everything he is promising to give for free
– Obamacare is really working for the entire country.
You really need to perform a self-assessment on where you get your info and who you should believe. Their being correct or truthful “almost 100%” of the time doesn’t seem to be working for you.
June 6, 2016 at 10:27 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
4
10
“You believe everything you read on the internet and what MSNBC tells you and you call me clueless and living in a fantasy world!!??!!!”
No, you illiterate idiot, I believe the clips I see where he says it himself.
June 7, 2016 at 2:04 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
5
1
Calling the media unfair is not freaking out. It is what it is. If the media is so thin skinned to call it freaking out, the media is freaking out. We get the ability to question the media without being publicly destroyed on the right, thank you very much.
Oh yes, of course, he was embarrassed about his bald spot so raped his wife.
You are literally insane. You just say things, and you have no evidence of them. If you do I would love to see where Trump said he raped his wife.
June 9, 2016 at 12:55 am
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Bob, obviously Trump never said he raped his wife, idiot. She said it, under oath, and then a judge (presumably non-Mexican since he hasn’t whined about it, even though he’s not racist supposedly) granted her a divorce based on cruel and inhuman treatment of her. She has not recanted on her statements, and did not deny it when reported, she only said it was a marital spat. But, she can’t say anything about it now, because she had to sign a NDA in her settlement.
Of course Trump hasn’t commented on this lately, and even then you wouldn’t believe it unless it confirmed your predetermined beliefs, but his lawyer did say a man cannot rape his wife. Garbage supports garbage.
June 9, 2016 at 2:08 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“Bob, obviously Trump never said he raped his wife, idiot. She said it, under oath, and then a judge (presumably non-Mexican since he hasn’t whined about it, even though he’s not racist supposedly) granted her a divorce based on cruel and inhuman treatment of her. She has not recanted on her statements, and did not deny it when reported, she only said it was a marital spat. But, she can’t say anything about it now, because she had to sign a NDA in her settlement. ”
I didn’t question whether or not he said it. I questioned whether or not it was real.
The only statements on the matter that say the bald spot section is from a guy who wrote a book about it, and she herself told the guy his account was incorrect.
He claimed he was writing what she recanted to close friends. She claimed that is not what she said.
The bald comment statement is complete heresy.
You just believe what you want to though, without looking things up, the first google search you do, don’t you? I’m going to throw that back at you.
June 9, 2016 at 2:24 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I’m such an idiot aren’t I UW?
It sounds like you’re having a hard time with me when I refuse to back down.
You said she never recanted the statements. You were wrong.
You gave a 97% number, I then asked what we should go by, published papers on the matter? The 63% of scientists that say their conclusion was misrepresented in the 97%?
70 some handpicked specialists, who I’m sure were selected to push the agenda?
Let’s just face the facts here, you can’t just narrow down which scientists are credible, or like Sanders say you will prosecute climate change deniers, and ignore 31,000 people with experience on the matter, or 11,000 papers by saying that climate change is the default given and that therefore the papers wouldn’t point it out (that’s what your source said, and it’s wrong).
We focus on numbers, data, and evidence. Not restricted and controlled information.
If you want to give a source that says 97% of all scientists agree, when 31,000 do not you cannot say “well they aren’t the scientists we are talking about, 97% of REAL scientists agree”
This is what we call the “no true Scotsman” Theory. Go ahead, call me an idiot again while I use advanced terminology and break down why you’re wrong.
You look foolish as all hell.
June 9, 2016 at 2:44 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
While you may not like it, when he mentioned the Mexican heritage he was worried his comments about illegal immigration and being labeled a racist might affect anyone with Mexican background from being able to be non partisan.
How does the saying go, a party of your peers?
Even if he were racist when he said that, that would REINFORCE that the judge shouldn’t be the one on the case.
Do you understand that or no? He isn’t racist though. He knows the public’s perception of him and is worried they are attempting to destroy him. This does not make him racist.
Moving on: This same judge has Hillary Clinton ties, and chose to make the case public, then apologized when he made certain aspects public that he was not supposed to (oops!) and you think it has nothing to do with either Clinton or the judge wanting to take down a perceived racist?
You are hardly impartial in that scenario.
Let’s say we took an all white jury against a black man. Could we trust it was an unbiased decision in the 1800’s?
You’re basically just a fool.
June 6, 2016 at 1:37 pm
insurance is fun! says:
Like or Dislike:
3
9
So the party of Lincoln, who in campaigns wants to appear to be anti-racist, is falling lock-step behind a racist. As McConnell says, “anything to win back the White House.”
Try to get your facts straight, fun. The KKK has its roots in the democratic party.
And, if people would take there blinders off, they could see that today’s democrats are using a different form of slavery. It’s called welfare.
The more people they can get to receive handouts, the more the population will be dependent upon the government.
Apparently, todays democrats do not subscribe to JFK’s philosophy of “ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country.”
The American dream used to be wide open for a person to pursue. Now the American dream is an Obamaphone and free healthcare and food stamps. The more the democrats want to hand out, the more the population realizes they can get something for doing nothing.
June 6, 2016 at 2:43 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
4
7
integrity matters,
Interesting that you said, “Apparently, todays democrats do not subscribe to JFK’s philosophy of ‘ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country.'” Yet, in the same post, you stated, “The KKK has its roots in the democratic party.”
Does this mean that the Democrats have or have not changed their philosophical beliefs over time? Or do you just pick and choose to support your narrative?
June 6, 2016 at 3:25 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
9
1
Ron,
Insurance is fun! is insinuating that those who will support Trump in the election are somehow racist because of his Muslim comments.
That would be like me saying that everyone who backs Hilliary is a lying felon. I am almost 100% certain that many of her supporters are not a lying felon. I am almost 100% certain that some are lying felons.
The KKK comment was to remind him/her that racist roots in this country go back to the democratic party and the suppression of black Americans is well documented.
Kennedy’s statement was trying to get people to be the masters of their own destiny and not look to the government to support them. His unfortunate demise resulted in Lyndon Johnson increasing social welfare. Every democratic president since then has been “raising the bar” on how much they can give out because they know it gets them elected. Therefore, todays democrats do not believe that Americans should be trying to help the country instead of taking from the country.
People in general change their beliefs over time. Do political ideologies change? Are democrats purposely suppressing minorities because they are racist or simply because they want to be elected and know they have a better chance if they promote it under the guise that they are “trying to help them”?
I don’t have that answer but, it’s hard to believe the democrats when they lie so much directly to your face.
June 6, 2016 at 4:15 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
10
whoa. welfare is a form of slavery? slavery means involuntary servitude and welfare is voluntary, right? furthermore, involuntary slavery is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person’s will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker’s financial needs. by the US’s legal and constitutional definition, since welfare is about financial needs, it cannot be called slavery.
June 6, 2016 at 4:21 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
10
additionally, nobody is FORCED into welfare – people have to qualify and apply for it, and it is not binding. name me one person who applied to be a slave and had a non-binding agreement with their master. i would have agreed with you more had you said prisoners are slaves, though.
June 7, 2016 at 1:59 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
“Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 12
Thumb down 4
integrity matters,
Interesting that you said, “Apparently, todays democrats do not subscribe to JFK’s philosophy of ‘ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country.’” Yet, in the same post, you stated, “The KKK has its roots in the democratic party.”
Does this mean that the Democrats have or have not changed their philosophical beliefs over time? Or do you just pick and choose to support your narrative?
”
Those are not contradictory statements and do not imply a change.
You can be a racist and believe you should ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.
The two statements are not at all linked. Next absurd statement please?
June 7, 2016 at 2:02 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
Ron,
So you seem to be implying that there was a flip, and you yourself pick and choose, and then you claim it was integrity based on a comment that had nothing to do with racism.
Let’s ignore the civil rights bill of 1957, let’s ignore that more republicans supported the bill in 1964, and that if republicans in the south wanted to continue racism they would not have supported the people supporting it,
Let’s just magically say a flip happened. Of course.
The south flipped due to religious leanings when it became clear the democrats were going for abortion and other issues. That is why they flipped.
There was always racism in the south, but not enough to affect the elections and flip them for the next 60 years. That is insane to suggest.
June 8, 2016 at 6:37 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
By the way Ron:
In an old post I just saw, but it is dead you asked if I would question Agent’s reading comprehension now.
My answer is no. He did not fail to understand what I said. He understood it and failed to understand why I would side with Gary Johnson. That is not a reading comprehension issue.
I direct agent often when I believe he’s wrong, and he says stuff like that often.
Moving on: You asked me why I was voting for Trump instead of Gary Johnson and why I don’t vote for who I want to…You’re saying that to get Clinton to win. I know it for a fact. It shows how dishonest and willing you are to do anything to get a democrat into office.
Do you know how I know that?
You said you voted Obama twice. You said you are for smaller government and couldn’t vote for Romney.
Guess who ran as a libertarian in 2012? Please guess Ron, won’t you please please guess?
Gary Johnson. Why didn’t you vote for him, Ron?
I imagine being the image person you are you thought you finally found a way to get people like me out of the way for Clinton to win. Send us to Gary Johnson and say we aren’t moderates if we don’t vote for him. A libertarian would never risk a Hillary win. Ever.
She’s not winning this election, and thus I won’t vote Gary Johnson.
June 9, 2016 at 12:27 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
integrity, correct on the roots of the KKK. The dishonorable Senator Robert Byrd (D) West Virginia put the sheets on and rode the ponies and was unapologetic about it until on his death bed. Lyndon Johnson had to use all his political skills to get Democrats to vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Democrats have always held black people down and try to continue to do it today.
June 9, 2016 at 12:02 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
integrity, you are correct of course. I found it interesting that Oblama said he was going to endorse Hilliary and campaign for her while his own DOJ & FBI are investigating her criminal activities. Oblama doesn’t seem to know or care about conflicts of interest, does he?
Progressive Socialist Democrats are the worst forms of human life in this country. Now UW, feel free to downthumb me about 100 times.
There are several meanings of slavery. There are a couple that correlate to my point.
Bondage: the state of being bound by or subjected to some external power or control.
For those that choose to live off the government (and for some, it is a choice), it is a form of bondage. Some try to get off of welfare but can’t because if they work harder and make a little more money, they end up losing the assistance they initially received so that the net effect harms them. It disincentivizes them to better themselves.
Another definition is “the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune.”
In this example, the government has power over the persons life, liberty and fortune by controlling how much money and food stamps they can get. While this is not absolute power, it is power nonetheless. The government becomes enablers of laziness and complacency.
Generations of people have become enslaved to the government handout because that is what they are told they can get for free. For some, that is an acceptable way of life because complaining is easier than working hard. Do they prefer to have a better life? Of course. Are they willing to do whatever it takes to get out of that situation? For some, the answer is yes and for others, no.
The incentive should be to become self-sustaining and self-reliant, not dependent on some other person or entity.
Why are there so many college educated adults still living at home with their parents? Because they can! Un and under employment certainly play a role, but I know too many millennials that won’t take a job if they feel it is beneath them (or their education).
It may not be “involuntary slavery” from a constitutional perspective, but I still believe it is a “form” of slavery.
It seems that UW is a bit more edgy and abrasive than usual. I suspect it’s due to the compounding bad news about Hillary’s legal and ethical issues. Especially troubling to UW must be the news of the Tell-All book by the Secret Service agent assigned to the Clintons (Byrne) that is due out in a few weeks.
The Solar & Wind energy stocks UW has been holding will tank soon after the general election, when Hill & Bill will be forced to ride off into the sunset, never to be seen as a force on the US political scene again.
All this has been what caused UW to double down on personal attacks on the pesky ‘Climate Change Doubters’. …. and those bots are out, again!
Yes, I have one question; who do you nominate when the FBI investigation of Hillary concludes she violated several laws? Ignore the possibility that Loretta Lynch will disregard the FBI suggestion to indict her, as Lynch will have to protect Obama from the testimony that would ensue.
In the unbelievably minuscule chance that Hillary IS indicted, I honestly don’t think it will matter. People won’t necessarily vote for her because they like her, but many will vote for her because she is Not Trump. If she somehow were forced to pull out, which again, is such a long shot it’s not even worth discussing, Biden could jump in and win in a landslide. For all of his faults, he would be the most attractive candidate in this whole mess.
Many others, myself included, will sit out this election altogether. I absolutely refuse to choose between either of the two candidates, and I honestly don’t know enough about the libertarian candidate yet.
Pick your poison, folks! Either way, the next 4 years are going to be crazy.
People felt the same way about Reagan during his initial election that they do about Trump. Reagan brought this country back to prosperity after double digit inflation and interest rates.
Trump was not my first or second choice, but I feel this country will be better off with him than with the HilLIARy.
She has no trouble lying to the public to get her way and thinks she is above the law. I have no doubt that she and Wild Bill have benefitted financially from selling favors to foreign countries. I think Trump loves and respects this country too much to ever stoop that low.
June 7, 2016 at 3:29 pm
louie says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Yes, I do realize people thought that way about Reagan, however there are MANY differences between Trump and Reagan.
for example, Reagan:
1). had actual political experience
2). had not been sued literally hundreds of times in his life
3). never called for an entire class of people to be banned from our country based on their religion
4). was a unifier, not a divider.
5). was generally liked by women instead of loathed
6). was not a racist
7). knew how to compromise (see Tip O’Neil)
8). never discussed the size of his manhood in public
9). never got into public feuds with others
10). had a clue about foreign policy.
11). was not a conspiracy theorist (birth certificate, anyone?)
12). knew what he stood for and why he stood for what he did.
13). accepted that he wasn’t always right
14). Did not want to spend billions on a wall which realistically would never be built anyway.
15). was not afraid to release his tax records.
Reagan was not perfect, but Trump couldn’t come CLOSE to him in the character department. Trump is an absolute embarrassment to the GOP and our country as a whole. I say this as a registered Republican.
June 7, 2016 at 3:56 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
4
1
Louie,
Thanks for your reply. I apologize. I did not mean to imply that Trump was like Reagan in character or otherwise; just that some people loathed him (one co-worker swore he was the anti-Christ because each of his names had 6 letters) and made false accusations similar to Trump. He went on to become one of the best Presidents we ever had.
My point is that, with all the things you listed being wrong with Trump, HilLIARy or Bernie would be that and worse.
This country cannot afford (politically or financially) either democratic candidate to be elected. Trump is the better alternative even with his faults.
Trump has a better chance at having the rest of the world respect this country again. HilLIARy did not have any respect from the rest of the world when she was Secretary of State and will sell us out and Bernie will make us so financially weak, it is scary.
June 7, 2016 at 4:12 pm
louie says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
my apologies, as I re-read your post I realize you actually weren’t comparing Trump and Reagan. Reading comprehension isn’t my strongest suit.
That being the case, I gave 15 reasons why I could never vote for Trump. I’m sure I could come up with just as many for Hillary and Bernie.
Methinks we’re screwed either way.
June 8, 2016 at 8:05 am
Yogi Polar Berra says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
@louie; apparently, you missed the part in my comment where I said “ignore the possibility that Loretta Lynch will disregard…”.
I do not doubt the crooked Dems will nominate ‘The Queen of Corruption'(Huckabee’s term for her).
But, please explain how Biden would win in a landslide when he enters the race in July.
Many negatives on both candidates means the one who gets out the vote will win. And, Bernie supporters are not happy about the crooked Dem’s rigged Super Delegate system determining the race before it began. If Trump woos them (Bernie supporters) effectively, he wins it by a hyuuuge margin. Otherwise, it will be a close election, with a historically low turnout of registered voters.
Hillary for Prison Resident, 2016-36.
June 8, 2016 at 10:31 am
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
5
1
Yogi –
I LOVE the Hilliary for Prison Resident 2016-2036! I literally LOL’d.
I can’t wait to share it!
June 9, 2016 at 12:21 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I hate to tell you this Louie, but if Hilliary is indicted, her campaign is over. She might try to gracefully withdraw due to health reasons since that cough keeps getting worse. Personally, I would love for her to be fitted with that orange jump suit prior to the convention.
Not you, louie, Yogi is the one who has obviously snorted too much Hannity.
June 7, 2016 at 4:23 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
5
0
Stop mocking entire sources and individuals, and start focusing on individual pieces of information.
Watching Hannity does not make someone wrong. If they quoted a bad fact they would be wrong.
I imagine you focus on Hannity becaues you have nothing else to focus on fact wise.
June 8, 2016 at 8:10 am
Yogi Polar Berra says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
@Bob; Louie, etc. have blamed the messengers for the bad news about their candidates.
I follow what the actual candidates say, and not what the media reports with their spin. I listen for bad or misleading questions and how the person responds.
Unfortunately, neither Trump nor Hillary have said anything that gives me comfort. My vote will be based on which candidate gives me the least amount of discomfort about the future under their administration, and the SCOTUS judges they will seat during their term(s) in office.
Cough, cough, cough!
June 8, 2016 at 12:42 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Yogi,
I agree, this is why I’ve even said of Trump that he speaks like a complete jerk.
At least Sanders is gone now.
I’m sad to say I only slightly prefer Trump to Hillary even.
June 8, 2016 at 10:13 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
4
1
Yogi, wow, what a lively discussion going on between the Right and the Wrong. I don’t know if you caught the recent interview between Megyn Kelley and Trump. They have appeared to have mended the fences after a rough several months.
One thing that was telling about the questions and answers was Trump saying he was a counter puncher and when he is attacked, he hits back “hard”. I have never seen the amount of vitriol perpetrated by the media and pundits against a Presidential candidate. The establishment politicians are in mortal fear of this man and the left is going absolutely berserk that they might be seeing the beginning of the end of their gravy train.
Is he crude and vulgar at times? Yes! Will he be better to restore the country to strength and protect our citizens from our enemies? Absolutely! We can’t afford to allow Hilliary to continue Obama’s policies for another 4-8 years.
can you find any evidence that the disabled reporter hit/attacked trump first or can you admit trump doesn’t always counter-punch and is the first person to make an insult at times too?
“Now the poor guy — you ought to see the guy: ‘Uhh I don’t know what I said. I don’t remember!’ He’s going, ‘I don’t remember! Maybe that’s what I said.’” While quoting Kovaleski, Trump jerked his arms and body and held his hands in a claw-like manner reminiscent of the disease’s symptom.
June 8, 2016 at 8:15 pm
Yogi Polar Berra says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I agree Trump mocked that reporter.
However, that pales in comparison to lying to relatives of the victims in Benghazi, and lying to EVERYONE investigating the use of an unsecured private email server in a closet that exposed US intel to foreign hackers and imperiled US covert agents (i.e. their ID and locations WERE exposed to our enemies).
Pick your poison. I’ll pick the less harmful one, that won’t steer the US down the road to ruin.
June 8, 2016 at 8:18 pm
Yogi Polar Berra says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
PS Hillary mocked a rape victim when she was a defense council who succeeded in protecting the defendant. You can look up the details. I doubt you will.
June 9, 2016 at 4:39 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
i didn’t know that, and i just read up about it. i didn’t see where she mocked the victim though. her laughter was about the validity of polygraph tests. can you provide me with some kind of text or quote that supports hillary mocked the victim and not just how bad lie detector tests are?
June 7, 2016 at 2:06 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
I suspect I might have made him angry when I used link after link the last argument we got into, and his world is crumbling.
He knows if he is wrong, then he has been an asinine, indoctrinated, fool, and he cannot allow that to be the case.
Unlike me, when I said I was a liberal and a fool, and I became clever due to being an idiot, for him to admit he was an idiot would destroy him.
I kind of feel sorry for the guy, but he’s the type who will flip given time.
What link was that, the one where Trump was quoted saying what you denied he said, causing you to lie, rationalize, and then disappear when I, and others, provided a video of him saying it — something you have done MULTIPLE times?
Or was it when you said for the 20th time unemployment rate was actually up due to labor force participation being destroyed by Obama, only to ignore the studies predicting this based on demographics? Oh wait, that happened multiple times too.
Was it when you were wrong about minimum wage, linked showing Hoover was forced into it during the Great Depression, and then lied about reading the comprehensive modern study I presented, lied about looking into the author, and then said you read it and incorrectly summarized it, after dismissing it because it was from a top economics program you called “liberal”? Weird, coming from a guy who considers all equally and goes on facts.
Wait, maybe when you said the GOP wasn’t obstructionist, they aren’t mainly trying to weaken Obamacare, and presented an article where all the first examples tried to weaken Obamacare, nor were they job bills like you claimed, and then whined when I actually cited the bills you provided as proof?
Funny you alternate between saying the main problem in the US is being too PC, whining about anybody who curses or calls people names, and then instantly start cursing out anybody who disagrees with you, calling them names, and using terms that are supposed to be dismissive, but are also arguably racist, boy.
Wait, I just noticed a pattern, you don’t know anything, and cannot resist the urge to compulsively lie!
“What link was that, the one where Trump was quoted saying what you denied he said, causing you to lie, rationalize, and then disappear when I, and others, provided a video of him saying it — something you have done MULTIPLE times? ”
And you just lied again, your video did not disprove what I said. I did not lie and rationalize. There are two quotes Trump said. In your video does Trump say we need to “kill” the family members of Muslims, or does it say we need to go after their families? When that statement was made he was talking about tracking families of Muslims.
On another he mentioned killing Muslims who were used as human shields. That one he used the word kill.
You have LIED yet again! How many times do I have to point out your video DOES NOT prove what you said it did!
You have to insert words or concepts, if Trump didn’t say it, HE DID NOT SAY IT.
“Wait, I just noticed a pattern, you don’t know anything, and cannot resist the urge to compulsively lie!”
Provide the video again, let’s reanimate this debate here and now. I’m not lying, but you are. You’re using that past fight as a way to discredit me, despite the fact that I have gone over what I said more than 10 times, so you’re either VERY forgetful, or you are doing it intentionally to mislead people.
I’ll start the argument again:
Trump has never said that he will KILL random Muslim families. Provide your source, NOW.
Give me the video.
Then I will retort he did not say he would “kill” he said you “have to go after these people’s families” and in the perspective of the separate conversations people are having now regarding Trump, he could have easily been talking about people who were living with their families and we didn’t even check those areas for terrorists.
This is insane UW, you lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, and repeat the same argument on that lie, again and again.
“Funny you alternate between saying the main problem in the US is being too PC, whining about anybody who curses or calls people names, and then instantly start cursing out anybody who disagrees with you, calling them names, and using terms that are supposed to be dismissive, but are also arguably racist, boy.”
List one racist comment I have made.
I do NOT instantly curse when someone disagrees, I instantly curse when someone lies, bashes my image, distorts my message, and then calls me a racist, you dumb fuck.
Cause, and affect. You then attack the fact that I said insults. Boo hoo, grow up!
“Was it when you were wrong about minimum wage, linked showing Hoover was forced into it during the Great Depression, and then lied about reading the comprehensive modern study I presented, lied about looking into the author, and then said you read it and incorrectly summarized it, after dismissing it because it was from a top economics program you called “liberal”? Weird, coming from a guy who considers all equally and goes on facts. ”
Let’s break this down item by item:
What do you mean by the first item? That I proved that the great depression could have been worsened by an increased wage during the depression? If the middle class is where we build from, outward, then a wage increase should produce results even in a recession, because they are the ones who have no cash, the richest generally get richer in recessions, if they survive the crash. Those with cash, grow fast in those scenarios. The depression is a good example. The increased wage didn’t work. Building from the middle out doesn’t work, because you’re taking from the productivity that doesn’t exist. It’s not possible. Are you instead trying to say Hoover was FORCED into a wage increase?
CITATION NEEDED ASSHOLE. Here, let me do it for you TWO items he himself pushed for to increase prevailing wage during the depression:
“Politicians who followed Ford but had not yet heard of John Maynard Keynes thought the same high-wage policy might work across the economy. President Herbert Hoover liked the idea enough that within months of the 1929 crash he hauled business leaders to Washington to browbeat them into sustaining higher wages. Ford actually committed to raising pay, to $7 a day from $6. Within two years Hoover also signed the Davis-Bacon Act, which mandated that government offices fulfilling construction contracts in various regions pay the “prevailing wage” for the workmen’s trade and for the region. The act put additional upward pressure on wages at a time when the economy could ill afford that. Unemployment abided and rose, rather than disappearing, as it had in a depression of the early 1920s.”
And then lied about a comprehensive study? Are you seriously talking about the guy I mentioned from your study, I told you it was ONE study, and there were many that showed your modern study was not the only opinion? That isn’t lying buddy, it’s called discourse asshole!!!! Also: I did NOT incorrectly summarize it. Again, citation needed, because your memory is in question here, especially seeing how much I’m correcting you on my statements, ASSHOLE
This is what you’re talking about. I mentioned Hooever, you mentioned some studies, and I told you for every study you found claiming the wage had no affect, I could find ones that show it do. I then questioned your business skills. Can you prove how many firms it stopped from existing? I don’t think you can.
Notice in this you asked a question: Why do big corporations pay no taxes?
Easy answer? During 2008 time frame they were allowed to write of major losses. The majority of corporations pay huge sums, and the ones who pay low U.S. rates, pay high total rates. Incentivizing them to come home then makes sense, not raising rates more.
Now I’m reanimating a 6 month old debate. This is old kid. Grow up.
“and I told you for every study you found claiming the wage had no affect, I could find ones that show it do”
Yes, but one of your major problems is recognizing that just because you say something does not mean it is true; in fact, based on your history the smart money is on it being false, kid.
You can present studies showing it to be false, but I presented a study, which you STILL don’t seem to comprehend. This study looked at ALL the modern published work on the subject and found that overwhelmingly they did not support the claim that increasing minimum wage by this amount would lead to a loss in jobs. They found that the large, more rigorous studies were clustered around no job losses, and few studies that did find job losses from an increase in the minimum wage used small data sets, less rigorous methods, and had results that were far away from the other studies. Or, in other words, they were garbage. Of course, these few, less rigorous studies, with less data, are what you cling to over the vast preponderance of the evidence. This is because you are an ideologue, and studies and data do not matter to you. You look for studies to confirm your beliefs, and then cling to them no matter what the data shows.
“Provide the video again,”
No you clueless moron, it has been provided at least 4 times by multiple people and you just ignore it. I’m not going to waste my time on a full blown retard, who suffers from severe mental instability. Learn how to use a search engine if you refuse to look at the first 4-5 times the video is linked. The same goes for the study I mentioned, which others were able to find.
“I didn’t say kill. We have to go after them.”
Bullshit, but the exact explanation an apologist would accept. He said, “Frankly, that will make people think, because they may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families’ lives.” And then said we had to take them out; there is no logical way to say they don’t care about their lives, but do care about their families’ lives, so we should take out their families, and then deny he meant killing them. There is nothing else in that context he could mean.
“Yeah, totally, we have a Hitler in Trump don’t we?”
He has also said he consider nuclear bombs to go after terrorists — something that could not be done without killing tens of thousands of civilians.
“These insults are not equivalent to a rapist, a sexist, a racist, a murderer, a fascist, anti women, anti black, anti poor, anti earth, anti Hispanic, anti Muslim, Genocidal Hitler reincarnated, middle class hating and enslaving, person.
Those insults are ALWAYS reserved for communists who seek to basically be ASSHOLES and start wars.”
Again, stupid beyond belief, and an indication of how uneducated you are, despite the clear fact you estimate your IQ somewhere in the range of 200. Fascists aren’t communists, so of course, you use it for fascists who are communists, and a bunch of other incomprehensible nonsense.
“I would knock your head in if we ever met. Not physically. I mean give you an earful that I’m sure you’re not used to receiving because you’re just an online coward!”
You have already threatened me with violence, so I do not believe you. Of course, you would go on a 45 minute, nonsensical, completely factually incorrect rant, and consider it a big schooling, because that is what uneducated, pompous, mentally unstable nuts do.
Also, ignoramus, the guy, Ohanian, who writes the BS “analysis” about Hoover you keep citing is a crank, and his work has been thoroughly debunked. Look up “Delong Ohanian” for some short easy articles you might even be able to understand. One thing he does, for example, is say New Deal policies created less work for people than there would have been otherwise, but he excludes government jobs. He is a fraud, so of course you cite him. Also, again, for maybe the 2 dozenth time, a president in the Great Depression adding a minimum wage does not mean, imply, or even hint at increasing the minimum wage leading to a decrease in jobs. You are looking at it below an elementary level, excluding almost every relevant variable. You do this because you are incompetent and dishonest.
Honestly, you are beyond clueless, and I am done with you, because as I stated you are a nut, and I think you are severely mentally unstable. You are even threatening violence, and then pulling it back right away so you don’t look bad, even though you never seemed to mind threatening violence before.
Get psychiatric help.
June 9, 2016 at 4:01 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
““I didn’t say kill. We have to go after them.”
Bullshit, but the exact explanation an apologist would accept. He said, “Frankly, that will make people think, because they may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families’ lives.” And then said we had to take them out; there is no logical way to say they don’t care about their lives, but do care about their families’ lives, so we should take out their families, and then deny he meant killing them. There is nothing else in that context he could mean. ”
Not bullshit. The video never said the word kill.
You are acting like a stubborn brat. I watched your link, it was taken into consideration when I posted, even a buffoon would have realized that, as I referred to two quotes he said including your quote, and showed how they were blurred. One he referred to killing by name, the other he said you “have to go after their families”. This is a verifiable fact if you looked at the video you claim you watched. Did he say the word kill, UW?
It is not apologist to say what I am. You gave a link which you said proved he would kill people, that never said the word kill. And when I said your video never said the word kill, you said I never watched the video. I even quoted your video! How could I have not watched it?
Come off it kid!
June 9, 2016 at 4:10 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Bob,
If he did not mean kill when he said “we have to take them (family members of terrorists) out”, when referencing that terrorists only care about the LIVES of their families, then what did he mean? Take them out to dinner and a movie? Throw them in jail?
June 9, 2016 at 4:17 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Ron,
That is debatable, isn’t it Ron? Denying them entry is going after them, that is going after their lives.
Literally searching their houses, is affecting their lives instead of backing off on the issue.
The point here is that he said the word kill was used and then berated me.
You can disagree, that is fine, but to call someone a liar about it?
Not ok. You just excused his actions I might add, and I demand you take a position on his actions and say he’s wrong for how he’s treating me on this issue.
You stand up when it’s a liberal, if you want me to keep replying to you I need to see you know when something is wrong.
June 9, 2016 at 4:20 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Ron:
Also very likely:
Sanctions. This could easily mean sanctions. Punishing the society that does not take account for their people.
He mentioned once stopping oil buying to encourage them to fight their own wars and stand up to the terrorists in their nation.
That is also punishment and going after their families, especially in a businessman’s eyes.
Sanctions cause deaths I might add, and my bet is he knows this. His speech is poor but there is simply no way that Trump is what you guys are portraying him as. It is literally an impossibility.
June 9, 2016 at 4:27 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
The bottom line is that when proving something, we don’t err on the side of ludicrosity.
Now I can see why you support Trump. You are both very thin-skinned bullies.
Is anyone justified in falsely calling someone else a liar? Obviously not.
How about a compromise? Can we agree that the phrase “take them out” could easily be interpreted as “kill”?
None of your interpretations of Trump’s words make any real sense. Searching the homes of the families of terrorists? Sanctions against the families of terrorists? Keeping the families of terrorists out of the country?
He may not have used the word “kill”, but to think he meant anything else is either naiveté or ignorance. I’ll let you choose which you prefer.
Why would I ever back you up after the way you have treated me and many others over the years. You have shown zero respect and have constantly insulted, threatened and demeaned me. In addition, you take my posts out of context, put words in my mouth, and used rhetoric over facts in order to make your narrative work.
You are in no position to demand anything of me. You are a bully, period.
June 10, 2016 at 3:24 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“Bob,
Now I can see why you support Trump. You are both very thin-skinned bullies.
Is anyone justified in falsely calling someone else a liar? Obviously not.
How about a compromise? Can we agree that the phrase “take them out” could easily be interpreted as “kill”?
None of your interpretations of Trump’s words make any real sense. Searching the homes of the families of terrorists? Sanctions against the families of terrorists? Keeping the families of terrorists out of the country?
He may not have used the word “kill”, but to think he meant anything else is either naiveté or ignorance. I’ll let you choose which you prefer.
Why would I ever back you up after the way you have treated me and many others over the years. You have shown zero respect and have constantly insulted, threatened and demeaned me. In addition, you take my posts out of context, put words in my mouth, and used rhetoric over facts in order to make your narrative work.
You are in no position to demand anything of me. You are a bully, period.”
Let’s take this apart:
Is anyone justified in falsely calling someone a liar? Yes. If it is accidental and without malicious intent. You’re trying for your image again. My issue here is not that he called me a liar. It is that I keep giving him evidence that he doesn’t agree with, and thus he calls me a liar and uses it to discredit me on unrelated topics. He keeps bringing up the Trump issue and I keep on having to show I wasn’t lying about it.
No. We cannot err on the side of it “possibly” meant to kill. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We do not find reasons to call something racism or murderous in intent.
Each of my comments make sense. Literally each one. Going after their families makes sense in each of those contexts if you consider that we don’t currently search family households in other countries and often back away. Bin Laden was where we thought he was, and we didn’t mount a search in fear of violating families. The reports saying where he was located were true, even as the leaders of the countries he was in denied it.
To think he meant kill without the word kill is naive and ignorance. We don’t shape meanings even if they sound like they could possibly be with murderous intent, to the side of murderous intent. I’ll tell you what, if he tries to pass a law with murderous intent I will go against it and so will the public at large. So his comments here on this no, we will not just compromise and assume he will kill Muslims until he approaches such a law. It is more dangerous to try to do a pc war to keep people out of office and start political wars than it is to allow people into office who could also be good.
Fuck you. I am not a bully because I demanded you to stand up for me, when I’m being assaulted. You’re the bully for then throwing that in my face.
You are demanded when you walk into a conversation that is exploding against someone, to support them if you usually support the other side.
Why should I converse with someone who is watching my head get slammed in, and then constantly berates me on the other side of the coin Ron? I have ZERO obligation to reply to you, yet I do.
Quite the contrary, YOU thin skinned bully, I HAVE NO OBLIGATION to reply to your facts. But when I don’t, you then say I run off when someone contradicts me (method of bullying here) to ensure that when I don’t reply I have a negative image.
Don’t fuck around with me Ron. I’m getting tired of this bully label when I call you on shit.
Just knock it off.
June 10, 2016 at 3:54 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Bob,
In your mind, there is no way “take them out” could be interpreted as “kill”? You are not even willing to concede that as a possibility?
I will stop calling you a bully when you stop acting like one. Swearing at me and demanding I do things are the actions of a bully, period. You can rationalize it all you want.
When have ever defended me against the attacks from Agent, Yogi Polar Berra, or yourself? How are those OK? Of course I am not weak and would never ask for someone else to come to my defense.
You have brought the attacks upon yourself based on the language you have been using for years on this blog. Try actually being reasonable, stop insulting and threatening others, using curse words and making demands. If you do not think you engage in these behaviors, you very well may be a psychopath in addition to being a bully.
June 10, 2016 at 4:44 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“In your mind, there is no way “take them out” could be interpreted as “kill”? You are not even willing to concede that as a possibility?”
We do not label a possibility as a fact. Won’t you admit to the possibility that Obama could be a closet Muslim? See what I did there?
I will stop calling you a bully when you stop acting like one. Swearing at me and demanding I do things are the actions of a bully, period. You can rationalize it all you want.”
Saying fuck you I’m not a bully, is not a bully action. Demanding you to stand up for me before I reply to you, is not the action of a bully. End of story Ron, and I’ll say it again: FUCK YOU. We will start with square one and square one is you don’t use labels with me when we talk about issues. When someone is ranting at me and insulting like crazy, and you’re not standing up for me at all and join in, you are by default supporting the bully if you don’t make comment on it, and then call me one. It’s not acceptable.
“When have ever defended me against the attacks from Agent, Yogi Polar Berra, or yourself? How are those OK? Of course I am not weak and would never ask for someone else to come to my defense.”
I have, and I might add none of those people have gone as far as what UW is doing right now. Agent has not bullied you. You have insulted his reading comprehension and he has replied in kind. You two fight. And occasionally I tell him to knock it off.
You have have an explosion on your hands, and in order to defend your actions you are trying to justify them. Bullying is bullying, right Ron? Period?
“You have brought the attacks upon yourself based on the language you have been using for years on this blog. Try actually being reasonable, stop insulting and threatening others, using curse words and making demands. If you do not think you engage in these behaviors, you very well may be a psychopath in addition to being a bully.”
In correct. This is victim blaming right here. I constantly try to pull the conversation back to facts, as I am now, and then you say a label again and again “you are a bully period”.
When I say all caps “FOCUS ON MY FACTS” it is not out of line. You just generalized my demand to not be bullied as being the type of person who makes demands, you just generalized my defending myself with insults, example in case you called me a bully and I said fuck you, as a random act of insult, and then after that, you said if I don’t share your opinions, I am a psychopath.
THAT is bully Ron! I often say someone is wrong, and I only use the phrase bully when it is first used on me to control me.
This conversation is going back to the topic at hand, and if you want to BULLY and keep it with me as a psychopath I’m going to constantly tell you like the whiny kid that you are, that you’re a whiny bully and need to grow up.
June 10, 2016 at 4:46 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I know this is hard for you to digest Ron, but saying insults and getting mad is not a bully. Bullies don’t give wiggle room. They don’t say they are wrong (I have on this site, and you just doubled down and called me a psychopath when I told you I would not continue a conversation with you while you were allowing me to get wrecked and I was being called a bully, this site is clearly out of control right now).
You can accept my level of keeping on topics without saying I don’t know how to read etc, or you can accept my insults that result from that. You cannot dominate me based on my reacting to your insulting nature.
June 13, 2016 at 9:42 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Bob,
Thank you very much for proving my point.
Good day, sir.
June 13, 2016 at 6:01 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I didn’t prove your point at all Ron.
This is really old. I’m not calling myself a bully. My habits don’t match them at all.
You can accept that, or keep fighting with me. Your choice, but realize I will always defend myself, and that does not make me a bully.
Bob, after the awful scenario of Orlando, many Americans can see the wisdom of Trump saying that Muslims need to be vetted properly before they are admitted to this country. By the way, ISIS is here and they will be activating more cells to do what this crazy wild eyed Islamic Terrorist did.
June 7, 2016 at 7:25 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
And listen up child,
When I call someone ignorant, a jack ass, a moron, a brat, a jerk, etc,
These insults are not equivalent to a rapist, a sexist, a racist, a murderer, a fascist, anti women, anti black, anti poor, anti earth, anti Hispanic, anti Muslim, Genocidal Hitler reincarnated, middle class hating and enslaving, person.
Those insults are ALWAYS reserved for communists who seek to basically be ASSHOLES and start wars.
50% of the population is not like that, yet 50% will commonly vote republican.
Get over your damn foolish partisan bull…. You CANNOT label people like this. When they then insult you, it does NOT reinforce the label.
Keep it up, you guys are making yourselves look like the insane morons you are. And no, I don’t mean all leftists, which is why I even prefaced my insult to Sanders by saying I do not think all democrats are idiots or Sanders supporters.
But you…You vile filthy little piece of crap…You just spout off how people like me destroy the world.
I would knock your head in if we ever met. Not physically. I mean give you an earful that I’m sure you’re not used to receiving because you’re just an online coward!
In person I put my money where my mouth is. Little snot nosed brat, and I see people like you a dime a dozen talk up tabs they can’t pay, and the reason they rarely do it more than once, is partisan people like you get eaten for breakfast by moderates like me, and you typically get thrown out of groups while you complain and whine about others.
God, get owned Bob. The funny thing is you think you are making points and you are just getting totally eviscerated by everybody in the thread. Destroyed on Trump and terrorists, destroyed on minimum wage, destroyed on climate change and yet another fake study, destroyed on not knowing statistics, destroyed on your dumb KKK comments, destroyed on being a liar. Ppl have told you repeatedly about the Southern Strategy and racist Dixiecrats in the south moving to the Republican party and you just pretend it did not happen, and it was because of religion. You should look up the actual history of politics in the south instead of just reflexive supporting everything Republicans do, bashing anything Democrats do, and then pretending to be independent, oh I mean libertarian.
Thank you for making my point that “liars figure”. (I am calling the author/contributor of the article, a liar, not you, Actu.)
A quote from the article you cited “As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, “sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors”.” Hmmm…control other factors…aka, manipulate the data.
This article is manipulating the data to make it look like democrats were the heroes of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The bottom line is that there were more Republicans, on a percentage basis, that voted for this bill than Democrats. Don’t forget, that Democrats made up almost 60% of the House and 67% of the Senate, so by shear numbers, they should have made it a landslide to pass.
Based on the theory presented, had their been more democrats or republicans based in the south, it never would have passed.
Furthermore, if you read the rest of the article, it purports and theorizes that the south has become more republican (conservative) and the north more democratic (liberal) because of the civil rights/racial stances. This seems to contradict the fact that minorities make up a significantly higher portion of the population in the southern states (compared to the north).
It’s funny how the article fails to show how minorities have further suffered economically in the larger cities where democrats have been in power for years. The dem’s in power continue to provide more and more entitlements, yet, minorities are doing worse than ever before. How is that helping the minorities again?
June 8, 2016 at 3:32 pm
actu says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
Ah so you don’t even believe in statistics aside from the most basic arithmetic, interesting. Yes, in a sense it is manipulating the data but that doesn’t mean it is bad, and you also do not try to argue against it or the Southern Strategy.
As you do not believe in controlling for variables, why do you say more Republicans as a percentage voted for the bill, instead of just looking at the totals? Probably because that goes against your narrative, and combined with other facts would confirm the southern states rejecting Democrats after the Southern Strategy.
June 8, 2016 at 6:57 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“Ah so you don’t even believe in statistics aside from the most basic arithmetic, interesting. Yes, in a sense it is manipulating the data but that doesn’t mean it is bad, and you also do not try to argue against it or the Southern Strategy.
As you do not believe in controlling for variables, why do you say more Republicans as a percentage voted for the bill, instead of just looking at the totals? Probably because that goes against your narrative, and combined with other facts would confirm the southern states rejecting Democrats after the Southern Strategy.”
Easy answer? Because the percentage is relevant. The democrats had the majority in numbers. Because there was more racism in the party, a higher share of the numerical democrats voted against it. Because there were less republicans in office, that does not mean a lower share voted for it. The percentage is relevant.
You have not proven republicans are racist, and it is a racist tactic to do so. We vote on ideals, if you want to debate me go ahead, but instead you insist I’m racist and use it to discredit me. That is a bad tactic.
Your southern strategy theory is a crock. The south is still extremely religious, and I might add the primary section of humanity that helped slaves were Churches. How does that fit into your narrative, considering republicans STILL are obsessed with religion and that is why they vote right? On one hand you call us religious fanatics, and then you are unwilling to accept that religion played a roll in the south going republican and insist it was racism with no evidence whatsoever. Your numbers do not prove anything, and then do another label in regards to the south that is unacceptable.
There were many in the South who were not ok with slavery, but like today, were not ok with federal laws. You will find still today, republicans are against federal laws. They prefer state level laws for most aspects. So your numbers don’t prove racism. Wanting to be part of the union or the confederate, or being from a state that was lopped into that type of stereotype (over a hundred years later you reference whether a state wanted to join the confederacy to racism? Absurd) has nothing to do with the WHY.
You want the narrative. That is your corruption. You need for republicans to be racist, note how I don’t need that of democrats.
I don’t assume they are racist against blacks. It’s called being fair.
June 10, 2016 at 6:04 pm
actu says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
“Easy answer? Because the percentage is relevant.”
So funny bob. You don’t believe in subsets or manipulating data, unless of course King Bob declares it is” relevant.” When almost every climate scientist agrees on it and it goes against your beliefs it is unacceptable, but when you decide it is relevant it should be done.
You are a fucking joke. It’s so funny watching these guys slay you post after post just to see you make the same exact reply every time and then the you and the 3 idiots here all pat each other on the back about your fantasy universes.
Go away please
June 9, 2016 at 5:44 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Bob, Ecclesiastes 10-2 clearly defines fools from the left.
I don’t know, ask Bob, he’s the one who constantly spills them. He has to be the record holder. I quit reading anything he had to write years ago. I was sick of him bullying others and putting others down to stroke his own ego. In fact, reminds me a lot about one of the Presidential candidates we have running. I wonder if Bob has ever made fun of disabled people.
I might add, getting a group of people to ignore someone based on your label of them,
Is in fact bullying…
Ironic that you the real bully here make Mit Rob me comments, and I have never said anything like that about Obama.
Your catch phrases on insults are a problem.
Saying an insult does not make one a bully. These people choose to debate with me, and they choose to step outside of the realm of acceptability. I get the right to respond perturbed when someone calls me a racist rapey Mc. raperson.
You guys honestly don’t expect push back when you do these things because YOU are used to being a bully.
You constantly try to bully every time a poster calls you on one of your hundreds of lies or racist comments. Yes, supporting a ban on people based on their ethnicity is racist. You support racist policy. You are racist. I have seen you make threats to people here. You are a bully, and like all bullies freak out and cry the second one person stands up to you.
Cheers to Ron, Planet, uw, and the others who have helped reveal you as an insane person & a liar.
“Cheers to Ron, Planet, uw, and the others who have helped reveal you as an insane person & a liar.”
Cheers to them for insulting me eh? This is your bullying.
So what I just said is that I’m not a racist, and I don’t tell hundreds of lies and say hundreds of racist comments.
Why did I post actu? What was my motivation?
My motivation was to defend myself.
What was yours?
“Cheers to Ron, Planet, uw, and the others who have helped reveal you as an insane person & a liar.”
To label me an insane person and a liar. To make that label stick no matter what.
I AM A GOD DAMN HUMAN BEING.
Even if you think I’m wrong, you don’t get to treat me like an animal and make a movement to label me as racist and say therefore I get to be put in a corner and abused. Standing up to a racist would be actually standing up to a racist, not calling someone racist and using that to toss out all their arguments.
Bob, it is all a tactic used by the far left crowd when they can’t win any argument on any subject and they are extremely angry that their belief system is in the toilet. This has been going on a long time and maybe we will get some relief when their hero departs from office in a few short months.
In my case I just decided I was going to keep this one going with more and more facts.
They can’t keep calling me an idiot while I use facts and data.
Well, they can, but it won’t make them look very good.
UW makes the mistake of saying “always” and “never” a lot. He just made that mistake again with Trump’s ex wife. It makes him look like an idiot when I then provide a link with her recanting.
Then I break down his 97% number and the no true Scotsman stuff he is pulling.
And I’m sure he’ll then call me a pseudo intellectual.
I do sometimes reply to his childish behaviors wrongly…I should get a handle on it. The guy just pushes all the right buttons.
And I’m a bully…The one who says he can be wrong, and admires the other guys tenacity, and compliments him, is the bully…
God…This is absurd.
June 8, 2016 at 6:49 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
As an aside comment:
As a kid I had my head hit into a brick wall in 8th grade. I made friends with the kid.
Kids who were selling pot in my school threatened to have me killed. I befriended them.
I have been bullied, and I admit my personality attract them. So I know when I see one. I give a chance at peace and compliment UW often for his tenacity, and then he makes a new comment about how fucking stupid I am and don’t know how to read.
Let’s say I was stupid, or retarded…
Let’s just go there.
What would his calling me stupid and retarded and unable to read make him?
I don’t know…A bully? Instead of calling me wrong, he insists on linking a liar comment, or insane, or stupid, or moron, with the comment.
I don’t. In SEVERAL of my beginning posts I put NO insults. YES I fight back, and I know you, the bully you are, will say “YOU INSULT TOO!!!” We all do. The first thing a bully does is that in reply.
I insult back, and then I tell him to prove his point.
UW insults to start, and doesn’t allow a point to be proven. It is bullying behavior.
Bob, when I was 13, a bully with the maturity of UW & Confused tried to pick on me. After I kicked his butt after school, he never tried it again and by high school, we were on friendly terms. I guess that bloody nose and black eye did wonders for his attitude.
calling me immature in a post where you talk about how you beat up some kid when you were a child is hypocritically immature of you.
June 9, 2016 at 2:37 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
It is not immature to state someone is immature confused.
He is talking about someone who was immature and bullied him and he fought back.
While I don’t support beating up bullies, many of you here have implied you do believe fighting a bully is the only way to stop them (words implied but you never know how much further you guys actually mean).
The fact that he called you immature doesn’t make him immature.
This is why I hate the pc movement. You’re using that right now.
I am about dismantling that.
June 9, 2016 at 3:30 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
he labeled me an immature person and is trying to make that label stick no matter what. I AM A GOD DAMN HUMAN BEING. Even if he thinks I’m wrong, he does not get to talk to me like that.
June 9, 2016 at 3:41 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Sorry, swing and a miss confused. Trying to make someone a liar who is not one is not acceptable, or make them insane as they explain themselves. You were not involved in this conversation and he was NOT trying to make that label stick to you.
False equivalency.
You in fact are trying to make an act though in that he even dared to call your actions immature. That is not an extreme label, at all.
June 9, 2016 at 3:44 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
And I will add, we are actually arguing in the post I said I was a human being about whether or not I was racist, a murderer, a rapist, etc.
These things are not the same confused.
I am focusing on details and he insists on focusing on attacks.
When Agent brought up how he deals with people who are immature in this way, (by response) he is not randomly doing so and making damn sure the label sticks.
He is talking about how to deal with people that are treating me, bluntly, like shit, and won’t focus on the facts.
So I guess we can’t address the issue…Apparently.
What issue needs to be addressed with me? My swearing at a couple of asshats who are bullying me?
You are exactly the reason bullies get away with what they do, and you just used the bully logic in your response.
I’m sorry, I’m not just going to get intimidated and say you’re right! Agent is immature for saying how he dealt with immature folks similar to the ones I am now.
It’s just not going to happen Confused.
June 9, 2016 at 3:49 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Agent,
These guys are indeed completely over the top.
I haven’t seen any of them imply they need to work on their speech or say they are acting inappropriately.
It’s funny…How many times have I said that I need to work on those things?
These guys seem to be hell bent on everyone else’s actions and not their own.
I call this the “blip”. What I mean by that is an ordinarily nice or smart person becomes suddenly ignorant or cruel.
When this happens and the motivation doesn’t make sense…I take it to the step of calling it a direct satanic influence causing a blip. It’s part of why I believe in God.
And this blip I speak of…Is happening a lot with these guys.
They insist on proper speech, and bring up my style of speech, but I don’t see them condemning their own actions or words here, the same goes for confused. He seems to like to talk a lot about morality of others, but not himself.
Blip.
How about you just back off, confused? Even if you’re wrong?
You may think I don’t do that, but you would be wrong. I do choose my battles and it is why I just don’t post on some of these insurance journals. I don’t feel the need to. I’ve called various people right, and I’ve called myself wrong.
You should be in the habit of this. Avoid the blip.
June 9, 2016 at 3:49 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
agent has a history of throwing my name into conversations i am not participating in only to insult me or make up lies about me. to wit:
“integrity, I can’t wait for UW or Confused to attack you and start calling you names…”
he did it again in this article saying i am as mature as his childhood bully. I AM A GOD DAMN HUMAN BEING. Even if he thinks I’m wrong, he does not get to talk AT me like that.
i’d feel differently if he would stop attacking me and making up lies about what I believe when i haven’t even said a word in the conversation.
June 9, 2016 at 3:52 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
They then talk about personal responsibility, and every time I try to stop insults by telling them to focus on the argument they say I insult people more than anyone else
BLIP.
Rather than saying you’re right, I insult too much, they keep on it and try to say I’m the reason.
BLIP.
Then they talk as if I don’t have personal responsibility
BLIP.
Then I go and say UW’s tenacity is needed, though he is often wrong.
Wait. What?
Then I said everyone insults, excusing their actions.
Wait, what?
Then I’m called a bully.
Yeah…They don’t do what I just put above.
I focus on the argument and try to pull the insults out of it, and then they try to focus on tallying the insults, to use them to discredit me.
It’s insane.
Blip.
June 9, 2016 at 3:57 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“gent has a history of throwing my name into conversations i am not participating in only to insult me or make up lies about me. to wit:
“integrity, I can’t wait for UW or Confused to attack you and start calling you names…”
he did it again in this article saying i am as mature as his childhood bully. I AM A GOD DAMN HUMAN BEING. Even if he thinks I’m wrong, he does not get to talk AT me like that.
i’d feel differently if he would stop attacking me and making up lies about what I believe when i haven’t even said a word in the conversation.”
Join the club. Do you realize how much I’m brought up?
In this scenario he is referring to someone he has dealt with that mistreated him like I am being now. I AM A HUMAN BEING and when he merely references his belief of how you are a part of the people mistreating me, and says how he dealt with them, that does not show he is immature.
I will however say, I do not support Agent’s method of speech, as I have told Ron and others in the past I consider Agent to be the political right side version of the people who fight with him. I have said in the past to him something akin to “Damn it, we as conservatives have a responsibility to represent ourselves dutifully.” and I’m sure you remember it.
You are using my quote improperly though, and I don’t like that.
Regarding labeling what you’re saying:
Join the club. Do you realize most my swearing resulted from an article maybe a little over a weak ago in which I was called racist against Muslims and Hispanics? Then I was called an idiot that ignored details, when I disagreed with UW’s video about the context of what Trump said. They accused me of not watching it, and of being a bigot. How can I be both? I either didn’t watch it and didn’t know, or I was a bigot, if they were correct. But whatever sticks the insult right?
I do not believe Agent talks to you properly. Does this make you feel better?
I don’t believe a lot of what I say is acceptable.
Does this help you to maybe back off a bit?
Maybe we can all admit responsibility instead of pointing fingers?
June 9, 2016 at 5:49 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Confused the child, I didn’t start it, but I sure finished it. The last time I heard from him, he turned out ok and he never bullied again. Someone needs to bring you down a notch and teach you some manners.
June 9, 2016 at 6:30 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Agent,
I apologize, you’re right. I crossed lines. I need to work on it.
June 9, 2016 at 10:52 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Oh, after cursing, threatening violence, constant insults, repeatedly, lying, and using words you intend to be demeaning like “kid” or “child”, etc., you don’t have any insults in a couple of your posts, congratulations. You “offered peace” by admiring my tenacity, wow, I’m honored; this was of course after threatening me physically multiple times. Now of course, when people come after you because they are sick of your crap (and not surprisingly a week after Trump starts getting called a bully) you go on an anti-bullying crusade.
I know you are a human, everybody does. But, so are the Mexicans, Arabs, Muslims, poor people, young people, minorities, et al that would be devastated by the policies you support and cannot justify without lying, citing fraudulent sources to support, and embracing conspiracy theories. I frequently call you uninformed and unintelligent because everything you have ever stated confirms this. “Do the math” you state after proving you don’t know what a confidence interval, or basic statistics are. You then repeatedly cite a “study” which has been shown to have simple mathematical errors, create 300 non-existent results, and mix up positive and negative signs. When this is pointed out you freak, ignore it, and say these blog posts–almost all of them based on the mathematically incorrect study–are all the proof you need, because “do the math”. That is stupid. A person making that argument is stupid.
You claim the Southern Strategy didn’t exist. Use Wikipedia, and then read some actual literature on the subject. Nobody even denies this any anything approaching a serious circle anymore. Saying it didn’t exist is stupid. Stupid people make that argument. The former chair of the RNC said:
“For the last 40-plus years we had a ‘Southern Strategy’ that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South. Well, guess what happened in 1992, folks, ‘Bubba’ went back home to the Democratic Party and voted for Bill Clinton.”
Lee Atwater was recorded saying (I edited out the N-word):
“You start out in 1954 by saying, “N*****, n*****, n*****.” By 1968 you can’t say “n*****”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N*****, n*****.”
You are clueless and in denial on this. I know it has been brought up multiple times over months, and you deny it, without ever looking into it…a pattern. So, again, you stating something doesn’t make it fact. So economics, climate change, basic political history. All things you refuse to change your view on, based entirely on what you prefer. Why bother with you?
Trump’s wife for another example. As mentioned, she testified under oath, and a judge granted a divorce based in part on cruel and inhumane treatment by Trump. She signed a NDA and violating that could cost her millions of dollars. You don’t even look into it. You had clearly never heard of it, but dismissed it immediately, and then your reply was that Trump never said it. Then you say she recanted. This isn’t true. She said it was a marital spat, she did not deny it happened, and she can’t say it happened. You of course take this to mean it didn’t happen.
You will give any amount of leeway to justify what you believe. almost 100% of climate scientists agree, well you whine many were still in their Phd program, and then link to a study that has chemists. You don’t understand science or read links, so you say the studies don’t say climate change is man made in them. You ignore the links explaining that modern studies do not say this for the same reason they don’t state gravity exists–it is accepted fact in the scientific community. Also, the idiotic study you linked has been responded to and found to have massive math problems. Almost every blog post in the link you insist on posting, but haven’t read depends specifically on the BS analysis by Tor. As I and others have stated over and over, and as you have ignored, refused to look at, and dismissed apparently because you can’t read anything outside of far right-wing media, is that the same conclusion has been reached over and over. But, admittedly only when you look at climate scientists. You also completely ignore the IPCC report, finding basically the same thing.
Even in the idiotic disproven paper you insist on citing as proof there is no man made climate change–or that it is not consequential, depending on your comment–the author states:
“There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”
You constantly cite the WSJ with David Legates claiming to have debunked the study. He is among the worst sources. He said this:
“We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.”
No matter what he will never find climate change influenced by man to be a problem, or even possible. He is a nut. He, like you, has predetermined beliefs that mean no matter what he will not accept the scientific evidence.
Your stupid 11,000 papers line is simply wrong. Please show your work on this. I honestly may have missed it, because I remember seeing it earlier, but I think maybe I just remember you writing it. I think you may be confused with the BS Oregon Petition, which had that many people sign it, which you cited as proof.
In that absurd poll, the equivalent of an online poll, which you claim refutes decades of scientific evidence, including the other study you presented as proof which I have just shown says exactly the opposite, .1% of the people on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in climatology. Add in those who claim to have a background in atmospheric science, which increases the total percentage of people with a background in climate change science to .5%.
You are clueless on everything. You base your “analysis” on what your preferred position is.
As far as your incessant whining about bullies (after you rail on people for months), I have already said in person you are probably a good ole boy, but all I have to go on is your presence here, where you are an outright POS.
I will leave you alone on this, because it’s a religion to you, and nothing can or will change your mind, and because I think you are mentally unstable, and potentially in a full-blown meltdown, which I do not want to contribute to. Cling to your 1% of snake oil salesman pushing outright BS, and ignore all the science, just like you do with everything else.
“rump’s wife for another example. As mentioned, she testified under oath, and a judge granted a divorce based in part on cruel and inhumane treatment by Trump. She signed a NDA and violating that could cost her millions of dollars. You don’t even look into it. You had clearly never heard of it, but dismissed it immediately, and then your reply was that Trump never said it. Then you say she recanted. This isn’t true. She said it was a marital spat, she did not deny it happened, and she can’t say it happened. You of course take this to mean it didn’t happen. ”
No, I’ve seen all your info, and being that your info does not once reference a sworn statement regarding a bald spot, and ripped out hair, we have an issue. She did testify under oath, that she felt violated. She did not testify under oath about a bald spot or what you suggest. If you read my link it goes over that the only thing that mentions this is literally hearsay (spell check changed it to heresy and I didn’t notice). There is no sworn statement saying what you said.
“You constantly cite the WSJ with David Legates claiming to have debunked the study. He is among the worst sources. He said this:
“We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.””
Whether he has said that is irrelevant. 31,000 people with experience signed a petition saying climate change is not credible. You said 97% of scientists agree. Cherry picked scientists that is. 11,000 papers are written on the matter, and only .3% have a conclusion that man made climate change is a serious threat. You can’t just side step these numbers by labeling a source.
You are wrong about Southern Strategy. That is a religion to you, the narrative you won’t let go.
“Your stupid 11,000 papers line is simply wrong. Please show your work on this. I honestly may have missed it, because I remember seeing it earlier, but I think maybe I just remember you writing it. I think you may be confused with the BS Oregon Petition, which had that many people sign it, which you cited as proof. ”
I already showed my work. I gave links referencing it. Maybe you didn’t read your own link you sent me, because right now you’re saying you’re clueless on it, whereas your link did go over it. It tried to say that the reason the 11,000 papers didn’t take a position is because it was established fact, something my links disproved, if you read them. You just admitted you didn’t, because you told me to repost them. So you’re guilty of doing what you said I do, ironic.
” that absurd poll, the equivalent of an online poll, which you claim refutes decades of scientific evidence, including the other study you presented as proof which I have just shown says exactly the opposite, .1% of the people on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in climatology. Add in those who claim to have a background in atmospheric science, which increases the total percentage of people with a background in climate change science to .5%.”
Are you aware that the degrees that 9,000 of them had phd’s in, are directly related to climate change, and if you have a 4 year degree in those degrees you can apply to get a graduates degree in climatology? Climatology isn’t overwhelmingly popular, that is why there are so little “dedicated” scientists on it. The ones who do sign up usually support the narrative. This would be like saying 100% of people who agree with climate change agree with it. It is cherry picked info. You cannot throw away 9,000 people with a PHD which is considered enough research to start a graduates degree in climatology. What I just said is a fact, look it up. My brother happens to be a PHD graduate and he considered this path dumb ass. Google what do you need to pursue a climatology degree.
If 31,000 people who have experience in the matter don’t agree, they don’t agree and there is an issue with stating there is a 97% consensus. There is not a 97% consensus.
“As far as your incessant whining about bullies (after you rail on people for months), I have already said in person you are probably a good ole boy, but all I have to go on is your presence here, where you are an outright POS. ”
Don’t ever say that to me. Good ole boys act like you. Direct people like me cannot be good ole boys. I am not an outright piece of shit, I simply contradict your comments, and you then rant like a lunatic.
I have no disprove them yet again. Sorry UW, try again without trying to label people based on creationism which you just tried again. Attack the data I gave. Do you dispute the data? It on you to disprove it with contradictory evidence. That is how debate works, not side stepping my facts.
I have contradicted your Trump evidence, not side stepped it. I have contradicted your climate change subjects, I have not called the writers into question as sources, I have gone after their facts with counter facts.
You are doing ad hominem style debate, which makes sense because it is a tactic of your party.
June 10, 2016 at 2:11 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“I know you are a human, everybody does. But, so are the Mexicans, Arabs, Muslims, poor people, young people, minorities, et al that would be devastated by the policies you support and cannot justify without lying, citing fraudulent sources to support, and embracing conspiracy theories. I frequently call you uninformed and unintelligent because everything you have ever stated confirms this. “Do the math” you state after proving you don’t know what a confidence interval, or basic statistics are. You then repeatedly cite a “study” which has been shown to have simple mathematical errors, create 300 non-existent results, and mix up positive and negative signs. When this is pointed out you freak, ignore it, and say these blog posts–almost all of them based on the mathematically incorrect study–are all the proof you need, because “do the math”. That is stupid. A person making that argument is stupid. ”
I have never said Muslims or Mexicans aren’t human beings. I am of Mexican heritage. My grandmother is full. I have said that we need to limit immigration, as a whole, and take low risk high reward people into the country first. When we have data showing a nation is war torn due to religious issues, disallowing the religious folks from that war torn nation to come into the nation is not racist. It is using data to come to a conclusion. The same goes of Mexicans. Of the 11-12 million here, 5-6 million are not documented. There are costs that come with this. If we go too far, we harm the entire system to support people. That is not racist.
I am not against the poor, and I have made this clear. I have said the democrat programs harm the poor and I have explained why. You just don’t get that. I have never taken a position against minorities, again, you are after the narrative here. The narrative you want to believe is absurd. Regarding a confidence interval:
I made no comments that proved I didn’t know what one was, you randomly brought it up when it wasn’t relevant. I didn’t even take a stance on the confidence level because it didn’t matter UW!!!! The very fact that I questioned your percentage as being too high means I don’t know what a confidence level is? Or did you move it there to make the debate ad hominem as usual, to disregard my commentary? You need to knock it off.
Regarding the mathematical errors and inconsistent results what you mean to say is my sources contradict yours. Not that the math is incorrect. You are assuming it is incorrect because it contradicts what you have religiously subscribed to. Instead of weigh both and see which one makes sense though, you attack a source and throw out the other. This is idiotic UW.
Do the math. It’s you not doing it. You’re a fool if you think I don’t change my opinions. Show me one you have changed. Immigration is NEW for me to take a stance on. I have already said this. Look through insurance journal, I always backed away from the topic until this election. I change my mind when the data forces my hand.
You clearly don’t.
June 10, 2016 at 2:20 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Also:
I do not constantly cite WSJ on climate change. That was one of the 97 sources that were included that debunked climate change.
Are you going to try to discredit them all based on their religious beliefs or comments that have no relevance to the numbers and statistics they quoted?
June 10, 2016 at 2:25 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
By the way UW one last item on the bullying:
I always start with facts first. I do not try to label someone like you and a few others here do, and I literally ALWAYS try to remove the insults and focus on the debate. You try to make the insults related to the debate as to why I can’t debate.
There is a difference. I am not a bully. Bullies don’t give chances constantly to pull the argument away from insults. I have just done that again, but I’m sure you’re going to say some “POS” (to borrow your phrasing) comment about me again, which I will get mad about, and when I hit you right back you’ll cry again about how I attacked you.
These same people who say I don’t know how to read, have no reading comprehension when they disagree and talk like brats…Yeah.
I do not instigate these fights, and I constantly try to stop them as I am now. I also keep myself in check by saying I’M OUT OF LINE. I just did that in this page.
You haven’t. You just justify your insults by saying “You whine about insults but you do it too!” Which is your way of saying your are justified to insult because “he started it” essentially.
June 16, 2016 at 3:21 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Bob, an internet bully and a live bully are pretty much the same, a coward. They cuss, insult, call people names that they never would if they were chin to chin with them. It is easy for them to be brave with the words if they are anonymous. I believe it was Confused that said his father believed in right from wrong. Too bad those values were not passed down to the son.
“They cuss, insult, call people names that they never would if they were chin to chin with them.” Sounds exactly like Bob.
June 8, 2016 at 6:43 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“You constantly try to bully every time a poster calls you on one of your hundreds of lies or racist comments.”
Source one of my racist comments, if I say hundreds of them.
“Yes, supporting a ban on people based on their ethnicity is racist.”
Regarding immigration, targeting the current religious war the only way we can is not racist. Get over yourself.
“You support racist policy. You are racist.”
So saying we need to stop violence from the middle east coming here is racist, even if the percentages of Muslims committing violence and ok with Sharia law is proven to be higher than the standard and I claim we need low risk high reward immigrants? I think not. You’re wrong here. It is not racist.
“You are a bully, and like all bullies freak out and cry the second one person stands up to you. ”
Bullshit. The second someone stands up to me calling me a racist raping murderer?
The second I call someone wrong I’m a bully? I think not.
Point out one of these lies. Planet has not pointed out I am insane.
Also, I am one or the other. If I’m insane I’m not a liar on these issues. I would believe them and be insane.
I make arguments about concepts, not about people. Bullies argue about people, not about concepts.
People get mad, bullies use that to cripple the people they bully.
I am not a bully, and you’re going to stop saying it.
Bob, it has been my experience that you start off reasonable on posts and provide evidence to bolster your argument and after being called idiot, dolt about 10 or more times, you let them have it. I think Actu is really UW on a false moniker since he uses the same pattern of insults.
By the way, ever heard of Juanita Broderick? She is the one that Slick Willy raped back in Arkansas and no one has held him accountable and then Hilliary tried to destroy her. He seems to have a lot of problems with women, doesn’t he?
Media always fails to ask and climate change advocates always fail to state what percentage of climate change comes from man. The climate of the earth has been changing on its own forever. We’ve had ice ages and hot periods. This situation is not unique. Mars is warming too, which gives credence to sunspot explanations. In any event, give us the precise percentage, according to “climate science” that is being contributed by man, please. And if the Commissioners are honestly so concerned about the value of energy stocks, why do they want them sold at a loss now when they are low because of global economic weakness and low energy demand? This is all about a political agenda. They even want insurance companies to spread the word about APG climate change! Why should they? That’s not their job.
Incredulous1, they won’t do that because they can’t. By the way, when this was a free country, companies could invest in anything they wanted. If they took a loss, bad investing. Now, the Progressives want to tell everyone what they can invest in and their pet project is Climate Change. After all, the President said it was this country’s most serious security problem, right?
The science, backed by about 97% of climate scientists agrees that from 1951-2010 almost 100% of the warming was directly attributable to man. That’s from the IPCC report summarizing peer reviewed research. It’s a probability distribution, and the likelihood that they are responsible for less than 50% is close to 0. The actual mean estimate is 110%.
I originally found this through “the media” who I agree never mentions this enough.
The sunspot theory has been debunked for something like a decade now, update your taking points if you want to pretend to take this seriously.
The rest of your comment regarding the economics of the situation is a rambling disaster, so I won’t bother with it, but the people contributing to this are creating massive externalities, which they should have to pay for, and I would consider including investors in that.
UW – You said “It’s a probability distribution..” Face it, it cannot be measured to determine which fossil fuel, if any, is causing anything, much less to any degree. It is all theory.
According to the NOAA climate study report, they are estimating what temperatures are in various regions in the world that they cannot physically obtain true data. Triangulating the surrounding data seems like a reasonable approach to “guess” what the actual temperature is, but the credibility is significantly flawed. They eventually are averaging estimates of estimates.
Additionally, unless they are taking the temperature of EVERY observed location at the SAME ELEVATION and TIME, EVERY DAY, several times a day, they cannot possibly predict a fluctuation in the temperature on a global scale with any accuracy.
The trend they are purporting over a span of time is so minute that it should not be called a trend, much less a crisis. Especially since there have been natural fluctuations in climate since the beginning of time!
This is an agenda that someone is trying to get rich off of and they need to make it a “social issue” to make it happen. The returns on investment from the “wind” and “solar” industry are not there because the technology is getting better for those using fossil fuels.
Just remember…figures lie and liars figure. The data for climate change can be manipulated so easy to reach any conclusion they want it to be.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Probability distribution – a function of a discrete variable whose integral over any interval is the probability that the random variable specified by it will lie within that interval. This means that it is not 100% true. Have they disclosed what the probability percentage is for the chosen temperature? In your mind, it is probably “almost 100%”.
It’s funny, UW, that scientists that do not believe in global warming because their science disproves it, their science is tossed aside by the scientists that disagree with them. And, there is proof that there have been many global warming scientists have manipulated the data to falsely justify their theory. Deny that!!
Hence, my position on it is all theory.
Also, it does not take a scientist to know that the temperature is different at different elevations. Similarly, the temperature is different during different times of the day at the same elevation and location. Of course the observation posts are at fixed locations and elevations.
My point is that if they are averaging temperatures all around the world, a more credible analysis would include the temperature at consistent elevations (i.e. at 500 feet, 1500 feet, 2500 feet, etc) if the locale had the ability to record such elevations.
I know logic is hard to grasp for some of the people on the left.
Have you ever considered that there might be too many variables that affect the temperature at a given location? Wind, clouds, the timing of cold and warm fronts to name a few.
All of these conditions exponentially effect the credibility. Lack of credibility reduces accuracy. On top of all that, the “scientists” are going to theorize that a man made action/condition is the root cause of the problem when there are billions of other actions/conditions that might have contributed…or not.
The bottom line is they are trying to measure a cause and effect that has too many variables to reach a credible conclusion. I am almost 100% sure that the odds of picking the 4 digit lottery number are better than the credibility of the global warming predications being made.
Next time, see if you can respond in a professional, adult-like manner; void of the insults.
“Have they disclosed what the probability percentage is for the chosen temperature? In your mind, it is probably ‘almost 100%'”.
That is incoherent rambling, and shows you don’t know what a confidence interval is, nor do you understand the basics on this. The temperature in earth has increased, according to all (actually 97%) the published literature during this time period the amount of this increase attributable to man is about 110%, the probability it is less than 50% is close to 0%, and just as likely as 160%-without looking into the data, based on the distribution in the link below it would be about 0.3%.
You can again fail to understand stats 101, say it’s “theory”, and ignore the preponderance of the evidence, but that does not make your ludicrous claims true. It also shoots down all of the field of statistics as just a theory. Of course, you have to embrace conspiracy theories left and right to justify your predetermined beliefs. What else do you far right-wingers like to call just a theory? Oh yeah, evolution. Do you believe in evolution? Do you believe the earth is 6000 years old?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/sep/15/97-vs-3-how-much-global-warming-are-humans-causing
Do you just have to label and lump groups constantly?
He must subscribe to the 6,000 year old Earth eh?
I was raised Catholic. Do you know how many people I ever heard suggest that theory? Zero. I didn’t even know it existed, until you or one of the liberals here brought it up.
You need to quit acting like religion is why people don’t have knowledge.
Since I have become Catholic again, I have become more complete. More knowledgeable as I interweave science and bible aspects to be more complete in understanding. The bible doesn’t contradict science. It compliments it and goes along with it.
Bob, I have to admit I still do not understand how you fail to grasp the fact that just because you don’t know something does not make it untrue or invalidate it. Actually, by definition it just makes you ignorant. The same goes for your numerous declarations that something is not true, which you believe is some sort of evidence.
A disgustingly high percentage of people in the US do not believe in evolution, and believe the planet is between 6k-10k years old according to some polls, which I have a few problems with. But, it is not debatable that a lot of people believe in that utter nonsense. Those people overwhelmingly belong to 1 party, and espouse the same nonsense he spouts constantly. It’s a valid question, particularly when he is going out of his way to deny established science on something many of those people believe cannot happen due to their interpretation of God.
Your logical argument got under UW’s thin skin. The Left’s Climate Change discussions are intentionally vague because the facts don’t support their agenda. Challenge them with facts and confront them with the stories about Climate Change Researchers censoring or altering the data to fit their agenda and they start making personal attacks and using vulgar language due to their arrogance about their opinions being ‘facts’ and ‘already proven science’.
Man affects climate change to a very minor degree. Changing man’s behavior has no significant impact on the ebb and flow of the climate over centuries. The Climate Change Scam has been revealed to be what it is; a scam and a power grab by liberals who think they can fool the majority of the public.
Have you and integrity matters noticed that libs like UW always insult when their logic fails them? Generally, they’d rather use emotion, but we know that logic is required for a serious discussion of this topic.
Yes, I noticed. I never let my cubs read the comments on Global Climate change, knowing what trash talk will be written by proponents of Global Climate Change – who realize they are fighting a losing battle and things will become much more difficult for them after January 20, 2017.
James,
Have you noticed that Bob and Agent use the exact same tactics?
No Ron, we don’t. I use link after link, and break down methodology.
I don’t say hey Frank did you hear about XYZ and then make a comment similar to him.
Provide an example please, how I am similar to agent.
“…. almost 100%….”
LOL!
I’d say “almost 100%” is a very liberal use of the word ‘almost’.
Let me give you an example; “I ALMOST made a hole in one on every golf hole I played last weekend, including the par 4’s and par 5’s.”
Of course you would laugh at it, because you are unintelligent and uneducated. 97% is by definition almost 100%.
Your problem seems to be in vocabulary and reading comprehension, along with a heavy lack of an ability to engage in any form of critical thinking.
My colleagues and superiors disagree with your OPINION.
Yogi, 97% of my golf partners thought I would make every putt I looked at on Saturday. Unfortunately, their belief system was as screwed up as the true believers espousing Global Warming on this blog.
Do you have a link to the report I can review please?
Here you go.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
A few excerpts for those that don’t want to read for themselves.
“To calculate a global average temperature, scientists begin with temperature measurements taken at locations around the globe. Because their goal is to track changes in temperature, measurements are converted from direct temperature readings to temperature anomalies-values that represent the difference between the observed temperature and the long-term average temperature for each location and date. Across inaccessible areas that have few measurements, scientists use surrounding temperatures and other information to fill in the missing values. Each value is then used to calculate a global temperature average. This process provides a consistent, reliable method for monitoring Earth’s surface temperature over time.
Though warming has not been uniform across the planet, the upward trend in the globally averaged temperature shows that more areas are warming than cooling. Since 1976, every year including 2015 has had an average global temperature warmer than the long-term average. Over this 38-year period, temperature warmed at an average of 0.50 °F (0.28 °C) per decade over land and 0.22 °F (0.12 °C) per decade over the ocean.”
Pay close attention to the following statements”
“Because their goal is to track changes in temperature, measurements are converted from direct temperature readings to temperature anomalies-values that represent the difference between the observed temperature and the long-term average temperature for each location and date.” and
“Though warming has not been uniform across the planet, the upward trend in the globally averaged temperature shows that more areas are warming than cooling.”
In summary, they are using averages of averages and eliminating anomalies. I understand the purpose, but it skews the results. Even if the results were accurate, the increase in temperature has been a half of a degree per decade over the past 38 years. So the average temperature might go up another 5 degrees in the next 100 years. At the rate of our debt increase, we will be bankrupt before we burn up, die of starvation or drown due to globally ice melt. By the way, 38 years is a short amount of time to consider this a problem considering how old the earth is and knowing that the earth naturally goes through climate cycles.
That isn’t at all what that says. They are taking a measurement, and comparing that to the average temperature, if it’s higher, they record how much higher, if it’s lower they record how much lower. This let’s them look at the change, and also see the variance by location and time period. It also allows them to see the amount of change in subsets which the average of average would not do to the same extent.
Nowhere in there does it say they are eliminating anomalies. You are just 100% clueless, and either misread it, which is doubtful since you post it all the time, don’t understand it, and/or being intentionally dishonest.
You go on to show you don’t know basic economics either-the US cannot go bankrupt, we have sovereign control of our currency, at worst we would devalue the dollar.
Bull mother @%@ing @#%@#.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-percent-consensus.html
97% of climate scientists agree that 100% of the warming was attributable to man? 100%?
So nature had no impact? You just make more and more polarized comments. Even a moderate would see that as fishy, one that agreed with climate change would see that as fishy.
The 97% number that people quote is inclusive of scientists that do not yet even have their degree. You might see the problem. Here is an analysis of actual researches papers regarding the matter. Only .5% of the papers saw humans as the primary cause.
It’s you that’s against science.
Bob, feel free to read the other comments, and look into the basics of the studies presented, after that do yourself a favor and learn the BASICS about statistics. Aside from the fact you “refute” an entirely different study, you also ignore that polls of climate scientists by GMU, Harris Interactive, and others have come to the same basic numbers.
Also, you pseudu-intellectual moron, you don’t seem to understand the basics of statistics, or what a confidence interval is, which explains your idiotic, pretentious, incomprehensible defense of Agent’s equally confused comments on forecasting. As I stated, the actual upper end of the interval is 110%, meaning human caused warming potentially overcoming some cooling.
You know absolutely nothing. You claim to be into data, but embrace conspiracy theories and any “data” that supports your predetermined view. Almost all climate scientists agree, but you find a few cranks and embrace that. You did exactly what you did on the minimum wage dwbate: you lied and supported disproven ideas, as well as showing again you don’t even know elementary statistics.
Fraudulent, clueless, Lyin’ Bob
“Fraudulent, clueless, Lyin’ Bob”
So I see you talk like Trump and it’s ok.
Really, I’m supposed to read the study you didn’t provide the link for UW? And to break it down when I have no numbers, or take your word for it? Show me the numbers then kid. I am not a pseudo intellectual. I use numbers and facts AND THOSE ARE ALL THAT MATTER. When I use facts and numbers and you call me a psuedo intellectual, you sound like a southern hick. Now note: This FINALLY shows my liberal BIAS you idiot!!! I do perceive conservatives to be far worse at communication and intelligence. It is why I defend Agent, I believe him to be bad at talking, bad at putting up facts. I believe it of most republicans, and it is why I insist on only facts.
All of what you put above doesn’t matter. Your study is not a collection of thousands of papers. My study goes over how many papers actually believe climate change is majority man made. The answer is incredibly low. My study also goes over why the 97% number is false. Your study, if you read mine, is taken into consideration in my study. Though I don’t have a source for yours, you’re clearly quoting the 97% number, which my link debunks kid.
It debunks it 97 times.
You stated that 97% of scientists believe that 100% of climate change is man made. Whether or not you added a 110% upper interval (which actually increases the amount of human caused climate change, it does NOT decrease it so why the hell did you add that comment?) is irrelevant. You are overstating and exaggerating the numbers of scientists who agree with climate change being man made, and are WAY over exaggerating how much of it they believe is man made. You just said 100% kid! Or maybe you need to learn how to write and you meant to say that the climate change man is now causing is 100% their fault?
Why don’t you just disprove my link, how about we start there instead of your horse crap tirade of saying how I know nothing.
You just basically said nothing that disproved my link. Not one thing. It was a slew of insults, all saying you know nothing you psuedo intellectual you’re a liar with disproven ideas and you don’t know elementary statistics.
WHICH STATISTICS WERE WRONG?? QUOTE THEM NOW!!!!
WHICH NUMBERS WERE WRONG???? PROVE THEM WRONG AND SHOW YOUR FREAKING WORK!!!
“My study goes over how many papers actually believe climate change is majority man made.”
Bob, you stupid POS, you didn’t link to a study, you linked to a blog post citing sources like Breitbart, Forbes, etc. There is no debating this with you because you don’t even know what a study is. The “debunking” of the Cook study relies on counting non-climate scientists.
“He tries to argue that our paper is an outlier — is different to all the other studies in their estimates of the expert consensus,” Cook said. “But the way he arrives at the expert consensus is by using groups that include non-experts, which is a classic technique to try to obtain lower estimates of the scientific consensus.”
“When defining experts as scientists who actually study and publish on climate change — the people who are best qualified to take a position on the subject, in other words — the surveys consistently find consensus rates well above 90 percent.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/04/15/research-shows-yet-again-that-theres-no-scientific-debate-about-climate-change/
You are full of crap, an outright, 100% liar, incompetent on every subject. All you can do is copy and past links from right-wing garbage sites. You have proven you don’t understand probability, don’t understand confidence intervals, and don’t seem to understand why studies on the aggregate of all published work by experts is better in almost all cases than 1 random study. You are also weighting non-climate scientists equally with climate scientists, and more importantly, as always, lying and saying it proves climate scientists are not in agreement. As noted in the article many papers do not state a position The multiple polls I mentioned also support the over 95% of climate scientists being in agreement, and the recent IPCC paper supports 97-98%.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/
Now skip reading these, Google them, and post the first link without reading it and call it a study, like you always do.
Bye Bobby, data, statistics and people who read the studies, time to declare victory, go post in other threads, link to Forbes and call it academic studies.
UW:
We can assume you know what I meant about the study, so instead of arguing how I said what I said, argue my data. Also, my “study” is a study of studies. It goes over them.
Moving on:
Do you know how to read? The 97% data statistic used data that was misleading, and 63% of the authors of the studies from your study, said that their studies were used in a misleading way. That 97% isn’t so 97% when the papers are misrepresented. My “study” is a compilation of all research papers regarding global warming.
What do you not understand about that? If 97% of all scientists agree that global warming is primarily man made why do only 65 out of ELEVEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND FORTY FOUR come to the conclusion that the primary factor of global warming is man made?
“Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.”
And by that we are talking studies for that total.
If 97% of scientists agree I would imagine we would have thousands of papers proving global warming is primarily man made, but it is in fact only .5%.
“actu says:
Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 0
Thumb down 0
Bye Bobby, data, statistics and people who read the studies, time to declare victory, go post in other threads, link to Forbes and call it academic studies.
”
How was my data not data?
When I source quote Forbes, and they put a number, I use the number and come to a conclusion. Do you debate that out of 11,000 papers only about 50 came to the conclusion that global warming was primarily man made?
The one who didn’t look at the study was UW, when he quoted the 97%. I specifically proved that 63% of those scientists say the 97% number does not accurately represent their opinion. Do you disagree?
“Now skip reading these, Google them, and post the first link without reading it and call it a study, like you always do.”
I do not skip reading your links. I often say how they are wrong and then you make crap up.
You do not get to talk to me like that and expect not to be called a moron. Back on topic:
Do you debate that 11,000 papers were written on climate change and only 50 showed evidence that climate change was man made?
That is what my link showed. Your links do not disprove that, so you’re the one who isn’t reading links.
Clearly the majority of scientists cannot believe the global warming is man made (97%) if .5% of papers say the same. The numbers don’t add up. My original statement is accurate and you have tried to derail it with new links, kicking the argument into other areas.
97% of scientists are not in agreement that 100% of climate change is man made.
I just finished reading your first link, and it does nothing to support it’s position other than basically saying that someone else included non experts, and then does not reference who it’s experts are. This means your study has narrowed which scientists can comment on climate change. How did they decide this? Do you know? Or did you just knee jerk accept that fact?
When reading through this his comment directly contradicts my study, and one has to be wrong.
Mine says:
“Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.”
Yours says:
” They also added that the 97.1 percent consensus established by the independent raters was further supported by a second phase of the study, which asked the authors of the examined papers to rate their own studies in regard to their positions on anthropogenic climate change. This self-rating phase returned a consensus of 97.2 percent.”
One of these two numbers is incorrect.
You believe it’s yours, you have no proof of that. Mine actually breaks down the numbers, yours just says vaguely that the wrong scientists were chosen without demographics.
Mine says the number of papers. Yours tries to dismiss that by association not by contradicting numbers by proving them. It is you who doesn’t read your own material, and you take vague comments as facts.
My link contained 97 links within it. If you can’t look at the 97 and then try to disregard it with one page that doesn’t even show it’s work, you have a problem buddy.
It gets old tearing your crap to pieces…Idiot.
Bob, this link:
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-percent-consensus.html
Is not a study you ignoramus. AGAIN, busted lying, as freaking always. And AGAIN 100% incompetent. You view Forbes blog posts as equivalent to peer reviewed studies because they confirm your beliefs. You complain that some publish work is authored by people who don’t have their degree and then post articles by people who aren’t even climate scientists, and aren’t peer reviewed. Also, since you clearly don’t know how academic research, or any research for that matter, works, I will tell you. These people are done with or mostly done with their coursework and do research. This is done with one or more professors in close consultation. They then submit it, and other experts in the field approve it before passing it on for at least a second round before publication. It is then rebutted in other work if people don’t agree with it, or confirmed.
I’ve already commented on the “debunking” of the Cook paper to one of your partners in stupidity, so just look that up; it’s confirmed by multiple polls of climate scientists and the reasons stated for criticizing them simply don’t hold up. The science is in and anywhere from 90-97% of climate scientists agree.
The fact that you genuinely seem to think that is a study is astounding and absurd, no wonder got but into so much BS. Stating that the authors disagree with the findings, and then saying only 4% responded AGAIN shows you are clueless, that’s an insanely small sample that almost has to suffer from response biad, which again is confirmed by later work by Cook, and by multiple large polls, and again you will deny without knowing what it means.
Also, Bob, when you have to constantly freak out and say to multiple people, “YOU %$&@# KNOW WHAT I MEANT WHAAA WHAAA,” it should be an indication your writing is pure crap once you start your meltdowns.
Finally:
“Whether or not you added a 110% upper interval (which actually increases the amount of human caused climate change, it does NOT decrease it so why the hell did you add that comment?) is irrelevant.”
This isn’t a thing, an “upper interval” is a Bob creation. You obviously have No Clue what a confidence interval is, so stop whining about math, and stop commenting on anything related to data, you aren’t competent.
I did not add what I assume you would call a lower interval, I mentioned an extreme value on the lower amount of climate change the confidence interval, based on peer reviewed literature, would attribute to humans. Don’t comment on it, because you clearly don’t know what it is.
You dismissed a massive study you didn’t read, and clearly didn’t understand, whined about people supposedly not having degrees and then linked to blog posts you called a study, all while showing close to 0% knowledge about statistics. You are a total clown, below an intellectual lightweight.
Now freak out, give in to your potential Aspergers and focus on the most irrelevant point, while ignoring the rest and pretending you are making sense.
Bob, your article is garbage. The first article, one of the few academic studies (Tol) has been thoroughly debunked, and suffered from serious math problems, including the creation of 300 nonexistent rejection papers, as well as using the wrong sign, e.g. negative instead of positive. But, this paper “disproving” it also agreed the literature overwhelmingly supported the climate change hypothesis.
“Cook et al., 2013 (C13) found that 97% of relevant climate papers endorse anthropogenic global warming (AGW), consistent with previous independent studies. Tol, 2014 (T14) agrees that the scientific literature “overwhelmingly supports” AGW, but disputes C13’s methods. We show that T14’s claims of a slightly lower consensus result from a basic calculation error that manufactures approximately 300 nonexistent rejection papers. T14’s claimed impact on consensus due to the reconciliation process is of the wrong sign, with reconciliation resulting in a slight increase (<0.2%) in the consensus percentage. Allegations of data inconsistency are based on statistics unrelated to consensus. Running the same tests using appropriate consensus statistics shows no evidence of inconsistency. We confirm that the consensus is robust at 97 ± 1%."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Cook_2014_Reply_Tol.pdf
You know nothing, every statement you make is wrong, dishonest, or thoroughly debunked everywhere outside the far right-wing bubble. You have proven you know nothing about statistics. All you can do is memorize a few talking points and paste your few bookmarked links you haven't read, and declare you are right and intelligent.
Also, do some research on what bullying and racism mean, because you clearly don't know.
Allow me to show the work since you won’t. Your link clearly narrowed who was considered a scientist, and did not mention what that number was, or what qualified as a climate scientist.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
Wall Street goes over why many studies are wrong. To show why the “who” of scientists is important, which again your link does not quantify, this one shows how one of them excluded all scientists except for 79 that they wanted to respond.
Another went over 200
Another was 39.5 percent or 1854
Then we have what wording did the study use? Was it that they believed man mad climate change simply existed? Was it that they found it to be catastrophic?
Let’s move forward why your study doesn’t hold water:
A petition in California signed by 31,000 people with education on the matter, 9,000 with phd’s do not find global warming to be a threat to the world. This was out of California alone, a liberal state.
So are you going to disregard 9,000 phd majors as not knowing what they are talking about for your cherry picked number that you can’t even tell me how many there were?
And then disregard the 11,000 papers, saying the argument your link cited, which is not credible and not quantified?
And you call me a fool UW????
Wake up kid. I do my research ten times better than you.
SHOW.
YOUR.
WORK.
You have not to date.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
Also, Actu, stop mocking my name. I have not mocked your names. It is a sign of bullying, that you accuse me of.
This is the article I mentioned.
By the way UW: It mentions your IPCC number and why that doesn’t hold up.
I’m going to add real quick here, because this is getting really old:
Both you and UW say I insult when proven wrong. Technically, you believe you just proved me wrong.
Were there swear words in my latest reply? Or was there anger, and then a bunch of facts telling you to show your work?
I give you chances to remove your insults and to focus on honest debate, and you insist on keeping them in while calling me “bobby” the bully.
Knock it off.
God you are a fucking idiot Bob. Your bullshit link cites meteorologists, it doesn’t change anything. It mentions stupid polls, but ignores the huge ones that have already been brought up. The petition in your article is of physicists and chemists, not climate scientists. Just STFU already. You didn’t even address his/her link shooting down your bullshit claim. This link is just like screaming NO. It has also been brought up that the papers don’t take a positive position saying it exists because it is accepted in the community, it would be like a physicist declaring they think gravity existed, eg stupid and unnecessary. The 97% claim is accurate. You agree with the 3% because you are a nutty insane conservative.
You have no reading comprehension. They didn’t exclude people they didn’t want to respond, people just didn’t respond. You deny the poll based on the wording even though you don’t know the wording. In your stupid “liberal state” petition only 0.1% of people had a background in climatology. It is propaganda and you bought into it like the stupid rube you are.
Just leave please.
“God you are a fucking idiot Bob. Your bullshit link cites meteorologists, it doesn’t change anything. It mentions stupid polls, but ignores the huge ones that have already been brought up. The petition in your article is of physicists and chemists, not climate scientists. Just STFU already. You didn’t even address his/her link shooting down your bullshit claim.”
Yes I did. His link claimed that over 90% of the scientists agreed with the assessment of their claims. My link said 63% disagreed. One of them is wrong, his doesn’t cite who.
Moving on:
My poll does not ignore his studies. They are all separate and in addition to each other. We do not throw out pieces of information just because.
Do you deny that 11,000 papers were written on this matter and that only .3% drew the conclusion that climate change was majority man made?
That isn’t a poll. It is a study of studies, a compilation. If UW’s study is representative of ALL scientists, it needs to be ALL. It cannot be cherry picked people that you designate as specialists, and then disregard 9,000 phd majors who studied on the issue.
As a side comment: Only so many people can be accepted as climate scientists and get a career in that field. The amount of those in the field who get through are minimal, and have the SAME exact degree as the people you just said that should not be allowed to comment on the issue.
” It has also been brought up that the papers don’t take a positive position saying it exists because it is accepted in the community, it would be like a physicist declaring they think gravity existed, eg stupid and unnecessary.”
Wrong. Climate change is not like Gravity, when papers 10,000 papers study climate change and they all accept it occurs, the degree of which it is man made is completely relevant in the papers. Accepting that a majority of climate change is man made is not like gravity. It requires evidence.
“You have no reading comprehension. They didn’t exclude people they didn’t want to respond, people just didn’t respond. You deny the poll based on the wording even though you don’t know the wording. In your stupid “liberal state” petition only 0.1% of people had a background in climatology. It is propaganda and you bought into it like the stupid rube you are.
Just leave please.”
Screw you. You don’t get to talk to me like this. YOU need to clarify your poll wording, because it’s relevant. I clarified mine. And I just showed how the highest number we have have people involved with climate change, is 39.5%. Not 97%.
I have debunked the number. Get over it.
I have given 97 links, 97, showing that the number is wrong.
But they are all just dumb people right?
They all gave numbers as to why it is wrong. Many dealt with the lies that UW’s paper cited, you didn’t read my links. They did go over what he said. I went over what he said. And I debunked it.
“You have no reading comprehension. They didn’t exclude people they didn’t want to respond, people just didn’t respond. ”
When only 79 people respond, and they then ignore 31,000, they excluded the people they don’t want to respond.
You have reading comprehension skills. I made it pretty damn clear what I meant. They were finding ways to make the amount of credible scientists lower.
They didn’t seek out the 9,000 phd majors who deny it is majority man made, did they? And they then called it as you do, non credible. What do we call that actu?
That is excluding.
Here, let me direct again what you said I didn’t:
“In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/97-percent-solution-ian-tuttle
The scientists actually argued they had been misinterpreted. Two sources saying the same thing.
In UW’s source he tried to claim that over 90% of the people agreed with how they were represented but this is easily proven wrong. Then we just move forward and see that the person was clearly manipulating consensus.
Are you done basically denying every single piece of evidence that shows there is not universal agreement on climate change?
Bob, are you through trying to reason with the likes of UW, Confused and Actu the robot? All of these young punks think they are smart and they have been brainwashed by liberal professors to think the way they do.
what a great (sarcastic) way to add to the conversation, agent! just keep posting insults to detract from the topics being discussed…stay classy.
They continue to push their agenda on a variety of fronts. Defunding fossil fuel companies by requiring private companies to not invest in them is the financial tactic.
The news yesterday showed that California lawmakers are trying to legislatively make it illegal to basically disagree with the Climate Change advocates under the Unfair Practices Law.
Here is a link to one of several articles on it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3436192/posts
They are trying to make it illegal to even disagree with the “science” behind it. Watch out…soon they will make it illegal to believe in God since “science” can’t prove He exists.
Sorry, I made a mistake…its the unfair competition law.
integrity, we forgive you, but the word parsing trolls won’t. I got the gist of what you said and agree with you.
We really need to restore freedom in this country again. The Progressive side is doing everything they can to impose their will on the people. Good thing Obama is a short timer and the line up they have with either Hilliary or Bernie will not fly election time.
Thanks, Agent.
I am very concerned about this election because the uninformed voters and the dishonesty of the democratic party can easily swing people to Bernie or Hilliary.
Seriously, who in their right mind could possibly vote for HilLIARy?? With her bold face lies, corruption and ineptness, how can she possibly have as much of a following as she does?
Trump is no knight in shining armor but at least he doesn’t try to make excuses or blame other people.
People following Bernie fall basically into three camps:
1. They want free stuff and don’t want to work for it and think those who have earned it the old fashion way should be forced to share.
2. They have an ounce of sense and can’t bring themselves to vote for the corrupt liar, Hilliary.
3. They do not have common sense to figure out there is not enough money out there (from rich people or otherwise) to pay for everything Bernie is promising them.
All I can say is God, please help us!
“Trump is no knight in shining armor but at least he doesn’t try to make excuses or blame other people.”
Except for when the media plays a clip about something he said and he freaks out saying they are being unfair, or when he raped his wife because he was embarrassed about his bald spot and the work the plastic surgeon she recommended did, or when he talked about his dick in a debate because he “had to”, or when he went bankrupt multiple times, or when he got caught taking an illegal loan from his father to save his failed casino, or when he paid off a witness so they wouldn’t testify, or about 1,000 other incidents.
You are such a clueless fanatic living in a fantasy world.
HAHAHAHA!!
You believe everything you read on the internet and what MSNBC tells you and you call me clueless and living in a fantasy world!!??!!!
I guess you really believe:
– it was a video that caused the Benghazi attack
– Hilliary told the truth about that video…for months
– Hilliary had permission to use a private server and really turned over all her emails and NOT ONE email she ever sent was classified or top secret
– Bill never had sex with Ms. Lewinsky
– Bernie really can pay for everything he is promising to give for free
– Obamacare is really working for the entire country.
You really need to perform a self-assessment on where you get your info and who you should believe. Their being correct or truthful “almost 100%” of the time doesn’t seem to be working for you.
“You believe everything you read on the internet and what MSNBC tells you and you call me clueless and living in a fantasy world!!??!!!”
No, you illiterate idiot, I believe the clips I see where he says it himself.
Calling the media unfair is not freaking out. It is what it is. If the media is so thin skinned to call it freaking out, the media is freaking out. We get the ability to question the media without being publicly destroyed on the right, thank you very much.
Oh yes, of course, he was embarrassed about his bald spot so raped his wife.
You are literally insane. You just say things, and you have no evidence of them. If you do I would love to see where Trump said he raped his wife.
Bob, obviously Trump never said he raped his wife, idiot. She said it, under oath, and then a judge (presumably non-Mexican since he hasn’t whined about it, even though he’s not racist supposedly) granted her a divorce based on cruel and inhuman treatment of her. She has not recanted on her statements, and did not deny it when reported, she only said it was a marital spat. But, she can’t say anything about it now, because she had to sign a NDA in her settlement.
Of course Trump hasn’t commented on this lately, and even then you wouldn’t believe it unless it confirmed your predetermined beliefs, but his lawyer did say a man cannot rape his wife. Garbage supports garbage.
“Bob, obviously Trump never said he raped his wife, idiot. She said it, under oath, and then a judge (presumably non-Mexican since he hasn’t whined about it, even though he’s not racist supposedly) granted her a divorce based on cruel and inhuman treatment of her. She has not recanted on her statements, and did not deny it when reported, she only said it was a marital spat. But, she can’t say anything about it now, because she had to sign a NDA in her settlement. ”
I didn’t question whether or not he said it. I questioned whether or not it was real.
She never recanted her statements?
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/donald-trumps-ex-wife-ivana-fights-back-against-rape-report-2015287
The only statements on the matter that say the bald spot section is from a guy who wrote a book about it, and she herself told the guy his account was incorrect.
He claimed he was writing what she recanted to close friends. She claimed that is not what she said.
The bald comment statement is complete heresy.
You just believe what you want to though, without looking things up, the first google search you do, don’t you? I’m going to throw that back at you.
I’m such an idiot aren’t I UW?
It sounds like you’re having a hard time with me when I refuse to back down.
You said she never recanted the statements. You were wrong.
You gave a 97% number, I then asked what we should go by, published papers on the matter? The 63% of scientists that say their conclusion was misrepresented in the 97%?
70 some handpicked specialists, who I’m sure were selected to push the agenda?
Let’s just face the facts here, you can’t just narrow down which scientists are credible, or like Sanders say you will prosecute climate change deniers, and ignore 31,000 people with experience on the matter, or 11,000 papers by saying that climate change is the default given and that therefore the papers wouldn’t point it out (that’s what your source said, and it’s wrong).
We focus on numbers, data, and evidence. Not restricted and controlled information.
If you want to give a source that says 97% of all scientists agree, when 31,000 do not you cannot say “well they aren’t the scientists we are talking about, 97% of REAL scientists agree”
This is what we call the “no true Scotsman” Theory. Go ahead, call me an idiot again while I use advanced terminology and break down why you’re wrong.
You look foolish as all hell.
While you may not like it, when he mentioned the Mexican heritage he was worried his comments about illegal immigration and being labeled a racist might affect anyone with Mexican background from being able to be non partisan.
How does the saying go, a party of your peers?
Even if he were racist when he said that, that would REINFORCE that the judge shouldn’t be the one on the case.
Do you understand that or no? He isn’t racist though. He knows the public’s perception of him and is worried they are attempting to destroy him. This does not make him racist.
Moving on: This same judge has Hillary Clinton ties, and chose to make the case public, then apologized when he made certain aspects public that he was not supposed to (oops!) and you think it has nothing to do with either Clinton or the judge wanting to take down a perceived racist?
You are hardly impartial in that scenario.
Let’s say we took an all white jury against a black man. Could we trust it was an unbiased decision in the 1800’s?
You’re basically just a fool.
So the party of Lincoln, who in campaigns wants to appear to be anti-racist, is falling lock-step behind a racist. As McConnell says, “anything to win back the White House.”
Try to get your facts straight, fun. The KKK has its roots in the democratic party.
And, if people would take there blinders off, they could see that today’s democrats are using a different form of slavery. It’s called welfare.
The more people they can get to receive handouts, the more the population will be dependent upon the government.
Apparently, todays democrats do not subscribe to JFK’s philosophy of “ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country.”
The American dream used to be wide open for a person to pursue. Now the American dream is an Obamaphone and free healthcare and food stamps. The more the democrats want to hand out, the more the population realizes they can get something for doing nothing.
integrity matters,
Interesting that you said, “Apparently, todays democrats do not subscribe to JFK’s philosophy of ‘ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country.'” Yet, in the same post, you stated, “The KKK has its roots in the democratic party.”
Does this mean that the Democrats have or have not changed their philosophical beliefs over time? Or do you just pick and choose to support your narrative?
Ron,
Insurance is fun! is insinuating that those who will support Trump in the election are somehow racist because of his Muslim comments.
That would be like me saying that everyone who backs Hilliary is a lying felon. I am almost 100% certain that many of her supporters are not a lying felon. I am almost 100% certain that some are lying felons.
The KKK comment was to remind him/her that racist roots in this country go back to the democratic party and the suppression of black Americans is well documented.
Kennedy’s statement was trying to get people to be the masters of their own destiny and not look to the government to support them. His unfortunate demise resulted in Lyndon Johnson increasing social welfare. Every democratic president since then has been “raising the bar” on how much they can give out because they know it gets them elected. Therefore, todays democrats do not believe that Americans should be trying to help the country instead of taking from the country.
People in general change their beliefs over time. Do political ideologies change? Are democrats purposely suppressing minorities because they are racist or simply because they want to be elected and know they have a better chance if they promote it under the guise that they are “trying to help them”?
I don’t have that answer but, it’s hard to believe the democrats when they lie so much directly to your face.
whoa. welfare is a form of slavery? slavery means involuntary servitude and welfare is voluntary, right? furthermore, involuntary slavery is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person’s will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker’s financial needs. by the US’s legal and constitutional definition, since welfare is about financial needs, it cannot be called slavery.
additionally, nobody is FORCED into welfare – people have to qualify and apply for it, and it is not binding. name me one person who applied to be a slave and had a non-binding agreement with their master. i would have agreed with you more had you said prisoners are slaves, though.
“Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 12
Thumb down 4
integrity matters,
Interesting that you said, “Apparently, todays democrats do not subscribe to JFK’s philosophy of ‘ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country.’” Yet, in the same post, you stated, “The KKK has its roots in the democratic party.”
Does this mean that the Democrats have or have not changed their philosophical beliefs over time? Or do you just pick and choose to support your narrative?
”
Those are not contradictory statements and do not imply a change.
You can be a racist and believe you should ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.
The two statements are not at all linked. Next absurd statement please?
Ron,
So you seem to be implying that there was a flip, and you yourself pick and choose, and then you claim it was integrity based on a comment that had nothing to do with racism.
Let’s ignore the civil rights bill of 1957, let’s ignore that more republicans supported the bill in 1964, and that if republicans in the south wanted to continue racism they would not have supported the people supporting it,
Let’s just magically say a flip happened. Of course.
The south flipped due to religious leanings when it became clear the democrats were going for abortion and other issues. That is why they flipped.
There was always racism in the south, but not enough to affect the elections and flip them for the next 60 years. That is insane to suggest.
By the way Ron:
In an old post I just saw, but it is dead you asked if I would question Agent’s reading comprehension now.
My answer is no. He did not fail to understand what I said. He understood it and failed to understand why I would side with Gary Johnson. That is not a reading comprehension issue.
I direct agent often when I believe he’s wrong, and he says stuff like that often.
Moving on: You asked me why I was voting for Trump instead of Gary Johnson and why I don’t vote for who I want to…You’re saying that to get Clinton to win. I know it for a fact. It shows how dishonest and willing you are to do anything to get a democrat into office.
Do you know how I know that?
You said you voted Obama twice. You said you are for smaller government and couldn’t vote for Romney.
Guess who ran as a libertarian in 2012? Please guess Ron, won’t you please please guess?
Gary Johnson. Why didn’t you vote for him, Ron?
I imagine being the image person you are you thought you finally found a way to get people like me out of the way for Clinton to win. Send us to Gary Johnson and say we aren’t moderates if we don’t vote for him. A libertarian would never risk a Hillary win. Ever.
She’s not winning this election, and thus I won’t vote Gary Johnson.
integrity, correct on the roots of the KKK. The dishonorable Senator Robert Byrd (D) West Virginia put the sheets on and rode the ponies and was unapologetic about it until on his death bed. Lyndon Johnson had to use all his political skills to get Democrats to vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Democrats have always held black people down and try to continue to do it today.
integrity, you are correct of course. I found it interesting that Oblama said he was going to endorse Hilliary and campaign for her while his own DOJ & FBI are investigating her criminal activities. Oblama doesn’t seem to know or care about conflicts of interest, does he?
Progressive Socialist Democrats are the worst forms of human life in this country. Now UW, feel free to downthumb me about 100 times.
integrity, how about we lighten up some?
Saw a good cartoon today. Picture of Bert & Ernie. It said- Bert + Ernie = Bernie!
Confused,
There are several meanings of slavery. There are a couple that correlate to my point.
Bondage: the state of being bound by or subjected to some external power or control.
For those that choose to live off the government (and for some, it is a choice), it is a form of bondage. Some try to get off of welfare but can’t because if they work harder and make a little more money, they end up losing the assistance they initially received so that the net effect harms them. It disincentivizes them to better themselves.
Another definition is “the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune.”
In this example, the government has power over the persons life, liberty and fortune by controlling how much money and food stamps they can get. While this is not absolute power, it is power nonetheless. The government becomes enablers of laziness and complacency.
Generations of people have become enslaved to the government handout because that is what they are told they can get for free. For some, that is an acceptable way of life because complaining is easier than working hard. Do they prefer to have a better life? Of course. Are they willing to do whatever it takes to get out of that situation? For some, the answer is yes and for others, no.
The incentive should be to become self-sustaining and self-reliant, not dependent on some other person or entity.
Why are there so many college educated adults still living at home with their parents? Because they can! Un and under employment certainly play a role, but I know too many millennials that won’t take a job if they feel it is beneath them (or their education).
It may not be “involuntary slavery” from a constitutional perspective, but I still believe it is a “form” of slavery.
It seems that UW is a bit more edgy and abrasive than usual. I suspect it’s due to the compounding bad news about Hillary’s legal and ethical issues. Especially troubling to UW must be the news of the Tell-All book by the Secret Service agent assigned to the Clintons (Byrne) that is due out in a few weeks.
The Solar & Wind energy stocks UW has been holding will tank soon after the general election, when Hill & Bill will be forced to ride off into the sunset, never to be seen as a force on the US political scene again.
All this has been what caused UW to double down on personal attacks on the pesky ‘Climate Change Doubters’. …. and those bots are out, again!
And, this is your brain on Faux News. Any questions?
Yes, I have one question; who do you nominate when the FBI investigation of Hillary concludes she violated several laws? Ignore the possibility that Loretta Lynch will disregard the FBI suggestion to indict her, as Lynch will have to protect Obama from the testimony that would ensue.
In the unbelievably minuscule chance that Hillary IS indicted, I honestly don’t think it will matter. People won’t necessarily vote for her because they like her, but many will vote for her because she is Not Trump. If she somehow were forced to pull out, which again, is such a long shot it’s not even worth discussing, Biden could jump in and win in a landslide. For all of his faults, he would be the most attractive candidate in this whole mess.
Many others, myself included, will sit out this election altogether. I absolutely refuse to choose between either of the two candidates, and I honestly don’t know enough about the libertarian candidate yet.
Pick your poison, folks! Either way, the next 4 years are going to be crazy.
Louie,
People felt the same way about Reagan during his initial election that they do about Trump. Reagan brought this country back to prosperity after double digit inflation and interest rates.
Trump was not my first or second choice, but I feel this country will be better off with him than with the HilLIARy.
She has no trouble lying to the public to get her way and thinks she is above the law. I have no doubt that she and Wild Bill have benefitted financially from selling favors to foreign countries. I think Trump loves and respects this country too much to ever stoop that low.
Yes, I do realize people thought that way about Reagan, however there are MANY differences between Trump and Reagan.
for example, Reagan:
1). had actual political experience
2). had not been sued literally hundreds of times in his life
3). never called for an entire class of people to be banned from our country based on their religion
4). was a unifier, not a divider.
5). was generally liked by women instead of loathed
6). was not a racist
7). knew how to compromise (see Tip O’Neil)
8). never discussed the size of his manhood in public
9). never got into public feuds with others
10). had a clue about foreign policy.
11). was not a conspiracy theorist (birth certificate, anyone?)
12). knew what he stood for and why he stood for what he did.
13). accepted that he wasn’t always right
14). Did not want to spend billions on a wall which realistically would never be built anyway.
15). was not afraid to release his tax records.
Reagan was not perfect, but Trump couldn’t come CLOSE to him in the character department. Trump is an absolute embarrassment to the GOP and our country as a whole. I say this as a registered Republican.
Louie,
Thanks for your reply. I apologize. I did not mean to imply that Trump was like Reagan in character or otherwise; just that some people loathed him (one co-worker swore he was the anti-Christ because each of his names had 6 letters) and made false accusations similar to Trump. He went on to become one of the best Presidents we ever had.
My point is that, with all the things you listed being wrong with Trump, HilLIARy or Bernie would be that and worse.
This country cannot afford (politically or financially) either democratic candidate to be elected. Trump is the better alternative even with his faults.
Trump has a better chance at having the rest of the world respect this country again. HilLIARy did not have any respect from the rest of the world when she was Secretary of State and will sell us out and Bernie will make us so financially weak, it is scary.
my apologies, as I re-read your post I realize you actually weren’t comparing Trump and Reagan. Reading comprehension isn’t my strongest suit.
That being the case, I gave 15 reasons why I could never vote for Trump. I’m sure I could come up with just as many for Hillary and Bernie.
Methinks we’re screwed either way.
@louie; apparently, you missed the part in my comment where I said “ignore the possibility that Loretta Lynch will disregard…”.
I do not doubt the crooked Dems will nominate ‘The Queen of Corruption'(Huckabee’s term for her).
But, please explain how Biden would win in a landslide when he enters the race in July.
Many negatives on both candidates means the one who gets out the vote will win. And, Bernie supporters are not happy about the crooked Dem’s rigged Super Delegate system determining the race before it began. If Trump woos them (Bernie supporters) effectively, he wins it by a hyuuuge margin. Otherwise, it will be a close election, with a historically low turnout of registered voters.
Hillary for Prison Resident, 2016-36.
Yogi –
I LOVE the Hilliary for Prison Resident 2016-2036! I literally LOL’d.
I can’t wait to share it!
I hate to tell you this Louie, but if Hilliary is indicted, her campaign is over. She might try to gracefully withdraw due to health reasons since that cough keeps getting worse. Personally, I would love for her to be fitted with that orange jump suit prior to the convention.
And again, this is your brain on Faux News.
Not you, louie, Yogi is the one who has obviously snorted too much Hannity.
Stop mocking entire sources and individuals, and start focusing on individual pieces of information.
Watching Hannity does not make someone wrong. If they quoted a bad fact they would be wrong.
I imagine you focus on Hannity becaues you have nothing else to focus on fact wise.
@Bob; Louie, etc. have blamed the messengers for the bad news about their candidates.
I follow what the actual candidates say, and not what the media reports with their spin. I listen for bad or misleading questions and how the person responds.
Unfortunately, neither Trump nor Hillary have said anything that gives me comfort. My vote will be based on which candidate gives me the least amount of discomfort about the future under their administration, and the SCOTUS judges they will seat during their term(s) in office.
Cough, cough, cough!
Yogi,
I agree, this is why I’ve even said of Trump that he speaks like a complete jerk.
At least Sanders is gone now.
I’m sad to say I only slightly prefer Trump to Hillary even.
Yogi, wow, what a lively discussion going on between the Right and the Wrong. I don’t know if you caught the recent interview between Megyn Kelley and Trump. They have appeared to have mended the fences after a rough several months.
One thing that was telling about the questions and answers was Trump saying he was a counter puncher and when he is attacked, he hits back “hard”. I have never seen the amount of vitriol perpetrated by the media and pundits against a Presidential candidate. The establishment politicians are in mortal fear of this man and the left is going absolutely berserk that they might be seeing the beginning of the end of their gravy train.
Is he crude and vulgar at times? Yes! Will he be better to restore the country to strength and protect our citizens from our enemies? Absolutely! We can’t afford to allow Hilliary to continue Obama’s policies for another 4-8 years.
can you find any evidence that the disabled reporter hit/attacked trump first or can you admit trump doesn’t always counter-punch and is the first person to make an insult at times too?
“Now the poor guy — you ought to see the guy: ‘Uhh I don’t know what I said. I don’t remember!’ He’s going, ‘I don’t remember! Maybe that’s what I said.’” While quoting Kovaleski, Trump jerked his arms and body and held his hands in a claw-like manner reminiscent of the disease’s symptom.
I agree Trump mocked that reporter.
However, that pales in comparison to lying to relatives of the victims in Benghazi, and lying to EVERYONE investigating the use of an unsecured private email server in a closet that exposed US intel to foreign hackers and imperiled US covert agents (i.e. their ID and locations WERE exposed to our enemies).
Pick your poison. I’ll pick the less harmful one, that won’t steer the US down the road to ruin.
PS Hillary mocked a rape victim when she was a defense council who succeeded in protecting the defendant. You can look up the details. I doubt you will.
i didn’t know that, and i just read up about it. i didn’t see where she mocked the victim though. her laughter was about the validity of polygraph tests. can you provide me with some kind of text or quote that supports hillary mocked the victim and not just how bad lie detector tests are?
I suspect I might have made him angry when I used link after link the last argument we got into, and his world is crumbling.
He knows if he is wrong, then he has been an asinine, indoctrinated, fool, and he cannot allow that to be the case.
Unlike me, when I said I was a liberal and a fool, and I became clever due to being an idiot, for him to admit he was an idiot would destroy him.
I kind of feel sorry for the guy, but he’s the type who will flip given time.
What link was that, the one where Trump was quoted saying what you denied he said, causing you to lie, rationalize, and then disappear when I, and others, provided a video of him saying it — something you have done MULTIPLE times?
Or was it when you said for the 20th time unemployment rate was actually up due to labor force participation being destroyed by Obama, only to ignore the studies predicting this based on demographics? Oh wait, that happened multiple times too.
Was it when you were wrong about minimum wage, linked showing Hoover was forced into it during the Great Depression, and then lied about reading the comprehensive modern study I presented, lied about looking into the author, and then said you read it and incorrectly summarized it, after dismissing it because it was from a top economics program you called “liberal”? Weird, coming from a guy who considers all equally and goes on facts.
Wait, maybe when you said the GOP wasn’t obstructionist, they aren’t mainly trying to weaken Obamacare, and presented an article where all the first examples tried to weaken Obamacare, nor were they job bills like you claimed, and then whined when I actually cited the bills you provided as proof?
Funny you alternate between saying the main problem in the US is being too PC, whining about anybody who curses or calls people names, and then instantly start cursing out anybody who disagrees with you, calling them names, and using terms that are supposed to be dismissive, but are also arguably racist, boy.
Wait, I just noticed a pattern, you don’t know anything, and cannot resist the urge to compulsively lie!
“What link was that, the one where Trump was quoted saying what you denied he said, causing you to lie, rationalize, and then disappear when I, and others, provided a video of him saying it — something you have done MULTIPLE times? ”
And you just lied again, your video did not disprove what I said. I did not lie and rationalize. There are two quotes Trump said. In your video does Trump say we need to “kill” the family members of Muslims, or does it say we need to go after their families? When that statement was made he was talking about tracking families of Muslims.
On another he mentioned killing Muslims who were used as human shields. That one he used the word kill.
You have LIED yet again! How many times do I have to point out your video DOES NOT prove what you said it did!
You have to insert words or concepts, if Trump didn’t say it, HE DID NOT SAY IT.
“Wait, I just noticed a pattern, you don’t know anything, and cannot resist the urge to compulsively lie!”
Provide the video again, let’s reanimate this debate here and now. I’m not lying, but you are. You’re using that past fight as a way to discredit me, despite the fact that I have gone over what I said more than 10 times, so you’re either VERY forgetful, or you are doing it intentionally to mislead people.
I’ll start the argument again:
Trump has never said that he will KILL random Muslim families. Provide your source, NOW.
Give me the video.
Then I will retort he did not say he would “kill” he said you “have to go after these people’s families” and in the perspective of the separate conversations people are having now regarding Trump, he could have easily been talking about people who were living with their families and we didn’t even check those areas for terrorists.
This is insane UW, you lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, and repeat the same argument on that lie, again and again.
Get over it kid!
You.
Were.
WRONG!
“Funny you alternate between saying the main problem in the US is being too PC, whining about anybody who curses or calls people names, and then instantly start cursing out anybody who disagrees with you, calling them names, and using terms that are supposed to be dismissive, but are also arguably racist, boy.”
List one racist comment I have made.
I do NOT instantly curse when someone disagrees, I instantly curse when someone lies, bashes my image, distorts my message, and then calls me a racist, you dumb fuck.
Cause, and affect. You then attack the fact that I said insults. Boo hoo, grow up!
“Was it when you were wrong about minimum wage, linked showing Hoover was forced into it during the Great Depression, and then lied about reading the comprehensive modern study I presented, lied about looking into the author, and then said you read it and incorrectly summarized it, after dismissing it because it was from a top economics program you called “liberal”? Weird, coming from a guy who considers all equally and goes on facts. ”
Let’s break this down item by item:
What do you mean by the first item? That I proved that the great depression could have been worsened by an increased wage during the depression? If the middle class is where we build from, outward, then a wage increase should produce results even in a recession, because they are the ones who have no cash, the richest generally get richer in recessions, if they survive the crash. Those with cash, grow fast in those scenarios. The depression is a good example. The increased wage didn’t work. Building from the middle out doesn’t work, because you’re taking from the productivity that doesn’t exist. It’s not possible. Are you instead trying to say Hoover was FORCED into a wage increase?
CITATION NEEDED ASSHOLE. Here, let me do it for you TWO items he himself pushed for to increase prevailing wage during the depression:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377435/minimum-wage-makes-depressions-worse-amity-shlaes
“Politicians who followed Ford but had not yet heard of John Maynard Keynes thought the same high-wage policy might work across the economy. President Herbert Hoover liked the idea enough that within months of the 1929 crash he hauled business leaders to Washington to browbeat them into sustaining higher wages. Ford actually committed to raising pay, to $7 a day from $6. Within two years Hoover also signed the Davis-Bacon Act, which mandated that government offices fulfilling construction contracts in various regions pay the “prevailing wage” for the workmen’s trade and for the region. The act put additional upward pressure on wages at a time when the economy could ill afford that. Unemployment abided and rose, rather than disappearing, as it had in a depression of the early 1920s.”
And then lied about a comprehensive study? Are you seriously talking about the guy I mentioned from your study, I told you it was ONE study, and there were many that showed your modern study was not the only opinion? That isn’t lying buddy, it’s called discourse asshole!!!! Also: I did NOT incorrectly summarize it. Again, citation needed, because your memory is in question here, especially seeing how much I’m correcting you on my statements, ASSHOLE
Listen UW I’m sick of this.
I found the post you’re talking about, and you mixed two posts.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/01/27/396531.htm/?comments
This is what you’re talking about. I mentioned Hooever, you mentioned some studies, and I told you for every study you found claiming the wage had no affect, I could find ones that show it do. I then questioned your business skills. Can you prove how many firms it stopped from existing? I don’t think you can.
Notice in this you asked a question: Why do big corporations pay no taxes?
Easy answer? During 2008 time frame they were allowed to write of major losses. The majority of corporations pay huge sums, and the ones who pay low U.S. rates, pay high total rates. Incentivizing them to come home then makes sense, not raising rates more.
Now I’m reanimating a 6 month old debate. This is old kid. Grow up.
Bob, idiot.
“and I told you for every study you found claiming the wage had no affect, I could find ones that show it do”
Yes, but one of your major problems is recognizing that just because you say something does not mean it is true; in fact, based on your history the smart money is on it being false, kid.
You can present studies showing it to be false, but I presented a study, which you STILL don’t seem to comprehend. This study looked at ALL the modern published work on the subject and found that overwhelmingly they did not support the claim that increasing minimum wage by this amount would lead to a loss in jobs. They found that the large, more rigorous studies were clustered around no job losses, and few studies that did find job losses from an increase in the minimum wage used small data sets, less rigorous methods, and had results that were far away from the other studies. Or, in other words, they were garbage. Of course, these few, less rigorous studies, with less data, are what you cling to over the vast preponderance of the evidence. This is because you are an ideologue, and studies and data do not matter to you. You look for studies to confirm your beliefs, and then cling to them no matter what the data shows.
“Provide the video again,”
No you clueless moron, it has been provided at least 4 times by multiple people and you just ignore it. I’m not going to waste my time on a full blown retard, who suffers from severe mental instability. Learn how to use a search engine if you refuse to look at the first 4-5 times the video is linked. The same goes for the study I mentioned, which others were able to find.
“I didn’t say kill. We have to go after them.”
Bullshit, but the exact explanation an apologist would accept. He said, “Frankly, that will make people think, because they may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families’ lives.” And then said we had to take them out; there is no logical way to say they don’t care about their lives, but do care about their families’ lives, so we should take out their families, and then deny he meant killing them. There is nothing else in that context he could mean.
“Yeah, totally, we have a Hitler in Trump don’t we?”
He has also said he consider nuclear bombs to go after terrorists — something that could not be done without killing tens of thousands of civilians.
“These insults are not equivalent to a rapist, a sexist, a racist, a murderer, a fascist, anti women, anti black, anti poor, anti earth, anti Hispanic, anti Muslim, Genocidal Hitler reincarnated, middle class hating and enslaving, person.
Those insults are ALWAYS reserved for communists who seek to basically be ASSHOLES and start wars.”
Again, stupid beyond belief, and an indication of how uneducated you are, despite the clear fact you estimate your IQ somewhere in the range of 200. Fascists aren’t communists, so of course, you use it for fascists who are communists, and a bunch of other incomprehensible nonsense.
“I would knock your head in if we ever met. Not physically. I mean give you an earful that I’m sure you’re not used to receiving because you’re just an online coward!”
You have already threatened me with violence, so I do not believe you. Of course, you would go on a 45 minute, nonsensical, completely factually incorrect rant, and consider it a big schooling, because that is what uneducated, pompous, mentally unstable nuts do.
Also, ignoramus, the guy, Ohanian, who writes the BS “analysis” about Hoover you keep citing is a crank, and his work has been thoroughly debunked. Look up “Delong Ohanian” for some short easy articles you might even be able to understand. One thing he does, for example, is say New Deal policies created less work for people than there would have been otherwise, but he excludes government jobs. He is a fraud, so of course you cite him. Also, again, for maybe the 2 dozenth time, a president in the Great Depression adding a minimum wage does not mean, imply, or even hint at increasing the minimum wage leading to a decrease in jobs. You are looking at it below an elementary level, excluding almost every relevant variable. You do this because you are incompetent and dishonest.
Honestly, you are beyond clueless, and I am done with you, because as I stated you are a nut, and I think you are severely mentally unstable. You are even threatening violence, and then pulling it back right away so you don’t look bad, even though you never seemed to mind threatening violence before.
Get psychiatric help.
““I didn’t say kill. We have to go after them.”
Bullshit, but the exact explanation an apologist would accept. He said, “Frankly, that will make people think, because they may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families’ lives.” And then said we had to take them out; there is no logical way to say they don’t care about their lives, but do care about their families’ lives, so we should take out their families, and then deny he meant killing them. There is nothing else in that context he could mean. ”
Not bullshit. The video never said the word kill.
You are acting like a stubborn brat. I watched your link, it was taken into consideration when I posted, even a buffoon would have realized that, as I referred to two quotes he said including your quote, and showed how they were blurred. One he referred to killing by name, the other he said you “have to go after their families”. This is a verifiable fact if you looked at the video you claim you watched. Did he say the word kill, UW?
It is not apologist to say what I am. You gave a link which you said proved he would kill people, that never said the word kill. And when I said your video never said the word kill, you said I never watched the video. I even quoted your video! How could I have not watched it?
Come off it kid!
Bob,
If he did not mean kill when he said “we have to take them (family members of terrorists) out”, when referencing that terrorists only care about the LIVES of their families, then what did he mean? Take them out to dinner and a movie? Throw them in jail?
Ron,
That is debatable, isn’t it Ron? Denying them entry is going after them, that is going after their lives.
Literally searching their houses, is affecting their lives instead of backing off on the issue.
The point here is that he said the word kill was used and then berated me.
You can disagree, that is fine, but to call someone a liar about it?
Not ok. You just excused his actions I might add, and I demand you take a position on his actions and say he’s wrong for how he’s treating me on this issue.
You stand up when it’s a liberal, if you want me to keep replying to you I need to see you know when something is wrong.
Ron:
Also very likely:
Sanctions. This could easily mean sanctions. Punishing the society that does not take account for their people.
He mentioned once stopping oil buying to encourage them to fight their own wars and stand up to the terrorists in their nation.
That is also punishment and going after their families, especially in a businessman’s eyes.
Sanctions cause deaths I might add, and my bet is he knows this. His speech is poor but there is simply no way that Trump is what you guys are portraying him as. It is literally an impossibility.
The bottom line is that when proving something, we don’t err on the side of ludicrosity.
Or put in a better phrasing:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Bob,
Now I can see why you support Trump. You are both very thin-skinned bullies.
Is anyone justified in falsely calling someone else a liar? Obviously not.
How about a compromise? Can we agree that the phrase “take them out” could easily be interpreted as “kill”?
None of your interpretations of Trump’s words make any real sense. Searching the homes of the families of terrorists? Sanctions against the families of terrorists? Keeping the families of terrorists out of the country?
He may not have used the word “kill”, but to think he meant anything else is either naiveté or ignorance. I’ll let you choose which you prefer.
Why would I ever back you up after the way you have treated me and many others over the years. You have shown zero respect and have constantly insulted, threatened and demeaned me. In addition, you take my posts out of context, put words in my mouth, and used rhetoric over facts in order to make your narrative work.
You are in no position to demand anything of me. You are a bully, period.
“Bob,
Now I can see why you support Trump. You are both very thin-skinned bullies.
Is anyone justified in falsely calling someone else a liar? Obviously not.
How about a compromise? Can we agree that the phrase “take them out” could easily be interpreted as “kill”?
None of your interpretations of Trump’s words make any real sense. Searching the homes of the families of terrorists? Sanctions against the families of terrorists? Keeping the families of terrorists out of the country?
He may not have used the word “kill”, but to think he meant anything else is either naiveté or ignorance. I’ll let you choose which you prefer.
Why would I ever back you up after the way you have treated me and many others over the years. You have shown zero respect and have constantly insulted, threatened and demeaned me. In addition, you take my posts out of context, put words in my mouth, and used rhetoric over facts in order to make your narrative work.
You are in no position to demand anything of me. You are a bully, period.”
Let’s take this apart:
Is anyone justified in falsely calling someone a liar? Yes. If it is accidental and without malicious intent. You’re trying for your image again. My issue here is not that he called me a liar. It is that I keep giving him evidence that he doesn’t agree with, and thus he calls me a liar and uses it to discredit me on unrelated topics. He keeps bringing up the Trump issue and I keep on having to show I wasn’t lying about it.
No. We cannot err on the side of it “possibly” meant to kill. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We do not find reasons to call something racism or murderous in intent.
Each of my comments make sense. Literally each one. Going after their families makes sense in each of those contexts if you consider that we don’t currently search family households in other countries and often back away. Bin Laden was where we thought he was, and we didn’t mount a search in fear of violating families. The reports saying where he was located were true, even as the leaders of the countries he was in denied it.
To think he meant kill without the word kill is naive and ignorance. We don’t shape meanings even if they sound like they could possibly be with murderous intent, to the side of murderous intent. I’ll tell you what, if he tries to pass a law with murderous intent I will go against it and so will the public at large. So his comments here on this no, we will not just compromise and assume he will kill Muslims until he approaches such a law. It is more dangerous to try to do a pc war to keep people out of office and start political wars than it is to allow people into office who could also be good.
Fuck you. I am not a bully because I demanded you to stand up for me, when I’m being assaulted. You’re the bully for then throwing that in my face.
You are demanded when you walk into a conversation that is exploding against someone, to support them if you usually support the other side.
Why should I converse with someone who is watching my head get slammed in, and then constantly berates me on the other side of the coin Ron? I have ZERO obligation to reply to you, yet I do.
Quite the contrary, YOU thin skinned bully, I HAVE NO OBLIGATION to reply to your facts. But when I don’t, you then say I run off when someone contradicts me (method of bullying here) to ensure that when I don’t reply I have a negative image.
Don’t fuck around with me Ron. I’m getting tired of this bully label when I call you on shit.
Just knock it off.
Bob,
In your mind, there is no way “take them out” could be interpreted as “kill”? You are not even willing to concede that as a possibility?
I will stop calling you a bully when you stop acting like one. Swearing at me and demanding I do things are the actions of a bully, period. You can rationalize it all you want.
When have ever defended me against the attacks from Agent, Yogi Polar Berra, or yourself? How are those OK? Of course I am not weak and would never ask for someone else to come to my defense.
You have brought the attacks upon yourself based on the language you have been using for years on this blog. Try actually being reasonable, stop insulting and threatening others, using curse words and making demands. If you do not think you engage in these behaviors, you very well may be a psychopath in addition to being a bully.
“In your mind, there is no way “take them out” could be interpreted as “kill”? You are not even willing to concede that as a possibility?”
We do not label a possibility as a fact. Won’t you admit to the possibility that Obama could be a closet Muslim? See what I did there?
I will stop calling you a bully when you stop acting like one. Swearing at me and demanding I do things are the actions of a bully, period. You can rationalize it all you want.”
Saying fuck you I’m not a bully, is not a bully action. Demanding you to stand up for me before I reply to you, is not the action of a bully. End of story Ron, and I’ll say it again: FUCK YOU. We will start with square one and square one is you don’t use labels with me when we talk about issues. When someone is ranting at me and insulting like crazy, and you’re not standing up for me at all and join in, you are by default supporting the bully if you don’t make comment on it, and then call me one. It’s not acceptable.
“When have ever defended me against the attacks from Agent, Yogi Polar Berra, or yourself? How are those OK? Of course I am not weak and would never ask for someone else to come to my defense.”
I have, and I might add none of those people have gone as far as what UW is doing right now. Agent has not bullied you. You have insulted his reading comprehension and he has replied in kind. You two fight. And occasionally I tell him to knock it off.
You have have an explosion on your hands, and in order to defend your actions you are trying to justify them. Bullying is bullying, right Ron? Period?
“You have brought the attacks upon yourself based on the language you have been using for years on this blog. Try actually being reasonable, stop insulting and threatening others, using curse words and making demands. If you do not think you engage in these behaviors, you very well may be a psychopath in addition to being a bully.”
In correct. This is victim blaming right here. I constantly try to pull the conversation back to facts, as I am now, and then you say a label again and again “you are a bully period”.
When I say all caps “FOCUS ON MY FACTS” it is not out of line. You just generalized my demand to not be bullied as being the type of person who makes demands, you just generalized my defending myself with insults, example in case you called me a bully and I said fuck you, as a random act of insult, and then after that, you said if I don’t share your opinions, I am a psychopath.
THAT is bully Ron! I often say someone is wrong, and I only use the phrase bully when it is first used on me to control me.
This conversation is going back to the topic at hand, and if you want to BULLY and keep it with me as a psychopath I’m going to constantly tell you like the whiny kid that you are, that you’re a whiny bully and need to grow up.
I know this is hard for you to digest Ron, but saying insults and getting mad is not a bully. Bullies don’t give wiggle room. They don’t say they are wrong (I have on this site, and you just doubled down and called me a psychopath when I told you I would not continue a conversation with you while you were allowing me to get wrecked and I was being called a bully, this site is clearly out of control right now).
You can accept my level of keeping on topics without saying I don’t know how to read etc, or you can accept my insults that result from that. You cannot dominate me based on my reacting to your insulting nature.
Bob,
Thank you very much for proving my point.
Good day, sir.
I didn’t prove your point at all Ron.
This is really old. I’m not calling myself a bully. My habits don’t match them at all.
You can accept that, or keep fighting with me. Your choice, but realize I will always defend myself, and that does not make me a bully.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-terrorists_us_56e0d7cde4b065e2e3d4d82d
Huffington post is wrong on this nonetheless, but even they admit to a small degree, that he never said he would kill the families.
You’re inserting words because you want Trump to be a murderer, and that is the real problem with your attitude.
Yeah, totally, we have a Hitler in Trump don’t we?
Dumb ass.
Bob, after the awful scenario of Orlando, many Americans can see the wisdom of Trump saying that Muslims need to be vetted properly before they are admitted to this country. By the way, ISIS is here and they will be activating more cells to do what this crazy wild eyed Islamic Terrorist did.
And listen up child,
When I call someone ignorant, a jack ass, a moron, a brat, a jerk, etc,
These insults are not equivalent to a rapist, a sexist, a racist, a murderer, a fascist, anti women, anti black, anti poor, anti earth, anti Hispanic, anti Muslim, Genocidal Hitler reincarnated, middle class hating and enslaving, person.
Those insults are ALWAYS reserved for communists who seek to basically be ASSHOLES and start wars.
50% of the population is not like that, yet 50% will commonly vote republican.
Get over your damn foolish partisan bull…. You CANNOT label people like this. When they then insult you, it does NOT reinforce the label.
Keep it up, you guys are making yourselves look like the insane morons you are. And no, I don’t mean all leftists, which is why I even prefaced my insult to Sanders by saying I do not think all democrats are idiots or Sanders supporters.
But you…You vile filthy little piece of crap…You just spout off how people like me destroy the world.
I would knock your head in if we ever met. Not physically. I mean give you an earful that I’m sure you’re not used to receiving because you’re just an online coward!
In person I put my money where my mouth is. Little snot nosed brat, and I see people like you a dime a dozen talk up tabs they can’t pay, and the reason they rarely do it more than once, is partisan people like you get eaten for breakfast by moderates like me, and you typically get thrown out of groups while you complain and whine about others.
God, get owned Bob. The funny thing is you think you are making points and you are just getting totally eviscerated by everybody in the thread. Destroyed on Trump and terrorists, destroyed on minimum wage, destroyed on climate change and yet another fake study, destroyed on not knowing statistics, destroyed on your dumb KKK comments, destroyed on being a liar. Ppl have told you repeatedly about the Southern Strategy and racist Dixiecrats in the south moving to the Republican party and you just pretend it did not happen, and it was because of religion. You should look up the actual history of politics in the south instead of just reflexive supporting everything Republicans do, bashing anything Democrats do, and then pretending to be independent, oh I mean libertarian.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights
Actu-
Thank you for making my point that “liars figure”. (I am calling the author/contributor of the article, a liar, not you, Actu.)
A quote from the article you cited “As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, “sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors”.” Hmmm…control other factors…aka, manipulate the data.
This article is manipulating the data to make it look like democrats were the heroes of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The bottom line is that there were more Republicans, on a percentage basis, that voted for this bill than Democrats. Don’t forget, that Democrats made up almost 60% of the House and 67% of the Senate, so by shear numbers, they should have made it a landslide to pass.
Based on the theory presented, had their been more democrats or republicans based in the south, it never would have passed.
Furthermore, if you read the rest of the article, it purports and theorizes that the south has become more republican (conservative) and the north more democratic (liberal) because of the civil rights/racial stances. This seems to contradict the fact that minorities make up a significantly higher portion of the population in the southern states (compared to the north).
It’s funny how the article fails to show how minorities have further suffered economically in the larger cities where democrats have been in power for years. The dem’s in power continue to provide more and more entitlements, yet, minorities are doing worse than ever before. How is that helping the minorities again?
Ah so you don’t even believe in statistics aside from the most basic arithmetic, interesting. Yes, in a sense it is manipulating the data but that doesn’t mean it is bad, and you also do not try to argue against it or the Southern Strategy.
As you do not believe in controlling for variables, why do you say more Republicans as a percentage voted for the bill, instead of just looking at the totals? Probably because that goes against your narrative, and combined with other facts would confirm the southern states rejecting Democrats after the Southern Strategy.
“Ah so you don’t even believe in statistics aside from the most basic arithmetic, interesting. Yes, in a sense it is manipulating the data but that doesn’t mean it is bad, and you also do not try to argue against it or the Southern Strategy.
As you do not believe in controlling for variables, why do you say more Republicans as a percentage voted for the bill, instead of just looking at the totals? Probably because that goes against your narrative, and combined with other facts would confirm the southern states rejecting Democrats after the Southern Strategy.”
Easy answer? Because the percentage is relevant. The democrats had the majority in numbers. Because there was more racism in the party, a higher share of the numerical democrats voted against it. Because there were less republicans in office, that does not mean a lower share voted for it. The percentage is relevant.
You have not proven republicans are racist, and it is a racist tactic to do so. We vote on ideals, if you want to debate me go ahead, but instead you insist I’m racist and use it to discredit me. That is a bad tactic.
Your southern strategy theory is a crock. The south is still extremely religious, and I might add the primary section of humanity that helped slaves were Churches. How does that fit into your narrative, considering republicans STILL are obsessed with religion and that is why they vote right? On one hand you call us religious fanatics, and then you are unwilling to accept that religion played a roll in the south going republican and insist it was racism with no evidence whatsoever. Your numbers do not prove anything, and then do another label in regards to the south that is unacceptable.
There were many in the South who were not ok with slavery, but like today, were not ok with federal laws. You will find still today, republicans are against federal laws. They prefer state level laws for most aspects. So your numbers don’t prove racism. Wanting to be part of the union or the confederate, or being from a state that was lopped into that type of stereotype (over a hundred years later you reference whether a state wanted to join the confederacy to racism? Absurd) has nothing to do with the WHY.
You want the narrative. That is your corruption. You need for republicans to be racist, note how I don’t need that of democrats.
I don’t assume they are racist against blacks. It’s called being fair.
“Easy answer? Because the percentage is relevant.”
So funny bob. You don’t believe in subsets or manipulating data, unless of course King Bob declares it is” relevant.” When almost every climate scientist agrees on it and it goes against your beliefs it is unacceptable, but when you decide it is relevant it should be done.
You are a fucking joke. It’s so funny watching these guys slay you post after post just to see you make the same exact reply every time and then the you and the 3 idiots here all pat each other on the back about your fantasy universes.
Go away please
Bob, Ecclesiastes 10-2 clearly defines fools from the left.
What’s the Insurance Journal Comments Section record for highest usage of vulgarities by a poster in a single article comment section? Just wonderin’.
I don’t know, ask Bob, he’s the one who constantly spills them. He has to be the record holder. I quit reading anything he had to write years ago. I was sick of him bullying others and putting others down to stroke his own ego. In fact, reminds me a lot about one of the Presidential candidates we have running. I wonder if Bob has ever made fun of disabled people.
I might add, getting a group of people to ignore someone based on your label of them,
Is in fact bullying…
Ironic that you the real bully here make Mit Rob me comments, and I have never said anything like that about Obama.
Your catch phrases on insults are a problem.
Saying an insult does not make one a bully. These people choose to debate with me, and they choose to step outside of the realm of acceptability. I get the right to respond perturbed when someone calls me a racist rapey Mc. raperson.
You guys honestly don’t expect push back when you do these things because YOU are used to being a bully.
I have to add:
For someone who hasn’t read my comments you sure make a lot of assumptions about my habits.
Perhaps it is because you are the type to make a polarized decision and then label someone?
Do you go back to your highschool reunions and ignore all those bratty kids from your youth?
Your mentality is destructive, and clearly not a building one.
I do not bully, that card goes to you.
I do not label sections of media and society.
You do.
I wonder if you make fun of disabled people, because I do not.
Giving someone an earful does not account to a bully. I’m getting really sick of your high and mighty crud.
You constantly try to bully every time a poster calls you on one of your hundreds of lies or racist comments. Yes, supporting a ban on people based on their ethnicity is racist. You support racist policy. You are racist. I have seen you make threats to people here. You are a bully, and like all bullies freak out and cry the second one person stands up to you.
Cheers to Ron, Planet, uw, and the others who have helped reveal you as an insane person & a liar.
“Cheers to Ron, Planet, uw, and the others who have helped reveal you as an insane person & a liar.”
Cheers to them for insulting me eh? This is your bullying.
So what I just said is that I’m not a racist, and I don’t tell hundreds of lies and say hundreds of racist comments.
Why did I post actu? What was my motivation?
My motivation was to defend myself.
What was yours?
“Cheers to Ron, Planet, uw, and the others who have helped reveal you as an insane person & a liar.”
To label me an insane person and a liar. To make that label stick no matter what.
I AM A GOD DAMN HUMAN BEING.
Even if you think I’m wrong, you don’t get to treat me like an animal and make a movement to label me as racist and say therefore I get to be put in a corner and abused. Standing up to a racist would be actually standing up to a racist, not calling someone racist and using that to toss out all their arguments.
God kid…Grow up.
Bob, it is all a tactic used by the far left crowd when they can’t win any argument on any subject and they are extremely angry that their belief system is in the toilet. This has been going on a long time and maybe we will get some relief when their hero departs from office in a few short months.
In my case I just decided I was going to keep this one going with more and more facts.
They can’t keep calling me an idiot while I use facts and data.
Well, they can, but it won’t make them look very good.
UW makes the mistake of saying “always” and “never” a lot. He just made that mistake again with Trump’s ex wife. It makes him look like an idiot when I then provide a link with her recanting.
Then I break down his 97% number and the no true Scotsman stuff he is pulling.
And I’m sure he’ll then call me a pseudo intellectual.
I do sometimes reply to his childish behaviors wrongly…I should get a handle on it. The guy just pushes all the right buttons.
And I’m a bully…The one who says he can be wrong, and admires the other guys tenacity, and compliments him, is the bully…
God…This is absurd.
As an aside comment:
As a kid I had my head hit into a brick wall in 8th grade. I made friends with the kid.
Kids who were selling pot in my school threatened to have me killed. I befriended them.
I have been bullied, and I admit my personality attract them. So I know when I see one. I give a chance at peace and compliment UW often for his tenacity, and then he makes a new comment about how fucking stupid I am and don’t know how to read.
Let’s say I was stupid, or retarded…
Let’s just go there.
What would his calling me stupid and retarded and unable to read make him?
I don’t know…A bully? Instead of calling me wrong, he insists on linking a liar comment, or insane, or stupid, or moron, with the comment.
I don’t. In SEVERAL of my beginning posts I put NO insults. YES I fight back, and I know you, the bully you are, will say “YOU INSULT TOO!!!” We all do. The first thing a bully does is that in reply.
I insult back, and then I tell him to prove his point.
UW insults to start, and doesn’t allow a point to be proven. It is bullying behavior.
Bob, when I was 13, a bully with the maturity of UW & Confused tried to pick on me. After I kicked his butt after school, he never tried it again and by high school, we were on friendly terms. I guess that bloody nose and black eye did wonders for his attitude.
calling me immature in a post where you talk about how you beat up some kid when you were a child is hypocritically immature of you.
It is not immature to state someone is immature confused.
He is talking about someone who was immature and bullied him and he fought back.
While I don’t support beating up bullies, many of you here have implied you do believe fighting a bully is the only way to stop them (words implied but you never know how much further you guys actually mean).
The fact that he called you immature doesn’t make him immature.
This is why I hate the pc movement. You’re using that right now.
I am about dismantling that.
he labeled me an immature person and is trying to make that label stick no matter what. I AM A GOD DAMN HUMAN BEING. Even if he thinks I’m wrong, he does not get to talk to me like that.
Sorry, swing and a miss confused. Trying to make someone a liar who is not one is not acceptable, or make them insane as they explain themselves. You were not involved in this conversation and he was NOT trying to make that label stick to you.
False equivalency.
You in fact are trying to make an act though in that he even dared to call your actions immature. That is not an extreme label, at all.
And I will add, we are actually arguing in the post I said I was a human being about whether or not I was racist, a murderer, a rapist, etc.
These things are not the same confused.
I am focusing on details and he insists on focusing on attacks.
When Agent brought up how he deals with people who are immature in this way, (by response) he is not randomly doing so and making damn sure the label sticks.
He is talking about how to deal with people that are treating me, bluntly, like shit, and won’t focus on the facts.
So I guess we can’t address the issue…Apparently.
What issue needs to be addressed with me? My swearing at a couple of asshats who are bullying me?
You are exactly the reason bullies get away with what they do, and you just used the bully logic in your response.
I’m sorry, I’m not just going to get intimidated and say you’re right! Agent is immature for saying how he dealt with immature folks similar to the ones I am now.
It’s just not going to happen Confused.
Agent,
These guys are indeed completely over the top.
I haven’t seen any of them imply they need to work on their speech or say they are acting inappropriately.
It’s funny…How many times have I said that I need to work on those things?
These guys seem to be hell bent on everyone else’s actions and not their own.
I call this the “blip”. What I mean by that is an ordinarily nice or smart person becomes suddenly ignorant or cruel.
When this happens and the motivation doesn’t make sense…I take it to the step of calling it a direct satanic influence causing a blip. It’s part of why I believe in God.
And this blip I speak of…Is happening a lot with these guys.
They insist on proper speech, and bring up my style of speech, but I don’t see them condemning their own actions or words here, the same goes for confused. He seems to like to talk a lot about morality of others, but not himself.
Blip.
How about you just back off, confused? Even if you’re wrong?
You may think I don’t do that, but you would be wrong. I do choose my battles and it is why I just don’t post on some of these insurance journals. I don’t feel the need to. I’ve called various people right, and I’ve called myself wrong.
You should be in the habit of this. Avoid the blip.
agent has a history of throwing my name into conversations i am not participating in only to insult me or make up lies about me. to wit:
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/06/07/411094.htm/?comments
“integrity, I can’t wait for UW or Confused to attack you and start calling you names…”
he did it again in this article saying i am as mature as his childhood bully. I AM A GOD DAMN HUMAN BEING. Even if he thinks I’m wrong, he does not get to talk AT me like that.
i’d feel differently if he would stop attacking me and making up lies about what I believe when i haven’t even said a word in the conversation.
They then talk about personal responsibility, and every time I try to stop insults by telling them to focus on the argument they say I insult people more than anyone else
BLIP.
Rather than saying you’re right, I insult too much, they keep on it and try to say I’m the reason.
BLIP.
Then they talk as if I don’t have personal responsibility
BLIP.
Then I go and say UW’s tenacity is needed, though he is often wrong.
Wait. What?
Then I said everyone insults, excusing their actions.
Wait, what?
Then I’m called a bully.
Yeah…They don’t do what I just put above.
I focus on the argument and try to pull the insults out of it, and then they try to focus on tallying the insults, to use them to discredit me.
It’s insane.
Blip.
“gent has a history of throwing my name into conversations i am not participating in only to insult me or make up lies about me. to wit:
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/06/07/411094.htm/?comments
“integrity, I can’t wait for UW or Confused to attack you and start calling you names…”
he did it again in this article saying i am as mature as his childhood bully. I AM A GOD DAMN HUMAN BEING. Even if he thinks I’m wrong, he does not get to talk AT me like that.
i’d feel differently if he would stop attacking me and making up lies about what I believe when i haven’t even said a word in the conversation.”
Join the club. Do you realize how much I’m brought up?
In this scenario he is referring to someone he has dealt with that mistreated him like I am being now. I AM A HUMAN BEING and when he merely references his belief of how you are a part of the people mistreating me, and says how he dealt with them, that does not show he is immature.
I will however say, I do not support Agent’s method of speech, as I have told Ron and others in the past I consider Agent to be the political right side version of the people who fight with him. I have said in the past to him something akin to “Damn it, we as conservatives have a responsibility to represent ourselves dutifully.” and I’m sure you remember it.
You are using my quote improperly though, and I don’t like that.
Regarding labeling what you’re saying:
Join the club. Do you realize most my swearing resulted from an article maybe a little over a weak ago in which I was called racist against Muslims and Hispanics? Then I was called an idiot that ignored details, when I disagreed with UW’s video about the context of what Trump said. They accused me of not watching it, and of being a bigot. How can I be both? I either didn’t watch it and didn’t know, or I was a bigot, if they were correct. But whatever sticks the insult right?
I do not believe Agent talks to you properly. Does this make you feel better?
I don’t believe a lot of what I say is acceptable.
Does this help you to maybe back off a bit?
Maybe we can all admit responsibility instead of pointing fingers?
Confused the child, I didn’t start it, but I sure finished it. The last time I heard from him, he turned out ok and he never bullied again. Someone needs to bring you down a notch and teach you some manners.
Agent,
I apologize, you’re right. I crossed lines. I need to work on it.
Oh, after cursing, threatening violence, constant insults, repeatedly, lying, and using words you intend to be demeaning like “kid” or “child”, etc., you don’t have any insults in a couple of your posts, congratulations. You “offered peace” by admiring my tenacity, wow, I’m honored; this was of course after threatening me physically multiple times. Now of course, when people come after you because they are sick of your crap (and not surprisingly a week after Trump starts getting called a bully) you go on an anti-bullying crusade.
I know you are a human, everybody does. But, so are the Mexicans, Arabs, Muslims, poor people, young people, minorities, et al that would be devastated by the policies you support and cannot justify without lying, citing fraudulent sources to support, and embracing conspiracy theories. I frequently call you uninformed and unintelligent because everything you have ever stated confirms this. “Do the math” you state after proving you don’t know what a confidence interval, or basic statistics are. You then repeatedly cite a “study” which has been shown to have simple mathematical errors, create 300 non-existent results, and mix up positive and negative signs. When this is pointed out you freak, ignore it, and say these blog posts–almost all of them based on the mathematically incorrect study–are all the proof you need, because “do the math”. That is stupid. A person making that argument is stupid.
You claim the Southern Strategy didn’t exist. Use Wikipedia, and then read some actual literature on the subject. Nobody even denies this any anything approaching a serious circle anymore. Saying it didn’t exist is stupid. Stupid people make that argument. The former chair of the RNC said:
“For the last 40-plus years we had a ‘Southern Strategy’ that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South. Well, guess what happened in 1992, folks, ‘Bubba’ went back home to the Democratic Party and voted for Bill Clinton.”
Lee Atwater was recorded saying (I edited out the N-word):
“You start out in 1954 by saying, “N*****, n*****, n*****.” By 1968 you can’t say “n*****”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N*****, n*****.”
You are clueless and in denial on this. I know it has been brought up multiple times over months, and you deny it, without ever looking into it…a pattern. So, again, you stating something doesn’t make it fact. So economics, climate change, basic political history. All things you refuse to change your view on, based entirely on what you prefer. Why bother with you?
Trump’s wife for another example. As mentioned, she testified under oath, and a judge granted a divorce based in part on cruel and inhumane treatment by Trump. She signed a NDA and violating that could cost her millions of dollars. You don’t even look into it. You had clearly never heard of it, but dismissed it immediately, and then your reply was that Trump never said it. Then you say she recanted. This isn’t true. She said it was a marital spat, she did not deny it happened, and she can’t say it happened. You of course take this to mean it didn’t happen.
You will give any amount of leeway to justify what you believe. almost 100% of climate scientists agree, well you whine many were still in their Phd program, and then link to a study that has chemists. You don’t understand science or read links, so you say the studies don’t say climate change is man made in them. You ignore the links explaining that modern studies do not say this for the same reason they don’t state gravity exists–it is accepted fact in the scientific community. Also, the idiotic study you linked has been responded to and found to have massive math problems. Almost every blog post in the link you insist on posting, but haven’t read depends specifically on the BS analysis by Tor. As I and others have stated over and over, and as you have ignored, refused to look at, and dismissed apparently because you can’t read anything outside of far right-wing media, is that the same conclusion has been reached over and over. But, admittedly only when you look at climate scientists. You also completely ignore the IPCC report, finding basically the same thing.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?f=debunking-climate-consensus-denial
Even in the idiotic disproven paper you insist on citing as proof there is no man made climate change–or that it is not consequential, depending on your comment–the author states:
“There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”
You constantly cite the WSJ with David Legates claiming to have debunked the study. He is among the worst sources. He said this:
“We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.”
No matter what he will never find climate change influenced by man to be a problem, or even possible. He is a nut. He, like you, has predetermined beliefs that mean no matter what he will not accept the scientific evidence.
Your stupid 11,000 papers line is simply wrong. Please show your work on this. I honestly may have missed it, because I remember seeing it earlier, but I think maybe I just remember you writing it. I think you may be confused with the BS Oregon Petition, which had that many people sign it, which you cited as proof.
In that absurd poll, the equivalent of an online poll, which you claim refutes decades of scientific evidence, including the other study you presented as proof which I have just shown says exactly the opposite, .1% of the people on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in climatology. Add in those who claim to have a background in atmospheric science, which increases the total percentage of people with a background in climate change science to .5%.
You are clueless on everything. You base your “analysis” on what your preferred position is.
As far as your incessant whining about bullies (after you rail on people for months), I have already said in person you are probably a good ole boy, but all I have to go on is your presence here, where you are an outright POS.
I will leave you alone on this, because it’s a religion to you, and nothing can or will change your mind, and because I think you are mentally unstable, and potentially in a full-blown meltdown, which I do not want to contribute to. Cling to your 1% of snake oil salesman pushing outright BS, and ignore all the science, just like you do with everything else.
“rump’s wife for another example. As mentioned, she testified under oath, and a judge granted a divorce based in part on cruel and inhumane treatment by Trump. She signed a NDA and violating that could cost her millions of dollars. You don’t even look into it. You had clearly never heard of it, but dismissed it immediately, and then your reply was that Trump never said it. Then you say she recanted. This isn’t true. She said it was a marital spat, she did not deny it happened, and she can’t say it happened. You of course take this to mean it didn’t happen. ”
No, I’ve seen all your info, and being that your info does not once reference a sworn statement regarding a bald spot, and ripped out hair, we have an issue. She did testify under oath, that she felt violated. She did not testify under oath about a bald spot or what you suggest. If you read my link it goes over that the only thing that mentions this is literally hearsay (spell check changed it to heresy and I didn’t notice). There is no sworn statement saying what you said.
“You constantly cite the WSJ with David Legates claiming to have debunked the study. He is among the worst sources. He said this:
“We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.””
Whether he has said that is irrelevant. 31,000 people with experience signed a petition saying climate change is not credible. You said 97% of scientists agree. Cherry picked scientists that is. 11,000 papers are written on the matter, and only .3% have a conclusion that man made climate change is a serious threat. You can’t just side step these numbers by labeling a source.
You are wrong about Southern Strategy. That is a religion to you, the narrative you won’t let go.
“Your stupid 11,000 papers line is simply wrong. Please show your work on this. I honestly may have missed it, because I remember seeing it earlier, but I think maybe I just remember you writing it. I think you may be confused with the BS Oregon Petition, which had that many people sign it, which you cited as proof. ”
I already showed my work. I gave links referencing it. Maybe you didn’t read your own link you sent me, because right now you’re saying you’re clueless on it, whereas your link did go over it. It tried to say that the reason the 11,000 papers didn’t take a position is because it was established fact, something my links disproved, if you read them. You just admitted you didn’t, because you told me to repost them. So you’re guilty of doing what you said I do, ironic.
” that absurd poll, the equivalent of an online poll, which you claim refutes decades of scientific evidence, including the other study you presented as proof which I have just shown says exactly the opposite, .1% of the people on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in climatology. Add in those who claim to have a background in atmospheric science, which increases the total percentage of people with a background in climate change science to .5%.”
Are you aware that the degrees that 9,000 of them had phd’s in, are directly related to climate change, and if you have a 4 year degree in those degrees you can apply to get a graduates degree in climatology? Climatology isn’t overwhelmingly popular, that is why there are so little “dedicated” scientists on it. The ones who do sign up usually support the narrative. This would be like saying 100% of people who agree with climate change agree with it. It is cherry picked info. You cannot throw away 9,000 people with a PHD which is considered enough research to start a graduates degree in climatology. What I just said is a fact, look it up. My brother happens to be a PHD graduate and he considered this path dumb ass. Google what do you need to pursue a climatology degree.
If 31,000 people who have experience in the matter don’t agree, they don’t agree and there is an issue with stating there is a 97% consensus. There is not a 97% consensus.
“As far as your incessant whining about bullies (after you rail on people for months), I have already said in person you are probably a good ole boy, but all I have to go on is your presence here, where you are an outright POS. ”
Don’t ever say that to me. Good ole boys act like you. Direct people like me cannot be good ole boys. I am not an outright piece of shit, I simply contradict your comments, and you then rant like a lunatic.
I have no disprove them yet again. Sorry UW, try again without trying to label people based on creationism which you just tried again. Attack the data I gave. Do you dispute the data? It on you to disprove it with contradictory evidence. That is how debate works, not side stepping my facts.
I have contradicted your Trump evidence, not side stepped it. I have contradicted your climate change subjects, I have not called the writers into question as sources, I have gone after their facts with counter facts.
You are doing ad hominem style debate, which makes sense because it is a tactic of your party.
“I know you are a human, everybody does. But, so are the Mexicans, Arabs, Muslims, poor people, young people, minorities, et al that would be devastated by the policies you support and cannot justify without lying, citing fraudulent sources to support, and embracing conspiracy theories. I frequently call you uninformed and unintelligent because everything you have ever stated confirms this. “Do the math” you state after proving you don’t know what a confidence interval, or basic statistics are. You then repeatedly cite a “study” which has been shown to have simple mathematical errors, create 300 non-existent results, and mix up positive and negative signs. When this is pointed out you freak, ignore it, and say these blog posts–almost all of them based on the mathematically incorrect study–are all the proof you need, because “do the math”. That is stupid. A person making that argument is stupid. ”
I have never said Muslims or Mexicans aren’t human beings. I am of Mexican heritage. My grandmother is full. I have said that we need to limit immigration, as a whole, and take low risk high reward people into the country first. When we have data showing a nation is war torn due to religious issues, disallowing the religious folks from that war torn nation to come into the nation is not racist. It is using data to come to a conclusion. The same goes of Mexicans. Of the 11-12 million here, 5-6 million are not documented. There are costs that come with this. If we go too far, we harm the entire system to support people. That is not racist.
I am not against the poor, and I have made this clear. I have said the democrat programs harm the poor and I have explained why. You just don’t get that. I have never taken a position against minorities, again, you are after the narrative here. The narrative you want to believe is absurd. Regarding a confidence interval:
I made no comments that proved I didn’t know what one was, you randomly brought it up when it wasn’t relevant. I didn’t even take a stance on the confidence level because it didn’t matter UW!!!! The very fact that I questioned your percentage as being too high means I don’t know what a confidence level is? Or did you move it there to make the debate ad hominem as usual, to disregard my commentary? You need to knock it off.
Regarding the mathematical errors and inconsistent results what you mean to say is my sources contradict yours. Not that the math is incorrect. You are assuming it is incorrect because it contradicts what you have religiously subscribed to. Instead of weigh both and see which one makes sense though, you attack a source and throw out the other. This is idiotic UW.
Do the math. It’s you not doing it. You’re a fool if you think I don’t change my opinions. Show me one you have changed. Immigration is NEW for me to take a stance on. I have already said this. Look through insurance journal, I always backed away from the topic until this election. I change my mind when the data forces my hand.
You clearly don’t.
Also:
I do not constantly cite WSJ on climate change. That was one of the 97 sources that were included that debunked climate change.
Are you going to try to discredit them all based on their religious beliefs or comments that have no relevance to the numbers and statistics they quoted?
By the way UW one last item on the bullying:
I always start with facts first. I do not try to label someone like you and a few others here do, and I literally ALWAYS try to remove the insults and focus on the debate. You try to make the insults related to the debate as to why I can’t debate.
There is a difference. I am not a bully. Bullies don’t give chances constantly to pull the argument away from insults. I have just done that again, but I’m sure you’re going to say some “POS” (to borrow your phrasing) comment about me again, which I will get mad about, and when I hit you right back you’ll cry again about how I attacked you.
These same people who say I don’t know how to read, have no reading comprehension when they disagree and talk like brats…Yeah.
I do not instigate these fights, and I constantly try to stop them as I am now. I also keep myself in check by saying I’M OUT OF LINE. I just did that in this page.
You haven’t. You just justify your insults by saying “You whine about insults but you do it too!” Which is your way of saying your are justified to insult because “he started it” essentially.
Bob, an internet bully and a live bully are pretty much the same, a coward. They cuss, insult, call people names that they never would if they were chin to chin with them. It is easy for them to be brave with the words if they are anonymous. I believe it was Confused that said his father believed in right from wrong. Too bad those values were not passed down to the son.
“They cuss, insult, call people names that they never would if they were chin to chin with them.” Sounds exactly like Bob.
“You constantly try to bully every time a poster calls you on one of your hundreds of lies or racist comments.”
Source one of my racist comments, if I say hundreds of them.
“Yes, supporting a ban on people based on their ethnicity is racist.”
Regarding immigration, targeting the current religious war the only way we can is not racist. Get over yourself.
“You support racist policy. You are racist.”
So saying we need to stop violence from the middle east coming here is racist, even if the percentages of Muslims committing violence and ok with Sharia law is proven to be higher than the standard and I claim we need low risk high reward immigrants? I think not. You’re wrong here. It is not racist.
“You are a bully, and like all bullies freak out and cry the second one person stands up to you. ”
Bullshit. The second someone stands up to me calling me a racist raping murderer?
The second I call someone wrong I’m a bully? I think not.
Point out one of these lies. Planet has not pointed out I am insane.
Also, I am one or the other. If I’m insane I’m not a liar on these issues. I would believe them and be insane.
I make arguments about concepts, not about people. Bullies argue about people, not about concepts.
People get mad, bullies use that to cripple the people they bully.
I am not a bully, and you’re going to stop saying it.
Bob, I hope these trolls don’t think they have you too riled up. You have written more on this blog than the book War & Peace.
Sometimes I come here specifically to blow off steam.
I’m good agent. This blog won’t destroy me.
I had an excellent marketing week though for insurance sales. The right outlet can yield great results!
Bob, it has been my experience that you start off reasonable on posts and provide evidence to bolster your argument and after being called idiot, dolt about 10 or more times, you let them have it. I think Actu is really UW on a false moniker since he uses the same pattern of insults.
By the way, ever heard of Juanita Broderick? She is the one that Slick Willy raped back in Arkansas and no one has held him accountable and then Hilliary tried to destroy her. He seems to have a lot of problems with women, doesn’t he?