Englebert

No, we have not discussed this before. You have never made a distinction between global warming/climate change and man-made global warming. That is an outright lie. I have always contended that Climate Change is just a rename of Man Made Global Warming. You have never rebutted that. But since you want to impress your compadre on this board (or is it more accurately as a plea for approval...since you publicly pronounced your affirmation instead of a PM reply...but that discussion is for another topic where you discuss your insecurities), please explain the difference so that we all can bask in the subtle nuances of the two. And make sure to explain why one theory is as proven as gravity, but the other one is different. Wow, you should have taken the out. That is one quality shovel you have.

Back to the topic. TxHoops insinuated that Man Made Global Warming theory is as proven as gravity. Now he says it is not proven. Which direction do you want to go Hoops. Back to the gutter, which I have no problem with, or discuss the fallacy of Man Made Global Warming theory. I'm giving you an out...you might want to take it.

I offered an alternative test, one more widely administered and accepted, but you ran like a child. I even challenged a gentleman's wager, but you kept changing the goal posts. I knew then you were not serous or worthy of further contemplation. And as I said before, only an unskilled, untrained, naïve, (this could get long) person could actually think that a test is a definitive indication of intelligence, or analytical skills. But hey, I'm used to dealing with thin skinned people that view their worth by challenging people to prove their worth. You accuse me of insecurity but your posts scream of precarious stability. Most, not all, intelligent people observe the fallacy of such piffle, some never learn. That is an internal demon you will have to deal with. You accuse me of engaging in childish banter while you wallow in childish banter. I've never been shy of admitting I will dive down into the gutter if that is where the poster takes it. You should feel embarrassed. Me...I pretty much already knew your competency...or lack there of. You will continue this strategy to try to cover for the fact that you denigrated people for skepticism of a theory you said was emphatically akin to gospel (or written in stone), then when called out, you backtracked. You keep trying to hide this admission, but I will keep reminded the reader what this topic is all about.

Your analytical skills are indeed horrible. I jokingly made a statement a while back about your analytical skills, and you blew up like an immature little schoolboy. You even threatened to make me "pay" for a simple joke. You demanded I prove my skills, but kept changing the goal posts when I didn't back down. What a joke of a fiasco that was...for you. And yes, we've been down this Man Made Global Warming rabbit hole before. And like a good little sheeple, you ran like a frightened schoolgirl when I challenged you to prove your contention (of course, which never came). You just hid out in a dark corner pissing in your pants until you felt safe to revisit the topic. And as I predicted, you did zero research of your own...therefore you have definitively earned the moniker of "sheeple". But feel good about yourself...many, many, many have also earned that label. Proudly display that participation trophy. Your immaturity and lack of simple analytical skills is abundantly clear now. You actually tried to equate an unproven theory that has zero evidence to the "theory" of gravity. Not only did you spout this unbelievable and hilarious analogy, you attempted to denigrate a person with that asinine statement. Elementary children would be proud. Do you actually think that I'm insecure because you made a statement about a leading Republican Senator's statement. Your words. You can re-read them above. Are you really this stupid? Do you actually think I responded because you "quoted" a person as you contend? Are you really so ignorant or completely oblivious that you intentionally insulted normal people by insinuating that Man Made Global theory is accepted by everyone except the clueless? Again, are you really this obtuse? You try to paint me as someone that just hurls insults. I hurl insults at those who hurl them first...and especially at those that deserve the backlash to their statements. You are guilty of everything you accuse, but I really do not believe your simplistic brain functionality will enable you to overcome your massive skill of deploying self defense mechanisms. Case in point...you responded...just as I goaded you into. It was a rather easy task to manipulate someone so thin skinned. Your response, nothing but childish insults as unproven as your climate religion. But you know what is glaringly obvious, you now admit that Man Made Global Warming is not a proven theory, even though your earlier contention was that it was as proven as gravity. You were better off when you hid from the topic. Now you just look petty and hypocritical. So for those of you that want to skip the childish banter, let's summarize: TxHoops INSINUATED THAT THE MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY IS PROVEN JUST LIKE THE THEORY OF GRAVITY. NOW HE BACKTRACKS BY ADMITTING MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS UNPROVEN. Is that a fair summary? You tried to bury your admission in juvenile banter...but the admission is there. How long will it be before you backtrack and start insulting people again based on their beliefs of admittedly (by you) an unproven theory. I'm guessing you'll hide again until you get the pee stains out of your pants, or least buy a new pair.

I don't look at it that way at all. My opinion is that many people are baffled/exacerbated/pissed that an officer that kills a Black person is held to one standard, but an officer that kills a White person is held to a completely different standard. I don't want to speak for others, but that is my opinion of why this is an issue. (Sorry for the late reply, but I haven't been keeping up with the topics here lately. My reply might have already been discussed further in this topic, considering I'm just now reading the first page.)

So this topic has now dropped to Page 2 in the forum, with not one Global Warming cultist defending their religion. Is it because y'all can't? You all have been called out to your face, and yet y'all quiver in the corner peeing in your pants. And the inevitable result is, you will not do any research on your own. You will continue to worship at the alter of Al Gore. You will reappear at a later time to ridicule "non-believers" when you think your rabid pack of fellow blind followers has your back. (Courage in numbers.) You are cowards, and deserve the ridicule you are enduring. I would have a hard time listing all of the self-defense mechanisms y'all are now employing to make yourself feel better. And again, the inevitable is y'all will ignore this topic, only to reappear later, pretending y'all were never called out. If you are embarrassed with yourself, good, you deserve it. But mental gymnastics tend to make mediocre people feel like kings. Anyone care to bet on how long it will take a Global Warmist disciple (aka...science denier) to attempt a defense of their religion?

Does regression ring a bell when thinking of Man Made Global Warming, Global Warming, Climate Change, or whatever the current hysteria driven name is? That is Scientific regression. We actually have people taking pot shots aimed at people that adhere to scientific methodology, by insinuating that we are "Neanderthals" (thanks for the analogy Biden) for asking for proof of a "theory" that has less evidential proof than the United States faking the moon landing. Or less evidence than the "theory" that Steven King was the one that actually shot John Lennon. Or that the Holocaust never happened. Or that Katy Perry is actually Jonbenet Ramsey. Or that Elvis is still alive. Or that women make 70 cents on the dollar for doing the same exact job with the same experience as a man. When do we start turning the tables by calling out the "Neanderthals" (thanks again Biden) for making such belittling statements. I guess I will start. If you believe what the media/politicians/fake climatologists have told you about Man Made Global Warming, and you are in favor of spending hard earned tax dollars to solve a problem that has never been proven to exist, then you are an Un-American deplorable (thanks Hillary) that has no business weighing in on a topic that is way beyond your comprehension. You are a detriment to the American (and the world) way of life. You need to learn your station and admit you are not capable of discussing issues with people of even moderate intellectual means. If you are offended...good. You deserve it. Put up or shut up. Show me the proof of your Climate Change religion. I bet none of you will. You've been challenged...and all I foresee is tails tucking between legs and running from the topic like a frightened schoolgirl. I have no doubt that the Al Gore disciples will be totally silent and will not dare respond to this challenge, but will reappear in a later topic to continually ridicule people that simply ask for the proof, pretending that this challenge never existed. Anyone care to take that bet?

And yet, still zero proof. Is possible rising temperature due to Man and is this possible rise detrimental to Earth? I don't know. PROVE IT TO ME. Welcome to the scientific world.

Thanks for the updates.

And I'm pretty sure that if any Liberal has the audacity to respond, that response will ignore the bullying aspect and simply use the tired ol' "the ends justify the means" excuse. Let's hear it Liberals.

Why is Subway hiring a bully to try to sell their sandwiches? Can you imagine a scenario when you are about to enjoy your lunch, and some big bad bully knocks your food out of your hand? Should this person be allowed to be spokesperson for a company? Should this person be cancelled...fired from her job? After all, her job requires her to be a representative of the United States of America. Should we, as a country, condone this bullying behavior? Should Subway be cancelled for thrusting this behavior onto our society? (Sometimes it's fun to think like a Liberal.) Will Subway and the soccer "star" get a pass from the Liberals? I go to Subway roughly about once a week for lunch. I think I will skip a few weeks. Will any anti-bullying Liberal join me in this protest? I'm betting a resounding no. But if Trump would have been the star in this commercial, Subways around the country would be burnt to the ground by now. Just another example of the Liberal hypocrisy that will be ignored. Am I the only one thinks this commercial is hilarious because of the hypocrisy? Megan Rapinoe scores a goal for the ultimate win! A Subway Footlong! - YouTube

4/20 20-5A games.

Both background checks and red flag laws are based on the premise that we have the capability of predicting behavior based on a set of arbitrary criteria. The premise is that we can prevent crime by disarming those who we think will commit a future crime. Who posses this capability? (That is rhetorical.) If you know the criteria, please lay it down on print...right here...right now. As with "no fly" lists, how do we stop abuse of these programs? All are ripe for abuse and have zero oversight for fairness. All can be good if applied by Andy Griffith, but would be suspect if applied by Barney Fife. Can you image the abuse that could happen if applied by a raging Liberal (Pelosi, Schumer, AOC)...especially the rare Liberal over-achiever that has a double digit IQ (Can't come up with an example...but I assume they exist)? And as always, when you are finished defining the qualifications of those incapable of determining their own self protection (LOL), please explain: If someone "qualifies" as incapable of practicing his constitutionally guaranteed rights, should that person qualify as incapable of determining our elected officials?

Since no Liberals will respond to the background check topic, would any of you anti-gun nuts like to opine on the susceptibility of so-called "Red Flag Laws". If you think background check laws are subjective to abuse...let's delve into this brain-dead idea. I'm guessing the enlargement of Red Flag Laws against those who purposely interact with firearms should also apply to any "pedophiles" that have the audacity to purposely interact with children. I want you to keep in mind that idea as one of many conundrums when you attempt to explain the benefits of Red Flag Laws. Please outline who has the ability to subject a person to gun confiscation. Can anyone call authorities to generate an investigation of a gun owner? Do we have a litmus test for the competency of the accuser? Will the accuser be subjected to an analytical skills test to prove they are capable of analyzing suspicious behavior? Will the accuser's motive be analyzed? If so, by who? Someone qualified? And as with the background check test, what behavioral attributes will dictate a confiscation of one's constitutionally guaranteed right? Will a LEO, who has enormous skill in law enforcement but has zero experience in psychological behavior be the deciding factor of stripping one's guaranteed right? Should a psychologist be called in to evaluate the situation? Who gets to decide? What behaviors are listed as "bad"? Please explain the parameters and standards of Red Flag Laws. Also, identify and explain recourse for those accused, especially for those falsely accused. And just as important, please explain measures that will be implemented that dissuade false accusations and confiscation based on incompetence by the confiscator. Name the checks and balances. If you are in favor of Red Flag laws, please type your full legal name here. Someone might want to experiment on how to abuse these laws. I'm betting it will not be hard.

I was pretty confident no Liberal would respond to this. I'm also confident that any Liberal who reads this will realize the fallacy of their position, but will maintain their rabid support of background checks. The hypocrisy will be lost (or ignored). I don't know how many sane people have given thought to background checks. My fear is that these checks are simply a gateway for gun registration, restriction, then ultimately confiscation. Registration: I have no doubt the registration data (background check data) is currently being saved. No doubt. No proof other than past history...like Google claiming they don't save personal data. (Yes, they claimed this for years, and paid billions of dollars in fines...but still kept doing it.) Once established (practically there now), how much burden of time and cost will it become to continually register...I mean, consent to a background check. Will these checks become annual, monthly, weekly? How much will you have to pay for the privilege of registering your constitutionally protected right? Who gets to decide? Biden? AOC? Restriction: Like in my initial post, who gets to decide what qualifies as revocation criteria? Who gets to modify these qualifications, and how easy will it become for additional restrictions? Will Biden get to add restrictions? Pelosi? Schumer? Joe Blow who is unelected but serves a vital role as hallway monitor in FBI headquarters? Confiscation: You register (background check) your gun, you then get put on the restriction list...you then lose your ability to exercise your second amendment right. Not a hard path to navigate. Anti-gun nuts are coming at all angles. From terrorizing gun and ammo manufactures through litigation liability, to financial terrorism by forcing banks not to associate in any form or fashion with gun and ammo manufactures, to slowly introducing limitations to the type and capabilities of guns, to publicly demonizing gun owners, to forcing registration and restrictions on gun owners. I hope we are paying attention...and act accordingly. If I wanted to get rid of guns in the United States, establishing, mandating, then abusing background checks would be my first route.

He dropped a F bomb. Then put LOL behind it. That in itself deserves a LOL. I still can't believed he lasted this long. Anybody that immature will eventually show their true colors. I'll still sleep fine tonight, but yeah...the comedic relief he provided will be missed (although I still feel somewhat bad about laughing at people that intellectually stunted).

I've posted this topic before, and got zero responses from the anti-gun nuts. Let's try this again, since the anti-gun nut administration is in charge. Biden has said that universal background checks should be mandatory for all gun purchases. What does he mean? What is the Liberal agenda for this? Registration? Confiscation? Let's begin. What questions should be asked on a background check that prohibits guns from being in the hands of criminals but lets law abiding citizens exercise their 2nd amendment right? Please outline these inquiries that distinguishes who qualifies and who is prohibited? Furthermore, and just importantly, who gets to add/delete/edit these questions on the background check? Do any edits/adds/deletes require a vote from a particular governing body? If someone (who knows who) decides that a speeding ticket should prohibit one from owning a gun, can that "czar" add this provision to the background checklist? Who oversees the questions asked on the form? Are these people elected? What provisions do we have to stop abuse of the background check interrogation? What questions determine qualification, what questions determine disqualification? I'm not asking what is the current format, I'm asking what is the future format...and who has authority to alter it? And as a reminder, a certain Senator has already stated that United States veterans, who have been trained in gun safety, should be disqualified. Another Senator has stated that anyone going through a divorce should be disqualified. So I'm highly interested in hearing other brain-dead rationale for disqualifications, as well as rational disqualifications. Furthermore, if someone is deemed to be too unstable as to have their constitutional right to own a firearm revoked, is that person also too unstable to vote? Should ethnicity/race continue to be one of the questions? Please outline the questions that should be asked that determines your ability to exercise your right to own a firearm? As a bonus (LOL), please specify how often a person must submit to the background check? And how much should he have to pay for the privilege of this interrogation. (I'm not even going to mention Jim Crow...the liberal dog whistle)

The self described "elitists" do love attempting to denigrate others while failing to recognize their own limited cognitive abilities, contributing to the comic relief for the masses...I will give you that. I have no doubt that you have no comprehension of my reply. Grade schoolers will get a chuckle, but you...well, you are bewildered by the complexity of the "tone and timbre" of my reply. So to be clear, I am mocking you. Once you do an internet search on the meaning of the word "mocking", you will undoubtedly be confronted with your shame of being "disrespected". Your only choice is to lash out. But since your limited intelligence only allows you to respond in childish insults, I anticipate your reply to bring us straight into elementary banter. Unlike normal folks, I will follow you down there...just to see how far you will go. So please respond in the manner you feel most comfortable with. I will respond in kind. I'm guessing that you will concede your inability to read my post due to it's length, and will try to run away from such a challenge using this dismissive (although childish) tactic.

Wow, you can count to five. That is impressive. But then you go and ruin it with your last comment. Can you please explain why you feel posting consecutively would be evidence of mental instability? Is falsely accusing someone of mental illness actually a sign of their own mental illness?

Can you quit crying about everything?

"Wackos"? Have you ever read your posts? You attack the person who posted a link to an article instead of debating the merits of the article. "Wackos"? Are you engaging in self-reflection and projection at the same time? We all know you can't debate, and your intellectual skills are severely lacking, so why do you keep trying. Just give it up already!

Where did you buy your "superiority complex"? And speaking of naivety...well, who better to speak on the subject. Keep the jokes coming.

That's what you get for trying to think...and stereotype. By now you should realize how foolish you look when you attempt it.

Spoken like a true liberal. It's a crying shame people with this stunted intellectual skillset are allowed to spew this nonsense. If you had one iota of a brain cell you would quit trying to "analyze" (lol) people by putting them in a box with a stereotypical label. That's so boring and childish. Non-liberals are not trying to end healthcare or food stamps. That is a lie perpetuated by the liberals for their sheeple to eat up. Consider yourself full...of it. Most non-liberals want only those that need help to receive it, not make a living off of it. It's a simple concept, but apparently too hard for some to grasp. You should be embarrassed for trying to label people you know nothing about. Maybe we should analyze you. Why do you want children to grow up as government slaves? Or would you rather just kill them and be done with it?

You just got schooled on a topic you started. The posters responded with logical answers...dispelling your "you suckers" nose-ring led mantra your masters have programmed you to believe. You have been thoroughly embarrassed on this topic. But I have a feeling you will brush off the responses and run your mental gymnastics to convince yourself that you have won the internet today by making redneck rubes expose themselves. Since I believe this is the case, please refute my analysis with your own rationale. Which response, so far, is out of line with your thinking?...and why? Which poster, based on their reply, has denigrated themselves in your eyes? In case your refuse to respond, keep this in mind...when you think you have a "gotcha" question, most are laughing at your adolescent, feeble attempts to rise to seriousness. It is an amazing feat of resilience that you keep trying.