Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/09/2009 in Blog Comments

  1. I think you're right, in the long run. (POTUS has already made clear he'll intervene if the mayor and governor don't step up, and since they're flipped him off in response, he most likely will.) But I admit that I personally can't just casually dismiss the short-term threats, if the reports are true about businesses being "shaken down", the property damage, etc. I'm also thinking about how it's affecting people psychologically, having to witness this, especially the potentially innocent people caught in the cross-fire. (And now, there's someone acting as "warlord" already edging out Antifa?
    2 points
  2. My thought wasn’t directed solely at Brad and not necessarily only about money. Gore and Gore-like people do it to fleece money from the ‘system’ , Hollywood type virtue-signalers are probably motivated by an inherent narcissism. And they need their parrots to help move masses to accept the building of the ‘system’ or even to just be complacent enough to not fight back against the building .
    2 points
  3. Sorry, I guess I'm not understanding the issue in regards to falsifiability. Once again, falsifiable hypothesis and their approx date: And their conclusions:
    2 points
  4. Jonathan, I looked. Nothing but retweets. Lot's of 'em. (burp...) Michael
    2 points
  5. It's true that the strategy isn't going to work, but "dealing with climate change" isn't what it's aimed at. Ruling the world is. Ellen
    2 points
  6. So does William discuss? No, he posts a link: Slide, slip, slither, avoid - and then whine if you're called dishonest And what the linked-to list is about, as Michael points out, isn't how to have a discussion but how to indoctrinate. Ellen
    2 points
  7. 2 points
  8. Jonathan, It's funny. When you ask for repeatable scientific results re Climate Change, you always get blah blah blah and they never use the term "repeatable results." It's like going into a small eatery and saying, "Do you have an ice cream cone?" And the person says, "Here's some tasty steamed octopus." You ask, "What about an ice cream cone?" The person says, "Look at these green beans and mashed potatoes. How big a portion do you want?" "But I want an ice cream cone." "Well, you've come to the right place. Our mac and cheese is amazing." "Don't you
    2 points
  9. Oh, I am staggered! It is a genius plot and This Story Must Be Told. And finally the world will see sex scenes that reflect Real Life and Right Values and Canadian Respectability, I can't wait! I must commune with my muse now -- the first lines of dialogue are coming to me -- oh, oh, ohhh!
    2 points
  10. This is a screenshot of the above tweet: I will change the <meta> information to update the image and text in the Twitter Card. What will happen to the body of the tweet just capped? <meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image"> <meta name="twitter:site" content="@DarleneViewer"> <meta name="twitter:title" content="This is an example of a Twitter Card with a Summary and Large Image"> <meta name="twitter:description" content="&quot;Tweet this page&quot; -- A simple set of <meta> tags in the head of an HTML document allows Twitter
    1 point
  11. Oh, so Q doesn't understand how that works? The Obama website got caught testing the image prior to Floyd's ritual murder. Q is trolling. Just letting the inept scum idiots know he caught them doing that.
    1 point
  12. Them chemtrails can hollow out a man's ability to check claims, it seems. 99 people are talking about this MSNBC’s parent company also confirmed to The Verge that the clip was a fake. “To confirm, the posts are fake,” NBCUniversal spokesperson Alexandra Roberts told the outlet. For these reasons, the claim that MSNBC tried to pass “World World Z” trailer footage off as video of protests in Phi
    1 point
  13. Well, as part of a debate, it is necessary to see where each party doesn't agree. Cause of increasing atmospheric co2 is what?
    1 point
  14. Red herring. We aren't taking about how the climate change before the industrial revolution. I've already covered the mechanisms that lead the planet in and out of ice ages. That mechanism is in the wrong sign (negative) to explain current changes and there is not record of changes happening as abruptly as they currently are. Go back and read what I told you about Milakovitch Cycles. Funny that you didn't think my reply was applicable then.
    1 point
  15. I'm not sure about fraction. After all, climate change is supported by numerous overcome from different disciplines -conscilience. Scientists that study the sun have gone on record plenty of times starting that it is not the sun. The rate of warming does not match any changes in output of the sun. For a period, cosmic rays were being thrown around as a possible controller of cloud cover. That has since been debunked. And again, what causes a change in temperature in a system is either changes to the incoming energy or changes to the outgoing energy. You can warm yourself by throwin
    1 point
  16. Mankind's contribution to warming is considered to be 100%. Actually higher by some because without increased co2 all indications are we would have cooled, so we've offset the cooling plus added warming. You can falsify that humans are the cause of warming by delivering us a mechanism to explain the warming.
    1 point
  17. Fight the next ice age! Burn fossil fuels! --Brant I don't think that will work, BTW
    1 point
  18. Maybe you missed the paper and the direct questions of whether or not burning fossil fuels is increasing atmospheric co2 concentrations. Do you care to insert your thoughts or just sit on the sidelines making accusations?
    1 point
  19. These are your words. I have you a list of hypothesis. They have the years the predictions were made. The would be falsified had they not come true. What else is there to answer in regards to your question?
    1 point
  20. I lose sight of the essential disagreement(s) ... amid the scorn-storms and psychological/character assessments. I think sometimes that 'What Could Persuade You to Change Your Mind?" is the right way to go, but that question doesn't reveal what a particular person believes. I don't -- after all this time -- know which beliefs are held by who, not in detail (except for Bob/Ba'al). It might be best answered by the Yale Climate Communications survey questions as revised. (or by a simple set of questions which answers reflect relative adhesion to so-called 'Consensus Statements**). The
    1 point
  21. Oh, no! Putin denies the pretend consensus? The one which I've posted proof that it has been demonstrated as being false, and which Billy has refused to address? Heh. J
    1 point
  22. It looks like the person or persons who post as Q has been watching TV and spending time on Twitter today. For a 'top secret' insider, he or she or they doesn't appear to have any insights not available via OSINT.
    1 point
  23. Travis View in conversation with Steven Hassan ... for those not entirely caught up in the con.
    1 point
  24. Billy, You've got a pretty good handle on your new vid toys there. Fun stuff. But, ugh, please explore lighting. And you don't need to invest in soft boxes or umbrellas with modeling lights. Just consider turning your current light so that it's facing the other way (away from you), and not shining on you directly. Bounce the light off of a wall in front of you to diffuse and soften it. Wall not close enough? Then clamp a foam board to an old mic stand from back in your band days, and bounce the light off of it. You're welcome.
    1 point
  25. @PokerPolitics continues to offer poignant takes on the Q phenomenon. These sum up a feeling I get when I consider the self-sealed mental landscape of extreme QAnon cultists ... ... ... "Only via isolation can we achieve salvation."
    1 point
  26. This old piece popped up for me today. Truth: "There’s an old legal proverb: If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have neither, attack the witness. When proponents of a scientific consensus lead with an attack on the witness, rather than on the arguments and evidence, be suspicious." ----- Politics Disguised as Science: When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’ Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are not immune to the non-rational dynamics of the herd. iStockphoto
    1 point
  27. Here's a quick audio-tweet of the alternative-media fellow called Josh Bernstein. He calls for torturing traitorous Democrats. I mean, why not?
    1 point
  28. Major persuasion fail ... Poll: Majority of Americans say impeachment inquiry into Trump is necessary
    1 point
  29. “Abused your position” ”incompatible with your duty” The Constitution provides expulsion with 2/3rds vote of his House colleagues. Could Diddler be out on the street by next week?
    1 point
  30. Billy's mistake was that he went and done got religion. His M.O. had always been stinging snark, but in the past he limited himself to attacking Others' silly beliefs, while not revealing any that he held himself. Billy's at his best when tackling a fucked up mess, like, say, Pigero and clan for their kookball ideas. Take shots at their stupid shit, and you're untouchable because they have nothing to shoot back at if you haven't given them anything. But now Billy has fucked up by exposing himself. He has revealed some of his silly beliefs. He has invested his reputation in a few whacky no
    1 point
  31. Jon, Because you don't win culture wars with bans. I'm playing the long game. You seem to prefer short term gratification. I won't be doing any podcasts with any leftie authoritarians, though. They went for the short term gratification and bans (social media and elsewhere). Now they're losing the culture war big time as they sell out to crony corporations just to stay relevant and they are too hate-filled to see it. Once their idiocy stops making money and/or power for the elitist establishment, they will go the way of Avenatti. Slower than him, granted, but the path is the
    1 point
  32. William made starkly obvious how dumb his thinking on climate issues is with this question: Ellen
    1 point
  33. Jonathan, You've nailed so many correct points, especially about the rhetorical methods of these Meatball geniuses, I quoted the entire post. Basically the bullshit these pro-sky-is-falling climate crisis people serve up hasn't changed ever since Michael Crichton wrote State of Fear. Probably before, but I know it from this date because that's when I started following it. Crichton used to run a discussion forum back then (around 2004) and, after a gazillion posts between warring factions on manmade global warming, he simply shut down the discussions. I remember the phrase he used:
    1 point
  34. Newcomers, please, take a minute to read and respect the basic guidelines that rule on this site (at least in the abstract, since old-timers generally get a break). I was a moderator on an insanely-combative site, Syria Comment, back a few years. My main take-away from those forum rules boils down to one thing: do not needlessly personalize discussion. See the present SC guidelines in the peekaboo at bottom. Objectivist Living Guidelines:
    1 point
  35. Hell, I don't mind if all the people in the entire country become supporters of President Trump. That would stop all the ills of partisan prejudice as warned in the article. Michael
    1 point
  36. I don't see an argument that Khashoggi was a 'terrorist.' Declarative sentences are swell as far as marking-territory or blurted opinion goes, but such declamations are not persuasive. This seems to be another manic claim without warrant. Ho hum. Why would anyone care about this issue today? "The Left" hurr hurr grawk.
    1 point
  37. yawn... False conspiracy theories are the real problem say the elitists. Unending war for profit, mass surveillance, screwing the middle class with bogus crony corporatist schemes, using slave labor and calling it globalism, and so on don't really count to these folks, do they? Well, here's a fact for those who care about facts. Talking about false conspiracies have not caused even 0.1% or the enormous damage and loss of innocent life the elitist boneheads in the ruling class have caused. It's all the fault of the false conspiracies... So say the elitist boneheads on the way to
    1 point
  38. Yes, really. For example: https://kdvr.com/2018/09/07/bernie-sanders-introduces-bill-targeting-worker-pay-at-amazon-walmart/ And Amazon having government as a customer is "in bed with the government"? What's next? A company that sells office supplies to any part of government is "in bed with the government"? A building owner that leases space to any part of government is "in bed with the government"? And that some of its employees having received food stamps puts Amazon "in bed with the government"? By such criteria Donald Trump was "in bed with the government" and "lost his high mo
    1 point
  39. Amy Peikoff appears again on Foxnews with Tucker, this time in a tangle about Jeff Bezos and his worth. Amy starts out strong, forcing Tucker into a religious trap with a "moral" obligation to pay workers, causing Tucker to use his upper register nasal cavity in some high-pitched objections to Amy's Objectivist principles. Amy sensed she had him dazed, but she didn't remain in-focus and instead tried a kung-fu analogy that failed to deliver her fatality, instead the analogy caused her to slip and Tucker was there to make a final-seconds comeback to win the match. I like seeing Tuc
    1 point
  40. Toothless garbage people. They used to be the salt of the Earth, the honorable working man, the blue collar hero, the underdog, the common folk who were the heart and soul of the Democratic party. The Dems shafted them. So they left. And now we see what the Dems always thought of them. Not only that, but now the entire Republican party is defined by the characteristics of the "garbage" that abandoned the Dems. The whole party now is undereducated, toothless trash. They don't know their heads from their asses, and are politically gullible and naive. They're stupid, and don't know how to vo
    1 point
  41. Wow. I'm embarrassed for Cohen. Career in the toilet. J
    1 point
  42. William, That's easy. Anyone who makes fun of the person asking a question is gaslighting. An attempt to understand is one thing. Even overzealous speculation. Mocking people who ask questions and are suspicious of those in power (especially the ones who keep getting caught lying), and attempting to belittle the questioners for what they see and telling them not to believe their lying eyes, is another. That's gaslighting. That's not discussion. That's not an attempt to persuade by reason. That's not an attempt to convince. It's a command to sit down and shut up.
    1 point
  43. What a nonsense. According to these criteria astronomy wouldn't be an objective science either. The same can be said of the stars, astronomers can only observe some photons arriving on earth. We can’t directly observe the evolution of a star, so the theories about such stellar evolution aren’t objective science either?
    1 point