Englebert

The first link you posted is just hilarious. We can skip the fact that these statistics are based on altered/manipulated data and that many scientists disagree with these "findings". Let's just focus on what is missing in this propaganda garbage that you find compelling (like a good little sheeple). Where is any evidence that Man is the source of the so-called warming? Where is the evidence that natural factors (volcanos, plate techtonics, lunar factors, solar factors, etc.) are not the overwhelmingly major factors in the so-called warming? No scientist worth a grain of salt would dare declare a causal effect until mitigating factors are taken into account. But since the audience seems to be capitulating sheeple that can't think for themselves, the propagandists feel empowered to trample all over scientific methodology. And that statement is directed straight towards you, considering I'm still laughing at the last sentence of your post. So instead of regurgitating propaganda, please offer some evidence of a link between Man's activity and a rise in Earth's temperature. When you fail miserably at that task, you can attempt to provide evidence that an increase in Earth's temperature is necessarily detrimental and destructive to Earth's health. Would you like to embarrass yourself with this endeavor? Or you can just admit you are a tin-foil hat wearing sheeple that likes to regurgitate mind numbing dribble...dribble that a free thinking person can quickly and easily discern. It seems you have a daunting task ahead in order to save face. I bet you fail miserably.

The last time you were challenged to a debate on this topic you ran like a frightened schoolgirl. You now attempt to insult sane people, then cower off again when called out. And I fully admit the childish insults will be flying. I fully admit I will stoop to your level and "debate" in kind. It is you that hilariously tries to flaunt dignity when throwing a childish temper tantrum.

I'm guessing your post is directed at Man Made Global Warming skeptics, and is some sort of childish attempt to demean our stance. It sure seems that you are laughably trying to argue that MMGW skeptics are the science deniers, while the tin foil hat doom and gloom sheeple are on the side of tried and true scientific methodology. Do I have this assumption correct? Would you like to debate who is actually the science deniers in this topic? Fair warning, it can only get even more embarrassing for you.

You don't see any "facts" in MMGW so-called "scientific" papers either. Just a bunch of opinions based on altered/manipulated data.

It shows. And it makes you look foolish. Well...more foolish. And your post was a horrible attempt at justification and deflection. Do you think the readers on this board are so stupid that they would fall for such mindless dribble? Or is it just a case of "the best you could do"?

When that subject was posted on this forum, the posters on here condemned that act. I guess you just read what you want to read. In fact, it sounds like your post was just a diatribe of self-reflection.

Maybe if we tell the Dems that we will build an elevated high speed rail train along the border, with supporting beams 6 inches apart, they will allocate as much money as needed...and then some.

Can we add Adam Schiff? After all, he is a Congressman on the committee that investigated the Trump/Russia collusion theory. He said that "there's plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight". He actually says this with a straight face, but yet when pressed to offer that evidence, he continually runs. For that stone-faced lie, I contend he should at least get a nomination.

Don't forget the whopper she told of her landing in Bosnia under sniper fire. She claimed she was too tired to remember correctly...and the Dems cheered her claims (lies). One can only imagine if Trump had the audacity to pull something like this.

Do you like throwing out generalized stereotypes in protest of what you think is a generalized stereotyped statement? What is the word for someone like that? Reagan mentioned 3 people in his statement. These three have some things in common, such as gender and Liberal ideology. You laughably contend that Reagan's ire is directed at gender, even after his last sentence clearly showed the contrary. Are you proud of yourself for engaging in such misleading slander...or did you not "get it".

I was literally laughing out loud when I saw a clip of his speech. While he was obfuscating about the absurdity of "walls", the wall behind him was in full view. I'm curious as to what would happen to an "undocumented" attendee who would have the audacity to scale his wall. Would his security team give that person free health care, a guaranteed wage, free college tuition, etc., for invading his rally? Would Beto want that person evicted? Would he offer him a MAGA hat?

I came to that same conclusion about two years ago, and decided to fight back with like tactics. It sure drives the Socialists (former Democrat party) mad.

I suggest you continue. I undoubtedly will induce a gutter brawl...after all, I aspire to entice one to share (admit) their inner most feelings through less than admirable (Liberal) tactics. You are much better at debating the issue. I would still like UT alum to answer my question though.

Please explain how you "got it". You made a declaration that LumRaiderFan wants one party. Then you claim that the answer validates your claim. Please explain, because I definitely missed it, how LumRaiderFan is advocating for one party domination based on that answer. Please show the evidence where other parties, or even new parties, are frowned upon in LumRaiderFan's response. Sorry LumRaiderFan for butting in, but that was such a pathetic retort I couldn't "recuse" myself any longer. (Actually, I haven't been able to monitor the conversations much lately. By the time I get to some of these, you (and others) have already shot them down...and I don't want to be accused of piling on.)

An oldie, but seems appropriate here: A young woman brought her fiancé home to meet her parents. After dinner, her mother told the girl's father to find out about the young man. The father invited the fiancé to his study for a talk. "So, what are your plans?" the father asked the young man. "I am a biblical scholar," he replied "A biblical scholar, hmmm?" the father said. "Admirable, but what will you do to provide a nice house for my daughter to live in?" "I will study," the young man replied, "and God will provide for us.” "And how will you buy her a beautiful engagement ring, such as she deserves?" asked the father. "I will concentrate on my studies," the young man replied, "God will provide for us.” "And children?" asked the father. "How will you support children?" "Don't worry, sir, God will provide," replied the fiance. The conversation proceeded like this...and each time the father questioned, the young idealist insisted that God would provide. Later, the mother asked, "How did your talk go, honey?" The father answered, "He's a Democrat. He has no job, he has no plans, and he thinks I'm God."

Yep, most people hate the Liberal method of "debate". Rules for thee, but not for me. Frustrating ain't it. And I have a feeling that after embarrassing yourself, you will continue to "preach" to others about how their stupidity will doom the Earth for our grandchildren. Even more frustrating, but something I have come to expect.

Let's get this straight. You believe in a theory. I asked you to give evidence of why you believe in that theory. You cannot do it. Does that make me an expert? Does this mean I need to school you in knowledge of that theory? What is wrong with you? I'm a skeptic that would like to be convinced with empirical evidence...and I will let the evidence guide my beliefs. You are the one that stated you believe in a theory that cannot be backed up with evidence, but yet you condescendingly try the "nutcase" ploy. Let's reiterate...you believe in a theory that has no evidence. I say I'm skeptical. You counter with a personal attack. Is this all you have to backup your belief...insinuate that the skeptic is some paranoid outlier. Do you think employing self-defense mechanisms will distract enough to get you out of your obvious faux pas. Do you think your attempt at shifting focus will be met with regression...thus saving you from further embarrassment? Are you really so gullible as to be led by the nose, then have the audacity to attack anyone that questions your blind submission? Do you really want to go down this road? You could simply look at the plethora of data, journals, papers, etc. that are out there. All you have to do is focus on: Where is the evidence (not opinions) that Man is the leading cause of possible warming? Where is the evidence (not opinions) that this supposedly warming is harmful to Earth? Why are mitigating factors, such as solar and lunar activity absent from the research? You could spend just a couple of hours and realize just how bad you are being manipulated. But instead, you seem to want to hold on the your fallible notions by attacking the messenger in lieu of just a smidgen of autodidactism. If that's the road you want to take, I'm game. If you would just spend the time you are taking trying to get out of this conversation instead of doing just a little research then we might get somewhere. Or we can engage in the childish name throwing game. Your call.

Okay Weisenheimer Jr, show some evidence that backs up the 80% expert opinions that Man is the leading cause of warming that may or may not exist. While you're attempting this futile endeavor, attempt the other futile endeavor of showing evidence that this possible warming is actually harmful to Earth's health. And as a bonus, provide evidence that shows a necessary exclusion of solar and lunar factors as major contributors to Earth's fluctuating weather patterns. Once you fail miserably on these tasks, you will undoubtedly (opinion) have to question why the elitist are pushing this Man-Made Global Warming theory. I have some theories on that and is the discussion I hope we can get to...but this will take a little research on your part to get there. Let me know when that eureka moment is achieved so I can start another topic on this subject.

Excuses, excuses, excuses. Your only way out of an embarrassing discussion. I should have known the first failed attempt to elicit some iota of evidence that you blindly imagine would be the end of any hope of a discussion. Run if you must, but we all know you obviously believe and blindly accept a theory you can't even begin to justify, but yet hilariously accuse us of being blind followers. Priceless.

The 95% percent is also a lie. You are doing just what dictators want, blindly follow and question nothing. If 95% (the statistic was actually claimed as 97% at one point) agree Man is the main reason for global warming (based admittedly on altered data), then empirical evidence should be a simple Google (or Bing) search away. So where is the evidence? I have every reason to distrust NOAA. They, themselves have given ample reason. Do a little research and you can become a skeptic too (the backbone of science). I was hoping we could get to the discussion of the rationale, motivations of Man-made global warming Nazis. But getting past the admission of no evidence must be just a little too hard.

NOAA has be caught multiple times altering data. Even the most blind should not trust them at all. According to NOAA, in a 1972 Time magazine published article, they claimed the Earth's temperature had fallen 2.7 degrees in the past 3 decades. Then mysteriously, using altered data, they now claim the Earth's temperature has risen (calculations based on the same data from the same time period). And you trust them why? If you want a Man-made global warming discussion, answer two questions, or even one of them. The theory is that the Earth is warming, this warming's major contributor is Man, and this warming is detrimental to Earth's health. Show evidence of Man's contribution to the theorized warming, and/or show evidence that this theorized warming is detrimental to Earth's health . (This will be a very short discussion.) I'm particularly interested how other possible contributors are discounted, especially solar and lunar influences. We can discuss the assumptions of the rationale behind the Man-made Global warming theory, but let's just identify the problem first. Blindly follow at the peril of your own freedom...and wallet.

I did not see the testimony, nor have I heard anything that was said, so I can only ask questions. In the two hours of testimony, did the CIA reiterate that the Iran nuclear deal gives Iran a path to legal ownership of nuclear weapons? Did they mention anything about the deal, like having to give Iran 30 days before inspections? Did they mention how bad of a deal it is for Israel, the U.S., and the rest of the world? Did the FBI comment on how much money Russia was spending for spreading foreign influence in the United States? Is Russia spending more than the couple of thousand dollars like last election? Are they close to spending the millions of dollars that the Hillary campaign spent disseminating false information about a political rival? Did they talk about how much money the Obama administration spent trying to influence foreign elections? Does the obvious even need mentioning? Does rationale for the wall even need to be debated?

What is Pelosi's objective? What is Trump's objective. I know. Pelosi's objective is to prevent Trump from succeeding in his objective of helping Americans. And I strongly disagree with the conclusion that Pelosi's tactics were successful. Democrats might be celebrating now, but one day they should realize that Pelosi's obstruction is hurtful to Americans. And construction of the wall should commence in three weeks. And thanks to Pelosi and the Dems not doing their job, future presidents will employ the "end run around" Congress more often.

We will see in three weeks. When the media screams that Trump is doing an end-run around Congress, he can smile and say "blame Pelosi" (and he will be correct in his statement). I find it very discouraging that you think a childish game of hurting the American people in order to prevent something that helps the people, just so your political opponent cannot score a win is a strong political strategy.

I'll give you the short story. We used to have plenty of mental institutions in the U.S. But many people decided that too many people were being held in these institutions. Families were dumping their problem members into these institutions. Many felt that these people should be cared for/dealt with by their own families, instead of being the ward of the American taxpayer...thus the push to close down the facilities. Now there seems to be a slight push to go back to government run institutions. Will the same issues arise again? You bet. The problem facing America is determining who really needs to be institutionalized, and who is gaming the system. There is currently no clear cut "right" or "wrong" answers.