Is Climate Change Causing Colder Weather and More Snow in Eastern U.S.?

Like or Dislike:

3

2

“No, idiot, they debate when it is a baby, and most scientists deny what many religious zealots, particularly theocratic, extreme Catholics like yourself believe.”

I’m not an extreme Catholic, and I might add, Catholics tend to be more divided on this than say, Protestants. Also, Catholics tend to vote more for democrats. Just saying. I will also point out: As soon as the sperm combines with the egg, it is a forming child. There is no debate to be had there. So to say it isn’t, is to be against science in the name of making something morally ok. The only reason to change the name of a forming baby, is to then say that it isn’t a baby. It is. End of story.

“For example, extreme Catholics believe it is life at conception, while science shows that less than about half of all fertilized eggs even become pregnancies.”

That doesn’t matter. At all. As soon as you break the sequence, of what would have been a developing baby, that means you have a 50% chance of having stopped a pregnancy of what? A human child.

“That religion has had a long tortured history with birth control, and believes using pills like the morning after pills that prevent a fertilizes egg from attaching is abortion.”

Depends on the religion.

“It’s not, according to scientists and common sense.”

According to scientists who have a long history of trying to shape moral code themselves. It is not one or the other, it is both. Try balance, Mr. Extreme.

“Many have speculated, and I disagree, that this extreme position is one of the factors that led to their widespread molestation and sexual abuse problem that was covered up for decades. ”

What in the world are you going on about? Then why did you bring it up?

Do you want to know my opinion on the matter, as well as why?

I already put it up. 1 billion abortions have been done world wide. 1 billion. The move to panic at having a baby does far more damage than having one. I would not have had my first two kids, and I may have subsequently waited too long to have many or any at all due to your type of movements.

People should not be rushing to have abortions due to convenience. People should be considering the growth inside them a child, and should take that seriously. Not panic, knee jerk abortions, which is for a fact what we have now.

I believe in the stability of people, and whatever is best for that. What you just said is idealistic, and is not based in science or how people will be affected. It is your way of saying well, this is a right, and that’s not a baby, and I don’t care about anything other than the right to abortion.

It’s a very simplistic view. Mine isn’t. Try to grow up and get to my level.

Like or Dislike:

6

2

Do you have kids UW?

Have you thought about settling down with a family and wife?

By now, how old are you? You’ve been posting here almost as long as me.

Are you still dating like you’re a teenager? Selfishly going from relationship to relationship, just based on what she can give you?

When you get to 30 if you’re not winding down there’s a problem. And based on how long you’ve been here you have to be close man. You have to be close to 30 or above.

I suspect you don’t have kids and are in the dating game, due to how hardcore you are on this abortion issue. People who have kids, well, demographics on that speak for themselves.

Maybe they have their lives figured out, and know more than you rather than less?

It is not the white male that causes people to turn against abortions, which by the way a larger percentage of black folks are against abortions themselves, they just support abortion for other reasons that I won’t go into.

It is whether or not one has had kids that is the biggest determining factor into whether people are pro life.

These aren’t uneducated hicks, and you couldn’t possibly label all married folks as such.

Maybe you need to stop thinking you know more than everyone else.

Maybe I used to be liberal, and I was in the crowds you were. Maybe, like my dad used to tell me, he didn’t just get birthed in a ministry with wife and child and job.

Him and my mom used to go streaking in California, my Uncle is gay, he voted Carter, he was far left like many Catholics where he was from.

Being called an extremist, really grinds my gears.

You don’t know what you’re talking about, and you don’t know more than your educated past liberal peers.

Maybe you should ask more about why my father changed, and why I did.

Instead of telling me why I vote republican and what it means, and how I’m sexually assaulting women, blah blah blah.

Like or Dislike:

0

6

“I’m not an extreme Catholic”

Yes you are, but you cannot ever acknowledge you are extreme, you just call it “right”. Saying gay people should not be allowed to marry because it is bad for them is an extreme position. Saying laws should be based in God is an extreme position.

“Also, Catholics tend to vote more for democrats”

I don’t care, you are the only one mentioning party in almost every single post, because all you care about is Team Red V Team Blue.

“That doesn’t matter. At all. As soon as you break the sequence, of what would have been a developing baby, that means you have a 50% chance of having stopped a pregnancy of what? A human child.”

No, it means it had a 50% chance of attaching, and then less of being born. But, it is not at that point a child, as you claim. It’s a zygote the size of your brain, or a pinhead, and not capable of life outside the womb. It has no legs, arms, heart, or brain. That is not a child, and unless you use your EXTREME definition, which science does not agree with, which was the point, you are simply, as always, wrong.

“According to scientists who have a long history of trying to shape moral code themselves.”

And you prove my point; no science that is not exactly what you believe, and believed before looking at it is valid. Any science against what All Knowing Bob approves of is agenda-driven, and dismissed. Scientists’ opinion is invalid, because they are trying to shape the moral code, so the moderate Catholic Church’s doctrine should be followed. They NEVER try to shape moral code.

God you are a joke. 100% intellectually broke, and completely morally bankrupt. Stick to calling for the torture of innocents, another great story you must think all Christians believe in, even though you claim it was “misinterpreted” in the Bible. Moron.

“Not on any aspect, or called each other out. Care to enlighten me?”

Not true, but largely we have to spend our time debating what is and is not reality with retards like you, Agent, and Yogi, who variously think Obama was not born in the US, think the climate isn’t getting warmer, think unemployment is higher now than when Obama took over, think we have high inflation, and on and on. You cannot really debate finer points on things within your own ideology when you have moronic, lying, morons living in a fantasy world and engaging in almost non-stop hate speech.

Also, again, as always, even though you only care about policy and not ideology, you cannot avoid going Team Red. Hypocrite, liar, idiot.

Like or Dislike:

1

0

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi216ePg4bRAhUBSpQKHacDBE4QtwIITDAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DZ_Ab6l0q784&usg=AFQjCNEhgVHKDXeMLANY7tOV6jx6_wSB8g&sig2=cZqXdynzC-n0vlZ23jBtCQ

I didn’t read your garbage, I don’t have time for stupidity and actual bigotry that you spew.

I know you think that Atheists and smart people don’t have reasons to become Catholic, but you might want to look up some who do. The above is an example. I realize she goes way off topic quite a bit, and doesn’t appear to be quite as smart as your more intelligent atheist, but, she’s still a human that changed her mind. I don’t care about why people who are sheep are democrats or republicans, liberal or conservative, I care about a couple things:

The politicians who are
The educated people who are. Of which there are educated people on both (actually all, but you would only understand left or right wouldn’t you?) sides. You however, are not one of them. Which is why I don’t care about your arguments. You’re not a moderate, or someone who changed from conservatism and thus understands it. You’re a complete idiot who has unrealistic options regarding the right and anything associated with the right, bigoted ones.

The above link is someone who changed their mind Go seek out others. I love watching these about gay people who became Catholic, transgender people who don’t like feminism, I like to see the truly odd people in society who don’t exactly meet preconceived notions. When you label what being conservative and being a Catholic means, you do a disservice to individuals.

I still watch youtubers who are atheists. I like them, and several of them are libertarian left, while others are libertarian right. You don’t know my political spectrum. At all.

I love the opinions of the libertarian left. I consider them wrong about abortion, but these are smart people. Dave Rubin. Look him up! He’s definitely a libertarian left. He’s also Gay.

One of the atheists I respect actually really really doesn’t like religion, I’m forgetting his name on youtube…But he does a lot of posts and is probably even a democrat.

You don’t understand the people you’re commenting regarding. I am not extreme. You’re talking to a past democrat, in a history of democrat family, that changed with my father and myself.

You’re talking to an ex agnostic who lives in a liberal state, was raised by an ex democrat, associated with liberals, was liberal, and follows agnostics and atheists political debates because he loves them.

But I’m just soooo extreme and need to seek help. Ya don’t know who or what you’re talking about. You’re far too partisan.

Like or Dislike:

2

0

And if you didn’t gather:

And so must be Trudeau.

Unlike with us, the parties in Canada can shift, change, and be eliminated quite quickly. I admire this about Canada. They are more than just a two party system, which is why Trudeau’s comments on the corporate tax rate hold such weight.

Do you know much about the political parties over the last 30 years in Canada? It’s quite a story of change.

Like or Dislike:

0

2

“Every time I debate you, you miss colossal aspects and resort to absurd debate tactics.”

You bitch incessantly about “debate tactics.” Nobody cares, just like you don’t get to decide facts, when insults are allowed, when a person is out of line, or get to be lenient, debate tactics are something you have no control over. Get over it, ignoramus. Then, your debate tactic is going irrelevant:

“If it weren’t for my wife and kids, I would be liberal.” Don’t care, but that’s stupid. So if you weren’t married with kids you wouldn’t support banning people from the country based on their religion, or torturing innocents, or deny all economic research? That’s dumb.

Bob, I don’t give a shit about your wife, dad, family, etc., they have no bearing on the facts.

“I didn’t read your garbage, I don’t have time for stupidity and actual bigotry that you spew.”

You have time, but lack the intellectual ability to do so, which is why you clearly don’t read nor do you comprehend the sources I provide. You have routinely stated things not in them, e.g. recently whining for me to admit that the Cook paper said scientists didn’t overwhelmingly think climate change would be catastrophic. As I noted, when I rightly called you an idiot, the paper did not address this or even ask them about it. You went crazy for months about a claim I never made, about a paper you never read, and still think you “got me”. You are a pseudo-intellectual, extremist clown.

“I met her from a dating website, and because of the body you say I don’t and didn’t have,[…]”

I surely don’t say this, because it’s incomprehensible, as much of your writing is, and makes absolutely no sense. Also, again, I don’t give a shit about your wife, or your personal life unless it is relevant, which it’s not here.

“Go tell her how bigoted I was against the gay folks I hung out with, along with my uncle. Or maybe about how much I judged people who weren’t Christian, which would be the bulk of everyone I hung out with.”

No, again, you are a moron. I don’t give a shit about your past. I would cite to her the examples now, like when you join the less than about 40% of people who are against gay marriage, and base it on YOUR religion, which you want to impose on them, because you think it is best for them. That is an extremist position, and almost the definition of bigoted, idiot.

“I’m an educated conservative”

No, you aren’t, saying that doesn’t make it true. You deny almost all standard economics. You deny standard US history. You deny most science and stupidly claim climate science can be ignored because it’s like a basket that just shifts to another area when one area isn’t usable anymore. Stupid. You aren’t well-informed or knowledgeable about anything that isn’t on right-wing blogs.

“I know you think that Atheists and smart people don’t have reasons to become Catholic, but you might want to look up some who do. The above is an example. I realize she goes way off topic quite a bit, and doesn’t appear to be quite as smart as your more intelligent atheist”

As usual, you are projecting, and creating an argument against things I never said, which you will now treat as Truth for the next 3 months. Idiot.

“ You don’t know my political spectrum. At all.”

Aside from guessing your positions on almost everything, guessing your job, guessing your age, guessing your college experience, and even guessing you had multiple rape accusations in your past. You, on the other hand have guessed incorrectly about me in almost every scenario, but still pat yourself on the back. You are a dolt, and have no attachment to reality. I now your “political spectrum” almost to a tee. Also, moron, a political spectrum is something you are placed on in order to gauge where you stand in relation to others, and to general ideas; your political ideology is what places you on the political spectrum. But, as such an educated person you probably knew that and omitted the half of your sentence that made it coherent. Just kidding, obviously.

““I’m sooooo stupid! And so is Trump for bringing down this rate instead of engaging in class warfare to keep it high, against the benefit of jobs.”

Yes, you are. Trump is also proposing a 5% tariff on all imports-down from his lie of 45% in the election—something almost every legitimate economist is wholeheartedly against. This will increase prices, and will not bring back many jobs. The ones they bring back are manufacturing, which are not the types of jobs we should be trying to bring back. The corporate tax rate will only benefit a few people, and the “class warfare” you whine about and stupidly think is being done away with will devastate the lower and middle classes. Eliminating the funding for Medicare will kill people, and significantly increase the out of pocket costs for the poorest in the nation. That is also class warfare, moron. As always, you refuse to acknowledge the real tax rate, and claim victory on it, dismissing everything you don’t agree with before you even read it.

Like or Dislike:

0

1

Get owned Bob. Whoops coincidentally time th declare victory & leave so you can keep blabbing the same bullshit. #fraud #clueless #bigot

Like or Dislike:

2

0

“Please people stop egging Bob on all the time. He is obviously …. It’s worrisome and people shouldn’t feed it while he is like this.”

I’m obviously …

Of course. Feed what exactly and how? Please elaborate on your …

What I do is try to speak in a way that relates to people, shows who I am, and also has many facts.

UW and ACTU have been very cruel here, and I’m tired of the two of them.

Other than that, I simply prove people wrong and engage people on issues.

Like or Dislike:

4

0

“Provide the math in a paragraph or two. It will be easy, because it’s simple math abs you make this claim all the time.”

Provide me with one time my simple math has been wrong compared to the conclusion? I know what you will bring up, but in that circumstance it was a typo that didn’t matter. I still proved that the profit margins of corporations were too low to give anything close to a large pay increase.

The math on this one right now? Is easy. if 100 corporations all have 5 billion in assets, they can simply purchase 500 billion in carbon credits. If we have a set limit, all they have to do is buy as much as they can afford, drive up the costs (because obviously the costs would have to prohibit use, that’s the only way a carbon tax can work) and thus other firms would either have to:

A: Pay more
B: Use less.

Using a system of buying the ability to produce pollution will logically result in the people with the most money having the most power. It’s simple math.

“Also, dolt, why can the largest companies control this market completely, but can’t control any of the other markets you call the as solutions to every problem?”

False equivalency, and what’s your point? I’m quoting one specific law in how it gives control. You’re suggesting that you need to thus regulate them because they can control the economy, and the fact is: This is only true if regulations allow it. The absence of a regulation does not create a control method. A regulation which allows power though, is a different story. Regulation is not the solution. It is the means to control.

“Clueless, delusional, fantastical.”

I’ve proven you wrong more than I should ever have to, and you still arrogantly call me clueless? What does that make you?

“Bring back your whining rants about light bulbs, idiot, at least they were funny.”

Don’t even know what you’re talking about. I’m going to stay on topic. Insane mother fucker.

Like or Dislike:

1

0

Every time I debate you it’s easy. Every time I debate you, you miss colossal aspects and resort to absurd debate tactics.

I already made my point, and I refuse to read what you wrote after that. We went back and forth for over two weeks, TWO WEEKS UW in which you didn’t acknowledge you were wrong on something I proved for certain you were, you constantly went off topic, in one post you said I should watch out, because maybe people will think I’m extreme enough to get killed, and you constantly start each post with DOLT MORON etc.

I have given you ample chances. I don’t need to debate you indefinitely, not an idiot who brings me nothing in terms of debate.

I’m not going to debate you. I’m going to point out where you’re wrong, and then I’m leaving it at that.

I don’t have time for a colossal fucktard. What I mean by that, and my definition, is someone who parades around like everyone is wrong but them, and clearly has mental issues, stability issues, life issues, religious issues, bigotry issues, and thinks I don’t want to touch.

I debate facts. I don’t give therapy, and that’s what you need.

Like or Dislike:

1

0

Or when you used the Cook et al study, and we debated, and you finally conceded that maybe it wasn’t 97% of climatologists that support man made catastrophic global warming, but even then it is the majority is what you said.

I did not misinterpret you when you said that. You neglected to know your own study. Your own study, that you had not fully reviewed, said it was under 50%, and it was easy to go to that spot to figure it out.

These are very specific things you did, unlike when you say you have proven me wrong, when you have nothing to quote.

Like or Dislike:

0

1

“You strike me as either autistic yourself, or as mentally deranged, if something other than autism is getting you to be this difficult to get off of a one track way of thinking,”

You don’t have one original thought or bone in your body. This is precisely what I have been saying to you for like 2 months, all you can do is repeat what you hear. I was asking because if you siffered from this I was going to leave your alone, but that was before you went over the top exposing yourself as a POS. “One track thinking” is not what you think it is. I repeat myself when you refuse to reply, but make the same asininw statements repeatedly.

“This tunnel vision I’m talking about is real with such people and I can tell when I see it.”

Like constantly saying you won a debate about Iraq War funding and debt and refusing for approaching 25 comments to answer one time where the spending for 2010 in Iraq is in any Bush budget? Clueless. Idiot. Where is it, King of the Dolts?

Like or Dislike:

2

1

DePolar, under current conditions, your Ice berg just got a lot bigger. The seas may not rise, the coast may not be flooded, the Zika mosquito will die. Cold is a good thing it seems. Global Cooling is also not man’s fault.

Like or Dislike:

2

1

reposted: An iceberg on which I once commuted to find a better place to forage for fish fell off the side of the earth. I was lucky to abandon it before it did, and swam to safety.

Like or Dislike:

2

0

Oh really, how many flat earth believers have you found?

Also, there are plenty of liberals who deny the consensus spread by democrats, like oh say more than half of the climatologists out there? The majority of conservatives don’t believe man made climate change is an existential threat. And by the way: Idiots don’t use terminology like I just did.

Like or Dislike:

2

0

That wasn’t the point of my debate, ass. It was an insult woven within. But you just commented on it, to make it a point of contention. Don’t play with someone like me in asinine ways that you know you can’t handle.

I don’t care what you did and didn’t call Agent. Got it? Keep on point with me. I don’t have time to readdress every insult I throw at you. I said it with the proper intention. Don’t like it, too bad. Every now and again when you act like a pompous ass you’re going to be called one.

I’ll look this over now.

Like or Dislike:

0

2

“I don’t care what you did and didn’t call Agent. Got it?”

Then you shouldn’t have said

“you’re a pompous ass on it, yet you call Agent as such.”

Like or Dislike:

1

0

“Confused says:

“I don’t care what you did and didn’t call Agent. Got it?”

Then you shouldn’t have said

“you’re a pompous ass on it, yet you call Agent as such.”

The context is not what you called him, the context is that you say that Agent doesn’t know what he’s talking about, yet you yourself don’t.

You are a pompous ass on it (regarding this topic) and yet you call agent as such (from my perception of being written, and you know what I meant, as such means you say agent says things that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, which is being a pompous ass)

The framework here is not specifically what you say, it’s what you constantly do in terms of arguments with agent.

Now you’re as usual focusing on phrasing to detract from the point. Do you or do you not consider that Agent doesn’t know what he’s talking about regarding climate change?

And if you don’t know what you’re talking about, you shouldn’t be telling him that he doesn’t as if you’re better? Ergo, being a pompous ass?

Do better research kid, and don’t try to catch me in phrasing catch 22’s. I don’t have time for it. Got it?

Like or Dislike:

1

0

“It’s getting really annoying to see the low level of research you do, making definitive comments on a topic like this, while claiming others are doing the same.”

I also reiterated what my issue was in another post.

I basically have to talk to you walking on eggshells because you can’t keep on topic.

You constantly basically say “you insulted me!”

And then try to derail,

Or question my phrasing.

It’s insane confused. If you know my topic, then debate it. I don’t go on these tangents with you, I just call you wrong. Think you can handle that?

Like or Dislike:

1

0

“I can address the debate just fine. My issue comes when said debate contains insults (I’m a brat & an ass) and false statements (I haven’t called Agent ANY names in a very long time!), which I then feel the need to respond to because I’m not going to let you push me around.”

Deserved insults, for one, for two, you have been following agent saying he doesn’t back up his facts for ages. I don’t care about the name you use, I care about what you do. The words don’t matter, the what you do matters. You still have problems with this because you focus on the words. You have openly declared agent goes against science, and act as if your facts are amazing. Well, from what I see, they aren’t. You’re in the same level of information as he is. And you clearly think you’re in a level beyond it. Am I incorrect that you believe you research your details more than him? Well, I see you both post, and I can tell you: You don’t.

“If you want to debate with me, we BOTH need to stay on topic and not insult each other. Can we agree on that?”

Insulting you isn’t going off topic unless you make it as such. I’m not going to agree to not insult and create consequence for things you do here that aren’t acceptable.

“After all, when was the last time I insulted you? It’s been quite a while, right? I hoped we moved past that, but maybe I was wrong.”

All I hear here, is someone talking PC blah blah. I don’t care. Get to the point.

“Can we agree to try and debate facts and not weave in personal attacks and digs at the other person when trying to make our points?”

No. Already addressed above, you already hit on this now more than once. Get back to the point.

“If you can reply to this comment without insulting me again, at least I know we’re on the right track.”

That wouldn’t show anything with regards to being on track.

“So back to the debate: I understand you don’t trust data from NOAA, but I do.”

I said that it causes me to raise red flags. Not that I don’t trust the data. The data is always right. When you have a group though that is in league with proving something true, as we have seen the government is doing with climate change, you have to be suspect. I said I will review to see the data points and how they came to their conclusion. The fact that you believe them because they are peer reviewed is a problem. You’re not believing them because of data. You might say the same as me, but I haven’t formed a conclusion on this yet, and I have said as such. The reason I used to distrust it, is a valid one. The reason you used to trust it, is not.

“The report card is peer-reviewed – I don’t know how else to determine if a scientific study is valid aside from releasing all the data and letting others in the field (not just those paid by the government – but anyone) review & comment on it.”

This is because you don’t know how to research. What you do is look it over and see if there are errors that would make the conclusion wrong. You don’t have to know the exact math, just how they reached the conclusion. If the variables changed like I put above, their conclusion could not possibly be based on the proper data. This would then be a guess based on data available. Which is exactly why presenting it as a definite fact, for which calling it something you shouldn’t based policy on that could result in cronyism, is the wiser move to do (Agent).

“It’s not like NOAA said “this is what we found and it’s right, you have to take our word for it” – they basically said “this is what we found – take a look at the data and comment on the validity of our method & conclusion” before they published the report.”

Irrelevant.

“Since a peer-reviewed NOAA report isn’t good for you, what source(s) are acceptable & reliable to you so we can compare findings?”

No. You are now trying to shape this into me not accepting reports and science, like you claim of Agent. I will draw my conclusion soon enough. If this doesn’t show it’s work with data in a satisfying way, I will say this study does not prove anything.

“I could consider trusting your source if their data was made public and was properly peer-reviewed. If it’s just one person and their data, I will likely not deem it valid if it hasn’t gone through any level of scrutiny besides the person who wrote it and their editor/publisher.”

Again the who you know crap. If the data is right, it should be trusted. There are several business men who have made a point of disproving such things. Some of which UW used your same method just now to disprove. That it wasn’t peer reviewed.

Let me show you something.

Recently a man decided to quit a tech firm because Trump, someone who was extreme chose their leader to be one of his staff on an issue. Could you feasibly see, that a liberal scientist, may discredit someone or refuse to do a peer review based on their own bias? I can. And not only could I feasibly see it, Ben Shapiro comments on where they have, all the time. The scientific field is no longer trust worthy. And if you don’t realize that, we have a problem. So the element that matters is the math, the data, and the reference points. Nothing else.

Like or Dislike:

1

0

In other words my links are holding up the post. It should show up by tomorrow.

Like or Dislike:

0

1

Give me your link. Now.

Like or Dislike:

1

0

Actu says:
Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 0
Thumb down 0

“Haha GIVE ME YOUR LIIIIIIINK NOOOOOW!

Whoops, you did, well my link, which I won’t provide supports me.

NOBODY takes your seriously anymore Bob. Just the math, unless mine is way, way off. Links, links links, but not mine. #dumbass #comedian”

ACTU I give more links than anyone here. It’s not my fault they didn’t approve the link, though it makes sense they didn’t.

The page is more of a blog, with other links on it they would perceive as a threat.

Confused, I’m sorry, you’ll have to look this one up. Look up something akin to annual report card NOAA issues or problems. Find some links, you’ll find the guy I’m talking about, he not only compares the charts, but he actually has a link to their numbers showing that they changed which ones they used.

And for you ACTU, what you did actually is bullying.

Like or Dislike:

0

1

“Find some links, you’ll find the guy I’m talking about”

THE GUY you speak of. Care to tell me his name? How can I search for THE GUY without knowing what name to search?

also, if your link isn’t being approved, just post it broken up a bit. watch, i’ll show you.

http://www.google.com <<-link IJ has to approve

can be posted as
www.
google
.com

That format won't require IJ review/approval and you can post the link. So I will reiterate and quote you again —

Give me your link. Now.

Like or Dislike:

1

0

Ok, I was going through the numbers on the NOAA, but would take far too long to extract that.

I’ll post that link separately so YOU can do the math. You’re asking me to do things YOU DIDN’T DO. You just believed someone else’s conclusion, and you expect I should just follow that, and that you’re so much smarter than everyone else. You’re an idiot. Just as much as agent and I’m tired of these debates with fools.

You haven’t proven global warming any more than Agent has disproved it, and this is a verifiable fact.

So, here’e briebart’s break down of it, which I’m sure will be approved. This proves the NOAA is misleading with regards to Texas.

www.

breitbart.

com

/texas/2016/10/18/report-noaa-fraudulently-pushing-texas-warming-claim/

Like or Dislike:

1

0

And for you ACTU:

I have not contradicted myself here. I’m getting really sick of you. STAY OUT OF MY CONVERSATIONS.

All you’re going to get from me is either being ignored, or insults.

Confused is at least wrong and naive. You’re wrong and immoral. One of the two I’m willing to talk with. The other I’m only willing to talk AT. Because I only care about proving them wrong and giving contrary info.

Wrong and immoral people will always call the people who call them wrong, cowards and wrong.

But I don’t have time to keep going back and forth with you. I only have time to give so much data.

This issue with Confused will take me dozens of hours to fully break down.

Of which, me being hesitant in doing makes sense. Confused however jumping to conclusions does not.

It shows naive behavior, which you claim us conservatives all have.

I am clearly not naive, and I am clearly someone who uses sources and data a lot. More than anyone here.

And those conclusions are often rooted in laws and regulations, as I quoted with bank charter laws and how they mingle with the CRA. That took me upwards of 5 years of research on the matter. You can’t fake that type of research.

I had to look at these laws and find out if there were restrictions based on a CRA rating in terms of buying, selling, and merging. There were. And I knew there would be. Sometimes though I don’t have an educated guess to make as to where things are wrong or right. Those things take a lot more research and are harder.

But I know for a fact you’re not doing this kind of thinking on laws.

When I explain how I figured out these aspects of CRA, you have nothing even remotely similar to give me.

Why don’t you run down how you found out something was bad that you think is bad, in legal or regulatory terms.

Run me through the process, outside of “get owned”.

Think you can?

I really don’t think you can.

Show me. You want me to agree with you? Show me. I guarantee you I will if you make a good point.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Confused,

Before I start here I want to apologize. You’ve been actually way more cordial than ACTU and UW. I’m too focused on them and they are getting to me too much. I shouldn’t let that influence my behavior. You’re also right. I shouldn’t be insulting you. Let’s get into what you said which I think was all fair.

“I listened, but I still have issues.

Breitbart cites research by the Real Climate Science blog. Okay – so I looked for the RCS’s research, but they only display the same two graphs Breitbart did. Neither Breitbart nor RCS linked to the original data they’re saying was adjusted. Okay – so I looked for the original 2011 NOAA report, but the only report I found online is the most recent version.”

That blog guy has another link with the links, but he links them poorly and only one works, and I’m not 100% sure it is the right one. You’re right. It’s hard to find.

“So Breitbart says RCS has the data to show it, and RCS is saying “the original 2011 NOAA report shows different readings for Texas than the newest NOAA report” but there’s no original NOAA report to support that argument.”

Same as above. The NOAA burries their information so much it’s hard to find the numbers on their own site. This blog did source it in the past, and the links are now broken. This makes me think the NOAA changed the links intentionally. This is why I said it’s literally thousands of numbers. I cannot find this link on the NOAA which is why I simply gave you the archives. It is taking way too much work which concerns me.

“Semi-rhetorical questions: Why wouldn’t Breitbart/RCS provide ACTUAL CITATIONS in their blog posts?”

Same as above. Are you having an easy time finding it? Also the link I mentioned before is broken. I imagine they don’t want to source quote something that will be unable to be clicked within a few months.

“Why not attach the original NOAA report to their post to support their initial argument that TX temps were changed?”

Same question to liberal news stations. It takes a lot of work and many don’t do it. Ergo why I don’t trust them and I won’t allow a study to prove something without seeing numbers. However, in this scenario, I don’t believe too much is needed here to disprove this considering slightly more than half of all climatologists already disagree with other conclusions that the government is spinning out there with similarly funded and misleading groups.

“They’re saying the temps were adjusted, but they gave no proof or link or report to confirm their starting point is accurately based on the original 2011 NOAA report.”

Again, we can both try to find the link and numbers. Whoever finds it first, can post it. Though forewarning I’m extremely busy and will likely forget to post.

“So then I looked at the NOAA link you said I should use to compare the change in the data. Sorry bob, but that link is 100% useless for the Breitbart/RCS research, data and results.”

The link I said to compare is the archive. It has all their studies in there somewhere. It isn’t useless because if the data is in there somewhere (it’s hard to find apparently) then if you click on 2011, and compare to 2016, and find the matching years that the original source comments on, you can input them and create your own chart. It should look like the chart on that page.

However, as I said, I don’t like doing this. It’s a lot of work.

I also don’t think that someone should be acting like they have done this when they haven’t.

You haven’t.
Agent hasn’t.

And the government and media at large has a habit of misleading people.

So you tell me why I should believe it, and why Agent should?

Why is he wrong for questioning it, more than people are for blindly following it? You don’t know the answers to these questions.

And that is enough to show a problem here.

Your link is solely NOAA’s ARCTIC report card. Breitbart/RCS talks solely about Texas. I can’t compare the “original” data in your link to the data Brietbart/RCS references because Texas is (correctly) nowhere to be found in NOAA’s Arctic report.

Can you please post a link to the original 2011 NOAA report on Texas that shows where Breitbart/RCS got their data since I could only find the recent report? I want to review it and compare the data as you suggested, and I can’t because it’s nowhere to be found on any of the sites or links you posted, and I could only find the newest NOAA report when I searched for it.

Like or Dislike:

0

1

“You’re going to listen up, buddy boy.
When I tell a smart ass, who says he’s proven the science on something that the government wants to do measures of control regarding, he needs to show his work. With sources, the prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.

To prove something, a NOW is ordered[…]”

Condescending ass with delusions of grandeu, buddy boy. Please be lenient with us, kiddo. The first one is incomprehensible gibberish.

“When I say for example that the numbers for years appear to have changed, all you have to do, is find the data.”

When you say but refuse to provide the evidence, name of the dataset, or name of the author.

“You don’t really even need MY link,”

Or any other info verifying the conspiracy theory, Bob had deckared it to be fact. Just the math, even without any numbers. Who takes this clown seriously?

You also state in here that you don’t believe this science, after saying foe months you aren’t a science denier. What an odd coincidence. No wonder you hated college, which at this point I think is 50/50 you even finished, the are against fantasy there.

Bob, speaking of your imaginary data and Bob Math, you coincidentally disappeared after I provided data showing productivity in the US had not dropped. Comment?

Ignore my destruction of your idiotic Bob Math and your ignorance about assets and carbon taxes, as always, delusional, lying, dolt.

Like or Dislike:

1

0

“At least NOAA has data to review and analyze. ”

No. They didn’t. I told you to go through the years yourself and you yourself said you couldn’t find the data when I gave you the archive from the NOAA.

Being more inclined to believe someone who gives their data regardless, does not work unless you review the data and it looks correct. Also, with regards to a concept like this, you should be inclined to question it, even if you see evidence that points toward it. Over half of all scientists already disagree that man made global warming is a major threat. Why don’t you put credence into that as to the amount this is being mislead by the media and politicians at large, who then fund the NOAA?

(“2) Agent is wrong because he says things that aren’t based in reality. “…

Bullcrap. Sorry to go mean again, but you just contradicted yourself talking about how the data is and is not available. Which is it? You’re being mislead by source content. You’re equal to him here, and I won’t accept you calling yourself superior to another human being when you’re not.

“the caps will be thicker than ever.”

Hyperbole for effect to show how much they are lying. Which they are. And your reaction is the problem here more than his comment. People like you who run around crying wolf to little comments like these, are the bigger issue. As you appear to know things source quoting, but you clearly have not reviewed them. Most people that see agent will think either he looked into it himself and made his own conclusion that he conveys poorly, or he is an idiot. He is not changing the mind of the masses. But, people like you who are low information on the topic, appearing not to be, not reviewing their own data, are actually a threat. That’s why I make a point of showing counter data.

“And where did this nugget come from? It’s not from anyone who measures this stuff. It’s not from Brietbart or RCS. That conclusion is not found anywhere when I looked online.”

Then take the comment for what it is. This is the issue most people have with Trump as well. It’s a serious problem, not with Trump and Agent, but with the general population. It’s also why I like people like Agent and Trump.

“He says things like that with no source.”

You often make comments about what you find ridiculous without sources as well. Saying the ice caps will be fine and as thick as ever is not something he needs to back up. I see others do it on both sides of the spectrum.

“When I ask for his source he refuses to provide it and tells me to google it, and when I google it and say I can’t find it and ask him for the source again, he says I don’t know how to google properly and that’s the end of the conversation until he makes the same claim again and the cycle repeats.”

This is because you have been a smart ass on every comment he says. See the Crayons comment, that you took literally instead of hyperbole, over exaggeration, and for what it was. Just like the press hangs over Trump’s “She’s been fighting ISIS her entire adult life!” Hillary – Check the fact checkers!!” Who is the bigger idiot in that scenario? The one who doesn’t know how people criticize someone, or the person who asks for a comment clearly designed for effect to be fact checked? Seriously Confused, this is a huge problem with the younger generation. You are way over thinking simple comments, and then you basically call people idiots saying to source quote just to call them stupid. It’s not ok, while you call yourself better than them. Then in come people like me. We call you stupid, and source quote, mainly to get you to knock it off, and then people say we are the same, through false equivalency. My overall goal is to show that conservatives have reasons to believe what people like agent does, because many conservatives talk like him. It isn’t an education issue. It’s a lingual and speech style issue combined with communication.

“When Agent posts that stuff, refuses to support his claims or tell us where he gets his information, and the only things I can find online clearly refute his argument, he is wrong. He isn’t wrong for questioning the data (which he has NEVER done, by the way) – he’s wrong for making unsubstantiated claims, not being able to back them up, then insulting people who question him and ask for his evidence.”

That last part is exactly what you do. Plus, you have now repeated yourself far too many times in this post confused.

At least agent gets to his point with a few lines. At which point you are putting far too much into a small concept and phrasing.

Like or Dislike:

1

0

Also, Confused,

I already gave you the link to the archives. The numbers should be in there somewhere. You said you couldn’t find it there. Neither can I.

If they don’t have the numbers in the archive, my big question to you is: Why? You claimed they have their data available, but they don’t. As both of us are finding.

If the link for the archive of data doesn’t contain the data, for an issue like this, why are you more concerned with Briebart?

I would be more concerned with a government funded research agency not giving their data on their own archive links.

Like or Dislike:

0

1

“Again, not reading your crap. I have read enough from you to see four huge errors in the last few months, of which you went far over the top insulting me on, one of which was a small issue and you still haven’t admitted you were wrong, but you constantly called me insults regarding using the word conviction for college convictions of rape for 50.01% for expulsion.”

I just came as close as I will to admitting possible error on the rape claims you made about people being convicted and punished in a legal sense, using the word in a legal manner, which you did wrong. But, you don’t read my comments, or any comments by almost anybody who disagrees with you, so you don’t’ know that, and you are too uneducated to comprehend what you do read.

“You were wrong about Iraq spending being in the annual deficits, an easy issue to look up,”

For seemingly the 100th time: where in the 2010, or 2011, etc. budgets is the debt/spending accounted for in a Bush budget? You are outraged over this, so SURELY it must be easy to find since you claim it as fact. We won’t even start with Bush increasing borrowing from the Social Security trust fund largely in order to do this.

“you were wrong about over half of climatologists agreeing that man made global warming could be catastrophic”

Again, illiterate, lying, fuck, I linked to an article by Cook et al which said 97% of all published work by climate scientists affirmed it was man made. You disputed that, and showed an alternative study which I showed had been disproven as having Bob Math, and was wrong. You then lied and said the links you provided were independent studies even though I showed every single one I looked into relied on your BS study that was debunked. You then switched your argument to catastrophe, which I never commented on. Actu then had their way with you. Fucking moron.

Here is the link, idiot. Quote where I said they claimed it was catastrophic. You can’t, lying POS.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/06/02/410761.htm/?comments

“ Naive and wrong can be talked with. Immoral and wrong cannot.”

You lie and insult constantly. You have been accused of rape, which I believe you did, multiple times. You accept the torture of innocent people (another moment when you revealed your insanity by saying you never said this, despite writing about 20 pages on it with Ron), you want religious tests to allow people into the country, and want fewer rights for people based on your religion and what you feel is best for them, and you think African Americans “train” their kids like subhuman animals to disobey police. You are an immoral, lying, sinning, racist, piece of garbage. You are literally insane, and deny saying things that are direct quotes as well as denying video evidence. You have no place to judge. The only reason I am rude to you is because of your behavior, which I started when you were supporting Trump but whining about PC being the biggest problem in the country yet insulting people left and right and being racist. Of course, you freaked out immediately, because that is what whining hypocrites do. You have threatened me with physical violence multiple times, as well as saying multiple times if the left kept pushing their policies there would be a civil war. You are an immoral, legitimate insane person. Your delusions of grandeur are disturbing.

You won’t reply to me with anything other than insults and claims of ignoring me, because you cannot debate me. All you can do is engage in limited debate, with your debate “tactics” you whine about incessantly, while everybody must provide unlimited sources you never read and/or don’t comprehend, while you freak out and say it is their fault when you claim you have a source but won’t provide it and they don’t accept it offhand because King Bob declared it be be true. 100% insane person incapable of actual debate.

Provides Confused the link you claimed to have, admit you were wrong and don’t have it, or forever stfu about sources. This lack of self awareness is disturbing. Do you really not see how nobody can take you seriously when you do this after screaming for links constantly, and then dismissing them if they are not what you determined beforehand, or screaming nonstop about “just the math” and then switching to theory matters most once i expose you not knowing basic statistics and having calculations off by magnitudes of thousands? I did go against your math above, but you can’t respomd, like all lying cowards. Even Agent and Yogi might realize what you are soon at this rate.

Where is the Iraq Spending in Bush’s budgets?

Where is the quote where I said the Cook et al study addressed climate scientists belief on it being catastrophic?

It should be easy, I provided the page.

What a coincidence, you are too outraged to respond, just like with your math off by a magnitude of thousands, or my CRA studies, or my math on your bs 401k plan, or my math on your idiotic claim about the vast majority of people being over the median income, or my minimum wage studies, or my data about productivity in the US. Funny the timing with all these, fraud.

Like or Dislike:

1

0

I’m also genuinely curious:

If I change my mind in the 2020 election and vote democrat, will you apologize for this behavior and admit I am not ignorant?

Or will I then be the useful idiot who you won’t beat to hell and back each day but you won’t apologize to?

I imagine it’s the later of the two.

You have extreme stability issues. Work on it.

It will be easy if Trump finally gets what republican ideals republicans have been gunning for since the 80’s to see if they work. By the end of 4 it might be difficult but by the end of 8 we will know for sure. The world can survive 8 years of trying something different. You need to stop hyperventilating over this. We have not done these policies, and we need to see if they work, not assume and belligerently claim we have proven things we have not, while trying the same status quo, and complaining that things aren’t working.

Like or Dislike:

1

0

And they are doing the same with Israel. Right now it is 75% Jews in the area. Muslims are infiltrating and by 2035 it will be less than half in the only Jewish nation.

http://mondoweiss.net/2014/02/population-israelpalestine-projected/

More links and data coming. That means only 8.21 million Jews are in their homeland. And Muslims are rapidly taking it over. How many Muslims are in the neighboring lands?

That concept and data will be in my next link with the population of Arabians in those nations.

This should show why it is concerning we are taking on so many Muslims from the Middle East. Why aren’t they relocating to their own 22 nations? If those nations cannot handle why do you think we can or should?

Is it violence oriented? If so we will have violence here.

Is it economic in nature?

If so we will have those issues here.

Like or Dislike:

1

0

Be honest UW:

How much do you know about the Middle East and populations and the Jews and the history in that area?

Am I an idiot again? Are you going to attach some spin on this and then say how I have a high school education?

Go ask a highschool student and they won’t know jack about what I’m taking about. They will not have numbers like I do.

I’m getting really sick of you and ACTU saying get owned, and bullying phrases, while calling me autistic, (a seriously demented insult, as you mean to to it to degrade and thus you degrade the group of people) and ignorant, and other bull crap.

You need to knock this off. I’m getting sick of it.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Bob I need to boil this down to basics. I see a lot of pseudo-intellectual bullshit. What I don’t see are:

Link providing the funding from the Bush years for the Iraq War spending, and therefore the debt, from any of Obama’s years in office.

A link and quote where I said the Cook et al study addressed what climate scientists thought about climate change being catastrophic.

I will address your other BS after you provide these or admit you can’t. No more indulging your moronic rants right now until you do this. I assume like the data you lied about with Confused you won’t.

You have called Israel a Christian State,so yes, I do think you are clueless on it, and am happy to debate your surely retarded, far, far right wing positions. But, only after you provide the links or say you can’t. I won’t bother letting you lie nonstop and then switch subjects.

Iraq funding from Bush years for Obama years.

My quote saying the Cook et al paper claimed climate scientists believed climate change was catastrophic. I provided the link, so it should be easy.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

I hear ya UW. I have still yet to convince Agent that Progressive’s Flo is a fictional character (he claimed Flo is a non-fictional character and she, not the actress who plays her, files tax returns) and that I don’t need to get a separate renter’s policy since I own my single-family home and have homeowner’s insurance. As I mentioned to bob, Agent sometimes says things that aren’t based in reality.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

“As I mentioned to bob, Agent sometimes says things that aren’t based in reality.”

I noticed you said an example with Agent, and then grouped me with him. I also noticed you do this grouping with me and Agent a lot. It’s basically a bigoted behavior.

Can you list something I say that’s not rooted in reality? You did one for Agent.

Also, I gave you numbers you haven’t calculated. I love how well researched you think you are, even as you admit you don’t know the data. 2 days. This is what I do in 2 days for research. And this is one I haven’t researched much.

The CRA and housing collapse is what I do in more time. You know darn well I’m well researched on the topics I tend to debate.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Ok, Confused I don’t know how you don’t see this, with your false equivalency childish behavior,

There are three liberal a holes here.

Planet,
UW,
ACTU,

And these are not light aholes. Planet is a liberal left Agent. UW and ACTU are not even debate worse, if you were looking as a moderate.

There are two arguably abrasive conservatives here:

Agent.
Me.

There are several supposed moderates here but I will focus on two:

You.
Ron.

I have not seen you come to my aid when I call out planet, and I’ve done so and proven him wrong with his own numbers this last two weeks. And he insulted Agent while doing that. You said your issue with Agent is saying things he needs to back up. I called out Planet. You didn’t.

The two of you have also agreed with UW while in the same page he was actively harassing others. There can be no misconstruement here. He is actively harassing me. You may say, I am doing the same right now, ok, fair enough, but you have never while you perceived me doing that, said “I hear ya Bob, this liberals like Planet and UW are constantly out of line” but you HAVE with regards to Agent and I.

Interesting isn’t it?

It’s immoral behavior. You then try to say you’re not decided, and moderate, and sometimes I even then come to your aide from Agent, against my better judgment, when you clearly don’t deserve it and encourage people to go after me.

Not cool Confused. Not cool.

Like or Dislike:

3

1

I do, and that’s what matters to me.

Al Gore stole the Presidency from himself. By being a nincompoop, and a self-righteous blowhard.

Like or Dislike:

4

2

“….his Presidency was stolen by you guys” Dude,seriously ……?
The rest of your post is very, very good !!

Like or Dislike:

2

2

https://www.iceagenow.info/boston-coldest-december-16-133-years/

Howzat?

Like or Dislike:

2

0

DePolar, in the midst of all the ugly insults by the left, how about some humor to make our day? One of my close friends sent this:

One sunny day in 2017, an old man approached the White House and spoke to a Marine standing guard. He said, I would like to go in and meet with President Hillary Clinton. The Marine politely replied: Sir, Mrs Clinton is not President and doesn’t reside here. The old man said OK and walked away.

The next day, the old man came up to the Marine and asked the same question. Again, the Marine said she wasn’t President and didn’t reside here. The old man said OK and walked away.

The third day, the old man arrived and spoke to the same Marine and asked the same question. The Marine was getting a bit agitated by then and said this is the third time in a row you have asked the same question asking to speak to President Hillary Clinton. I explained she wasn’t President and didn’t reside here. Don’t you understand? The old man answered, Oh, I understand you just fine. I just love hearing your answer.

The Marine snapped to attention, saluted and said, See you tomorrow.

Like or Dislike:

0

2

right wing censorship

Who cares about Al Gore? I certainly don’t. Seems like The Right is all concerned about that guy. Does it have something to do with the fact his Presidency was stolen by you guys? I don’t get it.

Let’s say you just don’t want to believe the truth. That’s fine. But, shouldn’t we all still be the best stewards of the planet as possible? Especially those who believe it is a God given gift to us? Why poison something God gave you? The planet is a living thing! We should absolutely do all we can not to poison it and shorten its life. If you have lung cancer developed from years of smoking, would you continue to smoke? Maybe you would because of your addiction (we have an oil addiction as a people). So, perhaps the question really is, should you smoke?

Like or Dislike:

4

3

Depolar,

I am not trying to discredit others as much as I am trying to reaffirm what is essentially now a known fact. I do believe that some scientists have probably exaggerated certain facts to try and increase human action toward repairing the environment, however, to completely discredit all the other credible scientist who have come to a clear consensus about climate change is a bit irrational. I am asking you this so please answer. You 100% believe man has had no effect on the climate? You believe all the pollutants we put in the atmosphere have no negative effect? Please answer. I would enjoy a sensible, fair debate with you.

Like or Dislike:

4

3

DePolar,

I have a feeling any evidence I share with you will be deemed “not credible” by you. The funny thing, though, is that 97.1% (last time I checked) of scientist agree that humans are affecting the climate to a degree in which something must be done about it. The even funnier thing is that the highest percentage of scientist that believe in climate change are those who have done the most research and just happen to be climate change specialist. Before I send you data can you please tell me who you view as credible so I know what I am up against?

Like or Dislike:

2

1

@ConCEALing the Truth:

No, any ‘evidence’ you supply would be deemed ‘not credible’ by any sensible person. Your unwillingness to provide the ‘evidence’ means you ADMIT it is phony. If not, POST IT NOW!

Concealing the truth is equivalent to admission of lying.

Like or Dislike:

1

3

posting again hoping you respond =)

Depolar,

I am not trying to discredit others as much as I am trying to reaffirm what is essentially now a known fact. I do believe that some scientists have probably exaggerated certain facts to try and increase human action toward repairing the environment, however, to completely discredit all the other credible scientist who have come to a clear consensus about climate change is a bit irrational. I am asking you this so please answer. You 100% believe man has had no effect on the climate? You believe all the pollutants we put in the atmosphere have no negative effect? Please answer. I would enjoy a sensible, fair debate with you.

Like or Dislike:

2

2

Consider this:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/16/snopes-facebooks-new-fact-checker-employs-leftists-almost-exclusively/

Like or Dislike:

2

0

Pants on the ground.
Pants on the ground.
Whatchyou doing in your lab coats with your pants on the ground?

Like or Dislike:

2

1

Nah, Agent would have to do a lot more to tick me off.

I have respect for the guy.

Like or Dislike:

2

0

Bob, I don’t need links to get the big picture. I do know right from wrong. The experience we got from the media and polls in this election would tell us that they are agenda driven, not truth driven. That is where “Fake News” came from. Nice to see Priebus will be re-arranging the seats in the press room. The nasty leftist reporters will be sent to the back of the room and only the honest reporters (if there are any) will get the front rows.

Like or Dislike:

3

3

Agent is not a racist. He might not like Muslims, gays, Jews, Mexicans, homosexuals, transsexuals, asexuals, bronies, furries, pansexuals, demisexuals, Mormons, Hindus, Cubans, vegetarians, vegans, Britains, Hungarians, Australians, Tasmanians, Icelanders, Asians, Canadians, liberals, new yorkers, city dwellers, Catholics, progressives, feminists, or abolitionists, but he’s not a racist.

That being said, I think he was attempting to allude to the rumor that the last time a republican president took office, the oval office was left in a shambles with pretty much everything stolen that wasn’t nailed down.

Like or Dislike:

1

0

Will is not a liberal, and he must employ a BOT to try to support his unsubstantiated OPINIONS, which he believes are facts.

Like or Dislike:

1

0

Obama just set a record for most pardons of dangerous criminals in one day by a POTUS.

The intent is to leave a big mess for Trump to deal with, allowing O and other Socialist/ Communists to criticize him for the problems the Communist/ Socialists have been or are now creating.

Like or Dislike:

0

1

So you consider non-violent drug offenders to be “dangerous criminals”?

Like or Dislike:

1

0

DePolar, Obama just fired one of his “scientists” at DOE for not towing the company line on Climate Change. Apparently, he was being too forthright with Congress. Perhaps Perry can re-hire him in a few weeks.

Like or Dislike:

2

1

The comment about Muslim drapes is not racist.

Such ignorance.

And if that’s your wow, all I have to say is WOW.

So when people say Putin is in league with Russia, are they being…Anti Russian?

Agent’s comment here has to do with Obama’s weakness with regards to Islamic terrorism.

There is no bigotry in his comment. It’s hyperbole.

Like or Dislike:

1

2

This probably doesn’t even make Agent’s top 100 racist comments here.

Bob, idiot, this is racist. Agent thinks this because he views Obama as not Christian and not American solely because of his race. He is a racist piece of shit. You are equally blind to racist, she have made extremely racist comments about black people “training” their kids, which is marginally above calling them animals outright, you are also oddly focused on Black Lives Matter even when it’s an issue that has nothing to do with them. You are racist. Both of you supported a white supremacist too. Racists, straight up.

Wil, if IJ cared about this Agent would have been out of here years ago. They routinely publish articles straight from right wing think tanks. They don’t care about this kind of stuff because they support it or at least the groups pushing it too.

Like or Dislike:

1

0

Yeah…I don’t do that Al.

Like or Dislike:

1

0

It does seem that way. I don’t think he realizes what sets me off on those other folks.

With regards to where I’m from, you might realize over time I’m a very well balanced conservative.

My logic on gay behaviors and folks are rooted in the assistance and goodness for such people. Having a child of their own accord, things for them, but still rooted in truth. God is around for people. Any sinner is meant to experience good. I teach this to countless conservatives who get bad elements of what we are meant to do and be. When we advise people like this, the thing that should be at the root is the benefit of the sinner by going with God. Someone I know once told me, and he was very wise:

If you push someone they will push back. If you create a pull, they might join you.

I am glad I was born where I was, and I’m glad I am where I am. I hold a part of something quite different than most conservatives and liberals.

Like or Dislike:

0

1

Agent Mikey, why would you even say this? It is idiotic. The two states you want to exclude are almost 20% of the total population.

Give me a logical reason for excluding them when counting the popular vote.

Like or Dislike:

1

2

Hi Agent – are you going to email me so I can give you my address for the coloring book and crayons? You posted twice that you offered to send them to me, and I’ve now posted twice I’m willing to accept your offer (presuming you’re a man of your word and will actually follow through on what you said, which I highly doubt you will, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.)

Like or Dislike:

2

1

Sorry Confused, I am not going to give you my email address so you can use it to send me hateful emails all day. Just post your home address on this blog and I will send you your coloring book.

Like or Dislike:

2

1

@Confused: I believe Agent is MUCH smarter than to fall for your trap of getting his email address and spamming it, despite it being a temp address. IT GGeeks I know say the IP can be located and can be used to trace the sender.

Give it up while you’ve only been made to look foolish once in this section of the thread.

Like or Dislike:

2

2

“By the way, Ruth Buzzi was better looking”

So I ask again…

What does somebody’s looks have to do with how they perform at their government job? Why do you care how a Supreme Court Justice looks?

Like or Dislike:

1

0

Justice Bader is pretty hot……

Like or Dislike:

1

0

I also don’t support the Orange thing, I talked to the liberals regarding it, and I told liberals to stop with the hands comments.

Let’s hit ’em with facts and class. And if they act like jerks, a right hook.

Like or Dislike:

2

1

Did Planet give out your personal information? Am I missing something?

Like or Dislike:

2

0

Just so you know Agent, doxing is what that would be called, and if I were you I would press charges if he did dox you.

It’s a crime, and maybe he would finally learn his lesson.

Like or Dislike:

1

0

CapTroll PlaneTroll is similar to those who were stalking the EC voters, by sending threats and even following them on their way to their capital building on Monday to vote.

Call a lawyer before you register a complaint with your police dept. Police can’t do anything until the crime occurs. Lawyers can contact IJ to find the dox perp’s address and such after your lawyer files a complaint of online harassment by the perp.

Lib losers can’t accept defeat graciously….

and I believe things will only get worse over the next 4 or 8 years.

Like or Dislike:

2

0

The lack of ‘follow-thru’ is a sign of superior intelligence of conservatives who know IP addresses are passed along on any email they send, whether thru their usual email account or thru a temp account.

Conservatives know much more about email security than liberals; e.g. RNC vs. DNC and Trump vs. He-mail-liar-y.

Like or Dislike:

1

2

torguard.net
secure-email.org
anonymousemail.me

These are just 3 options to send email messages while hiding your IP address! These are also disposable email addresses!

Using one of those will not allow me to spam agent and will not allow me to dox him either.

Agent continues to have no valid excuse for NOT emailing me so I can give him my address so he can follow through on his offer.

Like or Dislike:

2

0

Bob, you should remember the evil triumvirate of Libby, Ins102, Captain Planet hacking my personal information and spreading it on IJ. They were very proud of themselves and mocked me ad nauseum. I got IJ monitors on it and they finally stopped after numerous warnings. I believe Planet has the record for email warnings from Josh. He should have been taken off the blog permanently.

Like or Dislike:

1

1

@Confused;

There is no reason for ANYONE to converse privately with you on ANY matter.

Say it here, or shut up.

Like or Dislike:

1

0

Agent,

I really don’t remember that happening.

I don’t know how I don’t, but I don’t.

Like or Dislike:

0

1

Also,
I didn’t hack anything. The only hack I know how to do is hackey-sack. Boogereater exposed you, took off your mask. I think he was sick of you hiding your racist commentary behind it. Which, I’ll give you credit, has been a lot less in recent posts by you.

Like or Dislike:

1

0

In other words:

There is no circumstance in which it is ok to destroy someone in public.

None.

Zero.

Nada.

The moment you believe this, it is bordering on a literal form of fascism.

Also, it is different to want to destroy and discredit an individual, vs pass regulations on oh say vetting Muslims coming into the country to make sure we don’t allow terrorists in. That is not a form of fascism.

I’m getting sick of you and those like you here going on tangents due to the smallest of things, calling it racism, and then saying it’s ok to destroy people and threaten people! Do it with your own name then, and we’ll see how that goes. Coward.

Like or Dislike:

1

0

DePolar, oh golly gee. It looks like your ice berg will not be melting anytime soon. Thule, Greenland’s high will be -20 today and Winnipeg, Canada will be below zero all week. The lower 48 is due for a big cold snap due to all that Global Cooling going on. So much for the infamous Al Gore and his failed agenda.

Like or Dislike:

1

0

Translation: My momma didn’t raise a fool. However, your momma didn’t have much luck with you.

Like or Dislike:

1

0

Confused no! My man, why did you do that?

For your own protection, back down on this one.

You never know when some idiot online is going to use this info.

All because you want to have agent send you crayons because he said tongue in cheek he would?

What do you have to gain vs lose on this?

You’ll open yourself to harm to prove agent is a hypocrite or isn’t big enough of a man to send you crayons?

Think about it dude!

Calm down!

Like or Dislike:

1

0

I’m aware you’re an adult Confused.

I’m an adult also. And I’ve made mistakes for not listening to others in the past.

You might want to slow down on this one.

Like or Dislike:

2

1

“go to the Post Office and buy a P.O. Box and send it to me.”

If I do that, do you promise to send me the coloring book and crayons? Please advise.

Like or Dislike:

1

0

Hate to tell you this Planet, but you read every one of his posts and then talk behind his back in one of your famous nasty posts. That is responding to him in a round about way. Another nasty trait of yours by the way.

Like or Dislike:

0

1

You just can’t handle him, he has info you don’t have that overturns decades of scientific research and he’s only been looking into it for 2 days! /s

Like or Dislike:

0

1

Everything your said is idiotic, and I’m not interested in engaging you when you are wrong about almost everything we’ve refuse to reply on topic any time somebody shoots down your math.

Forced labor for minor traffic offenses is neither libertarian nor liberal. Went engage with a person who does not know absolute basics, but thinks they have Phd level knowledge.

It saves money? Where is the math on that? You even say the degree it saves money, so surely it exists.

Like or Dislike:

1

0

Have you ever taken the time to show the temperature locations, methods, depths, or other aspects of oceanic study?

Or have you simply said “these are experts and they know more than you!”

You are about who, status, them vs us.

I’m about data, methodology, and facts.

You don’t break down your studies. You even didn’t read your own study to see that it contradicted your own point, with regards to climatologists, and then you tried to disprove my links based on absurd who is who crap.

It’s tiring, old, obviously in error, and I don’t have time for it kid.

Tell me you have broken down and know the methods of measurement, when they were implemented, and that you’ve even thought about the difference in measurement that must exist over 100 years of oceanic activity.

I just listed three, and mentioned a fourth, and went into the time beginning and data from one of the four that shows government reported warming is exaggerated, greatly.

This is ignorance UW. I’m tired of being harassed by you and called ignorant when I’m the ONLY person here who does this kind of analysis. You’re free to call me wrong, and debate, you’re not free to call me clueless, always wrong, autistic because I don’t agree with you, and imply I don’t do any research.

Asshole.

Like or Dislike:

1

1

“Forced fees or anarchy is worse.”

No, actually it isn’t. For many people getting a traffic fine or two would mean unemployment when they had to go to the forced labor camps and miss work. Small, and even large in some cases, fines are perfectly fine. You don’t agree with them, because you think any money to government is immoral and theft apparently. No wonder you dismiss slavery in both the US and The Bible so easily. Also, idiot, it isn’t libertarian as you claim.

“Wrong. I have replied and I have proven your math incorrect.”

No, you haven’t. You Declared that King Bob disagreed with it, so reality changed and your interpretation was Rule of the Land.

“You’re clearly not in my league”

I agree, I am well beyond it, operating in reality. As a refresher, you were wrong about unemployment. I provided a study showing all recent work on it, and you dismissed it off-hand, because you are a fucking moron. Then, you lied about reading it and misinterpreted what it said. When it came to the labor force participation rate you provided Bob Math from a blog (even though you don’t cite blogs); I provided multiple studies from places like the Federal Reserve showing most of the decline was due to age and the after effect of the recession, mostly in older and younger populations. You directly contradicted this, said it was false, but never read the story, instead whining about “where’s the math?!?” Now you don’t care about ‘where is the math’. Again, happily, not on your level, which is the level of an uninformed clown.

Climate change. You freaked out about the paper I provided stating that data shows up to 110% of the earth’s increase in temperature could be man made. You freaked out, and said that wasn’t impossible, reinforcing that you don’t know basic statistics and math. You then started lying for weeks about what I said about the Cook et al paper after I showed the paper you “refuted” it with was riddled with mathematical errors. You ignored that, again ignoring “just the math” when it applies to you. No, I am not on that level, which is the level of a clueless, dishonest, insane person. This goes on and on; as soon as somebody gives math you freak out and disappear.

Hey, that happened when I shot down your moronic 401K Bob Math, what a coincidence!

Where is that link again showing I said it stated anything about it being catastrophic?

“I’m about data, methodology, and facts.”

BOB! You don’t KNOW data or methodology, and deny all facts that are inconvenient to your argument. You have proven you don’t know or understand what confidence intervals are, and they are the basic fundamentals of most statistics, which is how data is analyzed. YOU DON”T HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE ABOUT DATA.

It’s no different than saying you are about reading, but don’t know any consonants.

“Screw you.

Let’s say the government hires people to clean up parks. If we have someone assigned to cleaning up a park (which by the way already exists) then we don’t have to hire someone for two weekends of park cleaning. Therefore, it is reduced costs.

It’s you who don’t know how to think.”

SO, you refuse to provide the math, as always, and as you did with Confused in this thread. Dishonest to the core.

Let’s deal with your doltish scenario, which would earn you an F in an Econ 201 course, and probably even a 101 course. Probably an A at the garbage school you apparently went to.

Yes, if they did a great job it might be cheaper. But, they aren’t going to go there unsupervised, so you are replacing park workers with more expensive police. You cannot have a person doing forced labor and not have the equivalent of a police/prison guard. Also, you have to hire people to chase down the people who refuse to go. Also, you assume, incorrectly, that he people will be able to do the jobs of park workers, who clean, but also do maintenance, light construction, assist customers, etc. They won’t be able to do that as temporary slaves, so those services are gone–which is a cost to society that would have to be accounted for if you didn’t refuse to do the math in every scenario, or cared–or they are still being provided, so you have park workers and forced labor which is being watched over by guards. All of the previous infrastructure for the state administering these people still exists, but now they just don’t cash any checks.

You also ignore the costs to society by having people lose jobs because they cannot show up, because they are forced to work, or the costs of having to pay for a babysitter, or having their children hurt because they couldn’t afford one but went to do the labor, and on and on. So no, you pompous fucking asshole, it is not as simple as you state, and again, just because King of the Dolts, tic tac poppin Bob says something, it does not make it true.

Seriously, do you not remember saying “just the math” literally dozens if not hundreds of times over the last few months? You are a legitimate, scary, possibly dangerous insane person.

” You even didn’t read your own study to see that it contradicted your own point, with regards to climatologists, and then you tried to disprove my links based on absurd who is who crap.”

FUCKING LIAR. Again, for approaching the 100th time, where is the quote on this. YOU argued catastrophe in regards to the Cook et al study, NOT ME.

Retard, here is the link again. PROVIDE THE QUOTE.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/06/02/410761.htm/?comments

Like or Dislike:

1

0

I didn’t read UW, because I already made the point I needed to, and his first comment was that I was engaging in slavery and thus it wasn’t liberal.

I don’t need to read beyond that to know someone is insane.

Moving to you ACTU:

I don’t lie here. Considering how up front I am about my history it wouldn’t even make sense to lie on these issues you think I do.

I’m sure you’re talking about the link that didn’t post, which I later then posted?

Such foolishness.

I also later posted oceanic data, showing different areas of methodology, and instead of debating those numbers, both you and UW attack my character, say I’m always wrong, try to deflect to a different manner of attack, and say I’m a liar.

Great debate tactics, asshole.

Like or Dislike:

1

1

You can call me “5 Man Electric Band”
Happy Holidays to all!!