are you as passionate about anything as Tim is about posting about politics (1 Viewer)

[Peyton Marino]

I NEVER wrote nor implied that all Trump supporters are prejudiced. I think people read what I wrote a little too quickly and then ok what they wanted out of it. 

Lol. Sure, you left a couple other options on the table (ignorance, tolerance of prejudice) but I left out of my post for simplicity's sake. Ultimately, there's little difference there.  They're all character flaws - you're implying one can't support Trump without some related character flaw.

 

[wormburner]

And if you read my post again (I won't repeat it here) I NEVER wrote nor implied that all Trump supporters are prejudiced.

Ohhhhhh, you almost turned it around . . . . .

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I for one am glad we've finally arrived in the FFA that Nietzsche predicted. Objective truth is so 2015.

It wasn't Nietzsche, it was Shakespeare.

At least, in MY mind it was.

 

[dickey moe]

Who decides whether it's true or not?

Fred Rogers

 

[Reginald Cornsilks]

Really? Can you give me an example of a Trump supporter who is not either bigoted or tolerant of bigotry in others or ignorant about bigotry? I don't think it's possible. If you are an intelligent person who voted for Donald Trump and you are not yourself a bigot, then at the very least you are tolerant of bigotry in others, because if you were intolerant of it you could never have voted for Trump given his rhetoric. 

So pretty much the quintessential example of what @David Dodds asked people to cut tf out (a day afterwards too, Holy hell you're a moron) . Your entire life's work and existence depends on the existence of this fantasy football forum. I'd encourage you to stop being a habitual line stepper and stick to counting down your top 5 favorite brands of steak knives. 

 

[Doctor Detroit]

In Tim's defense, guy does know a lot about steak knives. 

 

[Binky The Doormat]

In Tim's defense, guy does know a lot about steak knives. 

It's from constantly coming in 2nd place.  

 

[Doctor Detroit]

 

[McGarnicle]

Lol. Sure, you left a couple other options on the table (ignorance, tolerance of prejudice) but I left out of my post for simplicity's sake. Ultimately, there's little difference there.  They're all character flaws - you're implying one can't support Trump without some related character flaw.

I'm trying hard to understand the counter argument. Here is how I interpret Tim's three choices:

Voter is a bigot: This is confirmed to exist, as the KKK endorsed Trump.

Voter is tolerant of bigotry: Plenty of conservatives held their noses and voted for Trump. Common justifications include the Supreme Court, Obamacare, and a hatred of the Clintons. Those voters made value judgments that one or two issues like those outweighed Trump's offensive statements. Likewise plenty of Bernie supporters sucked it up and voted for Hillary despite her many flaws. One could say those voters are tolerant of her ties to Goldman Sachs, the questionable donations, the emails, etc.

Voter is ignorant of what bigotry actually is: I think Tim is offering a catch-all here. IMO a person ignorant of bigotry is most likely himself a bigot. Maybe there is some nuance here that I'm missing.

Tim should have added a fourth option, cognitive dissonance. Commonly known as taking Trump "seriously but not literally". The voter is dismayed by any number of Trump's disqualifying statements, and reconciles that by deciding they were sarcasm or hyperbole, or taken out of context, or mere gaffes. Sometimes this is even cited as a positive -- it's refreshing that Trump is unpolished and prone to errors of fact and decorum, since he's not a politician after all. I would bet that almost everyone is guilty of mental gymnastics like these to appease their consciences.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

1.01 JA Henckels 

1.02 Wusthof

 

[hagmania]

I gotta tell you, I really fn love games.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

No, but the Trump and Hillary threads were enjoyable. There was good content in there among the noise. RIP. 

 

[Fantasy Football Fairy]

Of course I can be nuanced. And if you read my post again (I won't repeat it here) I NEVER wrote nor implied that all Trump supporters are prejudiced. I think people read what I wrote a little too quickly and then ok what they wanted out of it. 

That being said I have resolved simply not to comment any more about Trump supporters (or frankly anybody in here.) It gets misunderstood too easily and in any case it's not necessary to a good discussion of issues. From now on my comments will be reserved for Trump himself or other public figures. 

You will never get it.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

If anyone wants an example of what I am not going to tolerate, this is it.   If the people posting these kinds of broad statements (lumping everyone doing A to be this kind of person) , they will lose their accounts.  Not going to keep saying it.  Last warning.  

In the spirit of your earlier requests to understand two people can look at the same information and interpret it differently, and to seek understanding...

Tim didn't make a statement as broad as you are claiming.  He didn't say all Trump voters were racist, which seems to be your inference.  

In fact, tim echoed a sentiment easily found in the MSM during the campaign and after the election: millions of voters were willing to set aside Trump's racist rhetoric and staff choices to get the other stuff they wanted.  "Disappointing, but not disqualifying", they said.  It's not that all Trump voters are bigoted, but it is true they were willing to put up with his bigotry and racism to get the other stuff they wanted when they voted for him.  It happens in every election: very few people agree 100% with everything their candidate says, and we need to be cognizant of that.

It's not a stretch to say Trump ran a racist campaign.  He entered the race on building a wall to keep the Mexicans out, proposed banning all Muslims from entering the country, tried to have a judge removed from a case because his parents were Mexican, nominated a guy for AG who racist past has denied him jobs, etc.  He deployed a lot of pitting races against each other, just like what he saw in local NYC elections during his formative years.

Even if you disagree with all that, keep in mind the KKK held a victory parade in Trump's honor, so the racists sure think Trump ran a racist campaign.

Tim's statement is not dissimilar to someone saying a vote for Hillary was a vote tolerant of the Benghazi debacle, her private email server, or her role in a child prostitution ring.  (Obviously the difference there is the ton of evidence pointing to Trump's racism-fueled campaign, more than there ever will for Hillary the sex-trafficker, but to someone who believes it there is no difference.)

You said it's important to respect differences and seek understanding.  I agree.

 

[timschochet]

Thanks Bruce. You explained things very well, far more eloquently than I could have. 

But it's time to put this particular debate to rest. Some people took offense to what I posted and complained about it, and David Dodds wrote that he doesn't want to see this sort of generalization of groups again in this forum. I will abide by his wishes. I apologized to anyone who was offended, and I do so again. Let's move on. 

 

[Slapdash]

Awfully weird how we can't have political threads because of personal attacks yet we can have a thread primarily about attacking another poster. Seems pretty clear, per some comments on this page, that there is another motivation behind what is going on here.

 

[GoBirds]

Awfully weird how we can't have political threads because of personal attacks yet we can have a thread primarily about attacking another poster. Seems pretty clear, per some comments on this page, that there is another motivation behind what is going on here.

Pretty sure the Russians are responsible. 

Merry Christmas everyone. 

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

In the spirit of your earlier requests to understand two people can look at the same information and interpret it differently, and to seek understanding...

Tim didn't make a statement as broad as you are claiming.  He didn't say all Trump voters were racist, which seems to be your inference.  

In fact, tim echoed a sentiment easily found in the MSM during the campaign and after the election: millions of voters were willing to set aside Trump's racist rhetoric and staff choices to get the other stuff they wanted.  "Disappointing, but not disqualifying", they said.  It's not that all Trump voters are bigoted, but it is true they were willing to put up with his bigotry and racism to get the other stuff they wanted when they voted for him.  It happens in every election: very few people agree 100% with everything their candidate says, and we need to be cognizant of that.

It's not a stretch to say Trump ran a racist campaign.  He entered the race on building a wall to keep the Mexicans out, proposed banning all Muslims from entering the country, tried to have a judge removed from a case because his parents were Mexican, nominated a guy for AG who racist past has denied him jobs, etc.  He deployed a lot of pitting races against each other, just like what he saw in local NYC elections during his formative years.

Even if you disagree with all that, keep in mind the KKK held a victory parade in Trump's honor, so the racists sure think Trump ran a racist campaign.

Tim's statement is not dissimilar to someone saying a vote for Hillary was a vote tolerant of the Benghazi debacle, her private email server, or her role in a child prostitution ring.  (Obviously the difference there is the ton of evidence pointing to Trump's racism-fueled campaign, more than there ever will for Hillary the sex-trafficker, but to someone who believes it there is no difference.)

You said it's important to respect differences and seek understanding.  I agree.

I beg to differ, what seems rather obvious is that Tim and his like are the ones who don't truly understand the definition of a bigot and are in fact pretty good examples of what bigots are. MW Definition of Bigot =   a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; 

Labeling virtually everyone who disagrees with your opinion as a bigot is well, bigoted.

As stated previously I do not agree or endorse many things trump has said and particularly the way he says things sometimes, however the misinformation\exaggerations are so over the top and tiresome. 

If someone in the media calling you a racist makes you a racist then game over. However, if we acknowledge the fact that many in the media are  biased and bigoted themselves then we understand the msm social media echo chamber is anything but synonymous with truth\fact . 

Tens of Millions of voters feel\know that trump is not a racist and the charge is, has and always will be sop for the logic and fact challenged left when attacking opposing view points they can't sensibly debate.

He didn't enter the race on building a wall to keep the Mexicans out, he entered it to keep illegal aliens out. It is horrendous and sad that those on the left insist on labeling any1 who doesn't believe in open borders a racist bigot. It is repeated ad nauseum by the left and msm echo chamber, but that doensn't make it true when in fact it is not.

He didn't propose banning all Muslims from entering the country, he proposed temporarily banning all foreign muslims until we could better ensure we weren't allowing even more people like Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik in. He did this right after these 2 pieces of garbage killed 14 people and injured 20+ others at a Christa party. The left insists the temporary ban is born of racism, tens of millions of others view it as common sense. One side understands that well minded people can disagree on things sometimes, the other side insists you are evil if you do not agree with their pov.

His comments regarding the latino judge might be the least defensible, but if you look at the words of Sotomayor it is hard not to acknowledge had she said what she said about white men about women\minorities she would not be on the sjc. To think that Sotomayor might not treat a white male differently is to ignore her own words.

Progressive smears aside Senator Jeff Sessions is a decent man.

Yes keep in mind some KKK group endorsed Trump, is that the same as trump endorsing the kkk? Of course not, in fact he has repudiated them on multiple occasions. Is there any doubt who gets the felon and cop killer votes? Good lord, so disgusting.......

Oh and Merry Christmas!
 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Thanks Bruce. You explained things very well, far more eloquently than I could have. 

But it's time to put this particular debate to rest. Some people took offense to what I posted and complained about it, and David Dodds wrote that he doesn't want to see this sort of generalization of groups again in this forum. I will abide by his wishes. I apologized to anyone who was offended, and I do so again. Let's move on. 

I have seen this song and dance many times.  Rather than fashion a new response I will simply direct attention to the first several pages of your thread.  If I remember that thread you were promising to stay inside of it.  If I remember you had made that promise prior to your current thread. I recall you making vows before and breaking them all because in your mind you were serving a higher purpose, some existential truth only you are privy too.  My comment from your thread stands.

You have as much right to be here as anybody.

Learn to shut up. After expressing your opinion, and reiterating it, learn to let it go. If you do not have a new point, stop. Reiterations of reiterations to each individual person who enters a thread are not necessary.

Before posting in a thread take a look at the post count, if you have more posts than the next three highest posters combined, stop, unless you have some unique insight or expertise. Let the thread breathe a little. You claim you want debate and the opinions of others, prove it by your actions, let others have a say. If you cannot, well then we have put the lie to your words.

Enjoy our shared home, but learn to wipe your feet before entering, to light a match when you fart, and to not always take the last slice and beer. There are others here too.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Ditkaless Wonders

 

[jon_mx]

I have seen this song and dance many times.  Rather than fashion a new response I will simply direct attention to the first several pages of your thread.  If I remember that thread you were promising to stay inside of it.  If I remember you had made that promise prior to your current thread. I recall you making vows before and breaking them all because in your mind you were serving a higher purpose, some existential truth only you are privy too.  My comment from your thread stands.

You have as much right to be here as anybody.

Learn to shut up. After expressing your opinion, and reiterating it, learn to let it go. If you do not have a new point, stop. Reiterations of reiterations to each individual person who enters a thread is not necessary.

Before posting in a thread take a look at the post count, if you have more posts than the next three highest posters combined, stop, unless you have some unique insight or expertise. Let the thread breathe a little. You claim you want debate and the opinions of others, prove it by your actions, let others have a say. If you cannot, well then we have put the lie to your words.

Enjoy our shared home, but learn to wipe your feet before entering, to light a match when you fart, and to not always take the last slice and beer. There are others here too.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Ditkaless Wonders

I don't think Tim promised to stay inside that thread exclusively.  I have been critical of Tim's over generalizations and he has apologized for it and says he won't do that again.  I accept what he says.  

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I don't think Tim promised to stay inside that thread exclusively.  I have been critical of Tim's over generalizations and he has apologized for it and says he won't do that again.  I accept what he says.  

If the genesis of what started his thread was the only time he had issues, along with this present time,  I might as well, but over the years, and it has not been that many years, he has had threads devoted to running him out a good half dozen times.  Most of them were due to his over generalizations where he strongly implied others are racist.  He would always start by taking refuge in saying he did not actually declare they were racists, ignoring, and unbelievably so, the direct import of his own statements, cowardly seeking refuge in the narrowest literal reading of his very clear and intended implications.  The literate man would always take refuge in saying he could not understand how others could have read his statements so.  When that did not fly he apologized and vowed to never do it again.  He has done it again, repeatedly.

Me, I don't want to run him out.  Let him have his say and if others want to buy his vows, vows that are meaningless and insult the very term, well that is on them.  All I would ask is that he be limited to say 20 posts a day so his drivel is not rained down on the rest of us incessantly.  Allow him a voice, but save the rest of us the excess.  When he arrived this stopped being the FooBballGuys FFA, it became the all Tim, all the time brain dump.

Anyhow, I'm done with the topic now for another two years or so.  I have had my say.  I will do what he cannot, I will have my say and be done.

 

[Fantasy Football Fairy]

If the genesis of what started his thread was the only time he had issues, along with this present time,  I might as well, but over the years, and it has not been that many years, he has had threads devoted to running him out a good half dozen times.  Most of them were due to his over generalizations where he strongly implied others are racist.  He would always start by taking refuge in saying he did not actually declare they were racists, ignoring, and unbelievably so, the direct import of his own statements, cowardly seeking refuge in the narrowest literal reading of his very clear and intended implications.  The literate man would always take refuge in saying he could not understand how others could have read his statements so.  When that did not fly he apologized and vowed to never do it again.  He has done it again, repeatedly.

Me, I don't want to run him out.  Let him have his say and if others want to buy his vows, vows that are meaningless and insult the very term, well that is on them.  All I would ask is that he be limited to say 20 posts a day so his drivel is not rained down on the rest of us incessantly.  Allow him a voice, but save the rest of us the excess.  When he arrived this stopped being the FooBballGuys FFA, it became the all Tim, all the time brain dump.

Anyhow, I'm done with the topic now for another two years or so.  I have had my say.  I will do what he cannot, I will have my say and be done.

Exactly....it's like the movie Groundhog Day. Tim doing the same thing over and over after claiming he will change.. Threads like this happen 1-2 times a year.

 

[Apple Jack]

I really enjoy sex, sleep and tacos. But the answer is no.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

I have seen this song and dance many times.  Rather than fashion a new response I will simply direct attention to the first several pages of your thread.  If I remember that thread you were promising to stay inside of it.  If I remember you had made that promise prior to your current thread. I recall you making vows before and breaking them all because in your mind you were serving a higher purpose, some existential truth only you are privy too.  My comment from your thread stands.

You have as much right to be here as anybody.

Learn to shut up. After expressing your opinion, and reiterating it, learn to let it go. If you do not have a new point, stop. Reiterations of reiterations to each individual person who enters a thread are not necessary.

Before posting in a thread take a look at the post count, if you have more posts than the next three highest posters combined, stop, unless you have some unique insight or expertise. Let the thread breathe a little. You claim you want debate and the opinions of others, prove it by your actions, let others have a say. If you cannot, well then we have put the lie to your words.

Enjoy our shared home, but learn to wipe your feet before entering, to light a match when you fart, and to not always take the last slice and beer. There are others here too.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Ditkaless Wonders

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

I beg to differ, what seems rather obvious is that Tim and his like are the ones who don't truly understand the definition of a bigot and are in fact pretty good examples of what bigots are. MW Definition of Bigot =   a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; 

Labeling virtually everyone who disagrees with your opinion as a bigot is well, bigoted.

As stated previously I do not agree or endorse many things trump has said and particularly the way he says things sometimes, however the misinformation\exaggerations are so over the top and tiresome. 

If someone in the media calling you a racist makes you a racist then game over. However, if we acknowledge the fact that many in the media are  biased and bigoted themselves then we understand the msm social media echo chamber is anything but synonymous with truth\fact . 

Tens of Millions of voters feel\know that trump is not a racist and the charge is, has and always will be sop for the logic and fact challenged left when attacking opposing view points they can't sensibly debate.

He didn't enter the race on building a wall to keep the Mexicans out, he entered it to keep illegal aliens out. It is horrendous and sad that those on the left insist on labeling any1 who doesn't believe in open borders a racist bigot. It is repeated ad nauseum by the left and msm echo chamber, but that doensn't make it true when in fact it is not.

He didn't propose banning all Muslims from entering the country, he proposed temporarily banning all foreign muslims until we could better ensure we weren't allowing even more people like Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik in. He did this right after these 2 pieces of garbage killed 14 people and injured 20+ others at a Christa party. The left insists the temporary ban is born of racism, tens of millions of others view it as common sense. One side understands that well minded people can disagree on things sometimes, the other side insists you are evil if you do not agree with their pov.

His comments regarding the latino judge might be the least defensible, but if you look at the words of Sotomayor it is hard not to acknowledge had she said what she said about white men about women\minorities she would not be on the sjc. To think that Sotomayor might not treat a white male differently is to ignore her own words.

Progressive smears aside Senator Jeff Sessions is a decent man.

Yes keep in mind some KKK group endorsed Trump, is that the same as trump endorsing the kkk? Of course not, in fact he has repudiated them on multiple occasions. Is there any doubt who gets the felon and cop killer votes? Good lord, so disgusting.......

Oh and Merry Christmas!
 

I disagree with most of what you said here, and so much of it is based on bad information and juvenile logic I'm at a loss on how to have a productive conversation about it.  

So, I'll offer a little advice going forward...

Vouching for people you don't know, especially public figures, is a fool's errand.  And when it comes to politicians, vouching for people you've met once or twice can be even more dangerous.  Ask folks here about bueno and Larry Craig for a good cautionary tale in this area.

Saying "Person X did this" isn't evaluating the actions of Person Y.  It might be enough of a distraction to soothe a dumb person, but it won't get you anywhere with a smart person.

No climate change denier should accuse anyone else of being in an echo chamber as if it is a bad thing.  There's a lot of politics and social science that is debatable.  Climate change is settled science.  I'm sure you've read otherwise.  What you've read is either wrong or being interpreted incorrectly.  We have about 200 countries on board to make a dent in the fight against climate change.  When was the last time that many countries were on the same page on anything?  Anti-climate change might be the worst echo chamber you can be inside.  I wish I knew how to open our mind enough to listen to experts on the subject and get informed because it's really important for both our health and the economy.  I don't want to shame you more about it because I don't want you to dig your heels in deeper and think this is just another political argument.  It's not.  It's different.  Read up on the GOP's history of resistance to climate change and see if it makes any scientific sense at all.  They're not all as bad as Trump claiming it's a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese to get an edge in manufacturing (please don't try to defend that one; there's too much wrong about it to try), but there's some embarrassing decisions there.

Lastly, when it comes to discussing Trump, there's so much reprehensible about him sometimes it's hard to choose what to discuss.  Understand picking and choosing what to discuss about Trump doesn't imply tacit agreement with what isn't chosen.  I could have gone on for thousands of words about his racist behavior throughout his adult life, from refusing to rent apartments to colored people all the way to picking a bunch of unqualified old rich white men for his cabinet and closest advisors.  And the racist stuff isn't his biggest personality flaw.  History is not going to look kindly upon him or the people who defended him.

 

[jon_mx]

Climate change is settled science.

What exactly is settled about it?  Seriously, can you precisely tell me what is settled and what isn't.  There is lots of evidence that there is correlation between greenhouse gases and temperature and they understand enough to believe there is even causation.  Most scientist would agree that most of the warming is attributed to greenhouse gases.  But is that 50% or 95%?  The climate change models have consistently produced exaggerated predictions, so the odds are it is much closer to 50% than 95%.  The idea of there being some tipping point is purely a number which was pulled out of the rectum and absolutely nothing else.  The statement that climate change is settled science is ignorant without some definition of what is overwhelming consensus and what is fear-mongering.  A lot of what is put out under the guise of 'settled science' is in reality the later.  Now there should be concern over climate change and the potential impact of melting ice sheets, but that does not mean every bit of fear-mongering uttered by some alleged expert or power-hungry international body needs to be blindly accepted as settled science. 

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

I disagree with most of what you said here, and so much of it is based on bad information and juvenile logic I'm at a loss on how to have a productive conversation about it.  

So, I'll offer a little advice going forward...

Vouching for people you don't know, especially public figures, is a fool's errand.  And when it comes to politicians, vouching for people you've met once or twice can be even more dangerous.  Ask folks here about bueno and Larry Craig for a good cautionary tale in this area.

Saying "Person X did this" isn't evaluating the actions of Person Y.  It might be enough of a distraction to soothe a dumb person, but it won't get you anywhere with a smart person.

No climate change denier should accuse anyone else of being in an echo chamber as if it is a bad thing.  There's a lot of politics and social science that is debatable.  Climate change is settled science.  I'm sure you've read otherwise.  What you've read is either wrong or being interpreted incorrectly.  We have about 200 countries on board to make a dent in the fight against climate change.  When was the last time that many countries were on the same page on anything?  Anti-climate change might be the worst echo chamber you can be inside.  I wish I knew how to open our mind enough to listen to experts on the subject and get informed because it's really important for both our health and the economy.  I don't want to shame you more about it because I don't want you to dig your heels in deeper and think this is just another political argument.  It's not.  It's different.  Read up on the GOP's history of resistance to climate change and see if it makes any scientific sense at all.  They're not all as bad as Trump claiming it's a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese to get an edge in manufacturing (please don't try to defend that one; there's too much wrong about it to try), but there's some embarrassing decisions there.

Lastly, when it comes to discussing Trump, there's so much reprehensible about him sometimes it's hard to choose what to discuss.  Understand picking and choosing what to discuss about Trump doesn't imply tacit agreement with what isn't chosen.  I could have gone on for thousands of words about his racist behavior throughout his adult life, from refusing to rent apartments to colored people all the way to picking a bunch of unqualified old rich white men for his cabinet and closest advisors.  And the racist stuff isn't his biggest personality flaw.  History is not going to look kindly upon him or the people who defended him.

You claim you are at a loss on how to have a productive conversation.

I would tend to agree so let me give you some help.

1. Don't start your reply by ignoring every counter fact you are presented with (no matter how badly said facts disprove assertions you intentionally or un-intentionally made earlier).

Example 1, If someone claims: "He (Trump) entered the race on building a wall to keep the Mexicans out" and someone points out the fact it isn't just Mexicans coming across the southern border; it should be acknowledged rather than ignored. Trump like most Americans and most every other country in the world understands that controlling your borders isn't racist, its common sense. You either believe in open borders or you believe in controlling them, those who believe in the latter are not racist no matter how hard u try to smear them.

Example 2,  When someone falsely claims trump "proposed banning all Muslims from entering the country" by leaving out the "temporary" part and the "foreign" (ie non citizens) part they are advertising the fact that that they are either intentionally being dishonest or they are willfully ignorant. Take your pick, but if you feel im wrong about either fact  (temporary & foreign) please explain yourself.

Im not sure I "vouched" for anyone other than to say Jeff Sessions is a decent man and I stand by that. There is much more evidence supporting that assertion than there is supporting the racist smear made up by the left.  Unlike his detractors I base that on facts such as being elected to the senate on multiple occasions. If you have facts to disprove  (heads up, anita hill "he said she said" type left wing hearsay garbage does not equal fact) then list and defend them. Im thinking your racist charges against sessions are likely left wing smears you are simply regurgitating but maybe you actually have proof i dont know about. 

Absurdly tar & feathering trump because some kkk nutballs endorsed him is a wonderful left wing talking point, until you are asked who the much larger CPUSA (communist party of America) endorsed or are forced to answer honestly who the felons and cop killers support?

There used to be a time when "science" welcomed skepticism, but that was before progressive zealots hijacked education and science and perverted it into left wing Policy Based Evidence Making. Why does the state want to shut down the debate on climate science? ......... Because there is a god like amount of power and money at stake and that pardon the pun trumps everything.

What exactly is settled? The effect of CO2 on global temperature in 50 years, 100 years? Storm intensity & frequency? Do you actaully believe the "models" have proven to be accurate?   

So many countries have supposedly signed on to the global warming con? How many of those countries will be paying and how many countries will be collecting? Where do Americans sign up for their share of the wind fall? What? Not only do Americans not get a check, but they will be writing them and ruining their economy at the same time. And the real kick in the head is even if the green zealots are right it will make no difference; wow, sounds like an awesome deal! Unless your an American that is..................... 

Who is paying the vast majority of the "scientists"? Do you think they would continue to be paid if they questioned what the state is claiming? How in the wide world of sports does that equal science?

If you are skeptical and want to test and experiment existing and alternate theories who will higher you when the fascist/totalitarian state sponsored "science" community has already decided you are a denier? I.E. shes a witch, shes a witch, she turned me into a newt,,,,,,,,,,,,i got better........

Branding skeptical scientists as "deniers" isn't science it is left wing dogma.....

I believe in climate change and that man likely has some effect on it (much less than the sun for instance). However, the degree and effects ARE OPEN TO DEBATE and i do not believe in the state sponsored hysteria and associated money/power grab. I also do not believe that crippling our economy and paying "reparations" to the 200 countries with their hand out will make a snowball in hells difference. 

 

[Binky The Doormat]

Vouching for people you don't know, especially public figures, is a fool's errand.  And when it comes to politicians, vouching for people you've met once or twice can be even more dangerous.  Ask folks here about bueno and Larry Craig for a good cautionary tale in this area.




2

Don't remember what happened here.  Help - anyone?

 

[TheAristocrat]

Minnesota Golden Gopher hockey and my job.

That's about it.

 

[bentley]

Jesus. You guys type a lot.