Englebert

Let me add this. I'm sure some, probably many, on here are wandering why this is such a touchy issue with me. I'll try to explain. First, I'm more on the environmentalist side. I want clean lakes, rivers, bayous and all waterways. I live on the water and spend practically every weekend on various waterways throughout the southeastern U.S. (from San Antonio to Florida). I threatened to beat the a** of a fellow boater for sinking a beer can. (Luckily he just apologized and didn't take me up on my offer of physicality because I'm not sure if I could have whipped him.) I take the issue of a clean environment seriously. Which brings me to the second point. I have never been a fan of "the ends justify the means" mantra. I believe that if you tell the truth the "ends" will ultimately prevail. The whole Global Warming (and all of the predecessor theories) have had good intentions, which are for the human race to be cognizant and to be protective of man's footprint on our Earth. But the means by which the current leaders are implementing this goal are just downright disgraceful. Lie after lie after lie is issued to prey on the ignorance, naiveté, and laziness of the public to do their due diligence of minimal research on the topic. Which leads to the ultimate conclusion. When the majority of the public realizes that they are being lied to and manipulated by our leaders, the ultimate result will be resentment and to rebel against any environmental topic. This could very easily lead to a disdain for anybody that promotes a clean environment...which leads to more pollution. The "ends justify the means" mantra can create the opposite effect of the intended effect.

Wow. This topic has been on here for a full day, but not one single Global Warming alarmist will submit a single shred of evidence supporting the theory. All of you out there that accept but run and hide from this issue should think long and hard about spouting the lies associated with this theory at your next social function. You have had every opportunity over the last year, and were even challenged directly by me to support your claims, but have failed miserably. How can a theory have 97% of agreement but yet no evidence can be provided. So the next time this topic arises in your personal lives, think long and hard why you accept the claims of something you can't or won't defend in this little forum. The continual promotion of this theory is downright shameful, and you are guilty. Thanks baddog, SteveNash, Rebgp, and many of the others on here that dare question the pathetic attempt of wealth redistribution. And for those who still support the theory, you probably need to do a lot of soul searching concerning your leaders and their motives.

The more sources the better. Frankly, I think this topic should have mandatory daily postings until the climate change activists are exposed.

SteveNash posted this on Monday: Climate Change alarmists use pseudo science methodology based on altered data, then claim anyone that doesn't agree with them is a science denier. I think the first people who started using the word "putz" had these people in mind. Ever since the Man-made Global Warming theory has emerged, study after study after study has blown holes in the whole premise, pointed out shockingly bad methodology, exposed altered/manipulated data, demonstrated results that cannot be replicated, and shown that every single prediction model has been wildly wrong. But somehow these papers get scrubbed or buried by the media. I've read more credible studies that refute Man-made Global Warming than support it. I have a feeling this one will soon disappear like its predecessors. Hopefully Trump will bring this theory to a head by forcing the "scientists" to actually debate in a fair and open forum. Thanks baddog for bringing this topic back to the forum, so I can pose the same ol' question to anyone and everyone. (I almost posed this in SteveNash's post, but was too busy at the time) The theory of Man-made Global Warming is that the Earth is warming, this warming is caused by man, and that this warming is catastrophic to the ability of Earth to support life. Please, anyone, provide any shred of the foggiest amount of proof that man is the main culprit in temperature rise, and please attempt to show a sliver of evidence that this warming is even detrimental, much less catastrophic, to Earth's health. If 97% of the climatologists agree, along with all of the world leaders, proof should be a simple Bing (or Google) search away.

I find it interesting, but not surprising.

From the Article: "This goes back to the unconscionable decision of Republicans who refused to consider any nominee put forward by President Barack Obama following the death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. Obama nominated Merrick Garland, another eminently qualified candidate, who served as chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the second most important court in the nation. But in a decision that will go down as one of the greatest abuses of the Constitution in this nation’s history, the Senate’s Republican majority, under the leadership of their unprincipled majority leader, Mitch McConnell, declared they would not give Garland hearings, would not examine his qualifications and would not take a vote. Instead, they made up a rule: A nominee for the Supreme Court can be considered for only three-quarters of any president’s term. In the fourth year, confirmations have to wait until after the election. And so the Supreme Court has been hobbled for coming up on one year—and, because the confirmation hearings will inevitably drag on, it will be for months more to come." This is known as the Biden rule, in which Obama was a participant. [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content] Does the author not know about this, or is he just a partisan hack who chooses to only become outrage at things based solely on whose side one is on. And if he is choosing to be outraged at unconscionable injustices, he should be ready to hang Harry Reid from the tallest tree. But I have a feeling Reid is a saint to this guy. Fake outrage and hypocrisy is once again on full display by these hacks.

Luckily Hillary didn't win the presidency...or we could have had Obama as the Supreme Court nominee. We dodged a bullet hellfire missile bunker buster bomb nuclear bomb.

I was in the process of reiterating this same sentiment. I almost copied your sentiments twice in the same thread. I will go with the old adage "great minds think alike".

I was watching Tucker Carlson (my favorite show on TV now), when the network broke in to announce Trump has fired Sally Yates. I was already grinning from ear to ear as Tucker was excoriating some left wing nut-job about Trump's immigration executive order, but I fear I might have did damage to my face when this story broke in. As rumor has it, I might go blind...especially if these uplifting news breaks keep happening. I might have a permanent smile etched in my face. Of course, the Liberals will undoubtedly submit a cure for this affliction.

Sorry, I'm utilizing my DVR buffer and didn't see your post.

I was watching Tucker Carlson (my favorite show on TV now), when the network broke in to announce Trump has fired Sally Yates. I was already grinning from ear to ear as Tucker was excoriating some left wing nut-job about Trump's immigration executive order, but I fear I might have did damage to my face when this story broke in. As rumor has it, I might go blind...especially if these uplifting news breaks keep happening. I might have a permanent smile etched in my face. Of course, the Liberals will undoubtedly submit a cure for this affliction. [Hidden Content]

Do you think that logic equates to guns also...outlaw guns and there will be just as many gun deaths?

If the one's listed in the article refused to work, this world would be a much better place. Do they realize how easily replaced they would be. Hearing the Left whine and cry has become a daily occurrence, and never fails to bring a big ol' smile to my face.

I now understand your use of the word delusional...although a bit misguided and misdirected. Is it true that delusions lead to fake outrage, while simultaneously enabling the inner power to overlook poignant lies perpetrated by Obama and Hillary? Does a delusional state of mind create an internal safe space in which scope and scale are defined by the letters "R" and "D"?

Just the same ol' same ol' by the Left. We are used to it...and frankly immune by now. I'm sure there is an empty safe space somewhere that is in need of a occupant. I'm assuming that's where a third of the Democrat congressmen went during Trump's inauguration. And as BS Wildcats asked, name some of the lies. And please give your armchair psychological analysis as to why you think Trump and many of his followers are delusional. When giving your rationale, please articulate the differentiating aspects between Trump/fans versus Hillary/fans. I'm highly interested in reading this critique.

The "both sides do it" argument is astonishingly short-sighted and delusional. The volume of Liberal lies, blinders and petulance displayed by the Liberals completely overshadows anything by the Right. To even suggest the "both sides" argument is laughable. In basketball terms, the score would be 127-6, and some try to focus on the fact that both teams actually scored. And if you want to know how I arrived at that score, look up the number of Conservative vs Liberal organizations targeted by the I.R.S., which many on the Left tried to claim as "both sides" being targeted. And don't forget to count the amount of "safe spaces" needed after the Trump victory versus the amount required after the worst president is U.S. history won re-election.

I find it odd that all of the people that complained about being offended by Trump's colorful language are mysteriously silent on calling out these Liberals for their offensive language. Silence is golden hypocrisy.

That's not what it means according to the urban dictionary: [Hidden Content] I guess we are not privileged to those secret history books with all of those secret meanings that seem to change from topic to topic. baddog was right but you seem to conveniently change the meaning when called out. I wish we were all privileged with that type of debating.

I was thinking the same exact thing.

Please start the debate on these "out of touch theories with the constitution". I'm your Huckleberry. But I have the feeling you will run and hide like you always do when challenged to defend your statements.

Things can only improve after the petulance exuded from the previous leader of the free world. The adults are now in charge.

Trump could have delivered the best speech in all of human history and you along with the Liberals would have said it was awful. Very predictable and divisive, but Trump somehow is labeled as divisive.

I'm curious as to why you think Trump should kowtow to the Liberals. These nut-jobs who frankly shut out Conservatives and told them "they have to sit at the back of the bus", and "elections have consequences" and "you lost" should get the same treatment. It's time for Liberals to get completely off of the bus after the shameful disaster they perpetrated on the American citizens during Obama's embarrassing failure as POTUS. Trump is being way to gracious in his attempt to placate the Liberals. But somehow your personal opinion (ha ha) is that he is trying to divide. I hope you are right. I hope Trump tells every Liberal congressman to go straight to hell and that we don't need to hear anymore of their petulant ideas. But he is bigger than that.

Are you psychologist? Are you a sociologist? Are you a political science historian? What qualifications do you have to determine what Trumps motivations were and why he chose the words he did. (Just using the same analogy you used on various other posts.) Oh yeah, you must have read it on Huffington Post or one of the other far Left nut-job websites to form your personal opinion. You were asked to comment on Trump's speech yesterday, but refused. I made the comment that you were waiting for the Left leaders...and lo and behold, here is your personal opinion formulated right after the Left told their sheeple what to believe. Coincidence?

I have had an uncontrollable smile on my face all day. I actually skipped this afternoon while walking outside. I haven't skipped in....ever. I'm not thrilled about Trump being inaugurated, I'm elated that Obama's third term in the form of Hillary is not. I must admit, I'm enthusiastic to see what Trump can accomplish. My bar for him is set pretty low so it shouldn't be hard for him to exceed expectations. He is definitely off to a flying start with his cabinet picks.