Trump has not done anything wrong in relation to this country!!!... Ok.. that being said.. I wanna see ALL the tax returns of every freakin liberal... all their OFF shore dealings... all their swiss bank accounts... Trump was a Citizen.. NOT president yet when all this Bulls**t came to pass...lol... there is a statute of limitations on all this crap, as far as the TDS BS will stop..after 5 years.... He will win... in 2020..and more of the dems.. not libtards... there is a difference... will be very disappointed, Alot of Dems are switching sides bc they don't like what their Party has come to... I can hear the 72 hour suicide watch as we speak... all those libtards out there having a nervous breakdown after T***p w*n..& will again!!

All those Empty threats of those fools leaving the country.. they will NOT be missed... all this s**t is sooo much bulls**t with MY freakin TAX dollars and congress or senate NOT gettin a Freakin thing done.. What a Freakin Joke!!...

this from voice of reason. posted on 9-20-2019

Interesting

Then they aren't scientists. They might carry such a title, but if they are not willing to subject their theories to challenge then they have indeed crossed from science to religion."
================================================================
For many years I've known that 'Anthropogenic G****l W*****g' (AGW), or 'C*****e C****e', or 'The Climate Crisis' has become a religion based on belief instead of facts. So when I read the above comment from a l*****t I was surprised at how perfectly he argued against AGW 'scientists', albeit unintentionally. When they say, "The science is settled, the debate is over" they are stating their theories are no longer subject to challenge (something that is anathema to true science) and it is proof that they have indeed crossed from science to religion, just as this l*****t poster said. I agree so strongly with what he posted that I just shamelessly plagiarized him.
Anyway, I recently uploaded a slightly different version of what follows as a comment on another thread about AGW, but that's a pretty old thread, so I decided to start a new thread here. While trying (and mostly failing) to keep my comments to a reasonable size, I've listed some of the major reasons why I don't believe c*****e c****e is caused by human activity and I don't believe the alarmists' predictions.
BASICS:
First, let's define what AGW is claimed to be. The theory is that as humans burn f****l f**ls the carbon in the fuels (hydroCARBONs) combine with oxygen in the air to form CO2, or carbon dioxide. CO2 is a greenhouse gas which traps heat which would otherwise escape into space. So, as people continue to burn f****l f**ls, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere keeps rising, making the entire planet warmer.
SMELL TEST:
The average person who is not a scientist can still form an educated opinion about scientific premises based on common sense and likelihood. So, while burning f****l f**ls does create CO2 and CO2 IS a greenhouse gas, it turns out it's not a very potent one. Further, according to the warmists, the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 400PPM. That means for every 10,000 cubic feet of air, 4 of them are CO2. Another way to view it is CO2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, which seems like an awfully small concentration to be the major driver of climate on the planet.
But it gets worse. Of that 0.04%, humans' burning of f****l f**ls only contributes 5% of the total, the rest comes from natural sources, such as thermal vents, volcanoes, etc. So, even if one assumes that a trace gas is the primary climate driver, it must further be assumed that the first 95% of that gas are harmless and the last 5% is catastrophic. That's like saying I can eat 19 chocolate cream pies no problem, but if I eat one more I'll get fat.
So, IMHO, the smell test fails.
ICE CORE STUDIES:
In his infamous movie, "An Inconvenient T***h", Al Gore shows plots of temperatures vs. CO2 concentrations going back millennia, as determined by ice core studies. The plots show both (CO2 levels and temps) rising and falling together and he then claims that proves that CO2 drives temperatures. However, what he fails to mention is that there is a time delay between the two of about 400 years. Now one might say that makes sense, it might take a while for the increase in CO2 to have an appreciable effect on temperatures. But the problem is that the rise in CO2 comes about 400 years AFTER temperatures begin rising, every time. One doesn't have to be a scientist to realize that a cause comes before an effect, not after.
Now, if one looks logically at that time delay it makes perfect sense. The major sink for CO2 is not trees as the AGW alarmist state, but the oceans. The ability of water to hold CO2 is dependent on the temperature of the water. The colder it is, the more it can hold. So, as global temperature rise the oceans slowly warm. As the water in the oceans warms it is unable to hold as much CO2 and so some is released into the atmosphere, causing the levels to rise.
So, IMHO, ice core data shows that rising CO2 levels are an effect of temperature rise, not a cause of it.
Further, according to the ice core data, temperatures always begin dropping at about the time that CO2 levels reach their peak. If high CO2 levels cause warming, why would the planet cool when they're at their maximum level?
CHARACTER OF THE MESSENGER:
Aside from the fact that most AGW alarmists are politicians (usually of less than stellar character) looking to increase their confiscation of wealth with a carbon tax, the vast majority of 'scientists' and scientific organizations that support AGW alarmism are financially dependent on it. It seems to me that creates a bias in them that is just as strong as the bias the alarmists point out when referring to those employed by the petrochemical industry.
But aside from conflicts of interest, let's look at the actions of the alarmists. Alarmists advocate ostracizing and marginalizing those who disagree with AGW theory. Some even suggest punishing dissenters (deniers!) more harshly with prison or even death!
In my experience that kind of behavior is what one would expect from somebody pushing a lie that they're afraid will be exposed.
SOLUTIONS:
The AGW alarmists want everybody (except themselves) to stop driving, stop flying, stop eating meat, stop using air conditioning, stop using f****l f**ls in any way, stop bbq'ing, stop using plastics, move into overcrowded tenements, and on and on. Why? Because doing so, they predict, will slow global temperature increases by a whopping 0.2 degrees C over the next 80 years! (Yes, they've finally stopped making predictions that will expire before everybody hearing them is dead, so we can no longer point out their 100% failure rate).
So, in effect, the entire first- and second- world population should lower their standard of living to that of the third-world in exchange for negligible results. According to the very people pushing these draconian measures, they won't do any good!
That doesn't make sense to me.
POLLUTION:
The alarmists like to point to the pollution caused by burning f****l f**ls as another reason to eliminate their use. While burning f****l f**ls does, indeed, produce pollution, the power it produces is used to eliminate other, worse, pollution. Imagine, if you would, a world without sewage treatment plants. I wonder how much manure would be produced if we replaced all cars and trucks with horses, mules and oxen? How much methane will their farts produce?
I like having water come from my faucets when I open them. I use that water to clean stuff. It took power to get that water out of the well, lake or river it came from. In many cities and towns, it took more power to get that water up into the water tower. All municipal water supplies require massive electrical power to provide their water to their customers.
In many areas of the world, utilities are using reverse osmosis to purify seawater for municipal use. Reverse osmosis requires enormous amounts of electric power.
If we are to continue to provide clean potable water to large populations, we need f****l f**ls to supply the power required to do it.
RENEWABLES:
Finally, many people believe we should eliminate f****l f**ls and replace them with renewables, such as wind and solar power. Unfortunately those people have no understanding of power production or the scale of industrial power.
The problem with renewables is the lack of energy density. While the total power in all the sunlight hitting the earth is astronomical, the amount hitting any square meter is tiny. While solar panels may be able to produce enough electricity to power an average home, they can't begin to supply industrial-level amounts. Worse, nobody mentions the energy required to produce the solar panels. Depending on where they're installed, the average solar panel will produce the amount of energy it took to manufacture it in about 10-15 years, and they only last about 20 years.
Wind power has the same energy density problem and the turbines produce noise that makes the areas where they're installed unlivable.
But that's not the worst part. The worst part is the unreliability of both wind and solar. With wind turbines, when the wind isn't blowing strong enough AND when the wind is blowing too strongly, the wind turbines produce no power. With solar, the only thing that can be reliably stated is that it doesn't work every night.
Nuclear power, while not technically a renewable, is a viable option, but there doesn't seem to be much interest in expanding its use, especially since Fukushima. (Which is a shame, there are inherently-safe designs available.)
Lastly, the ultimate power source is nuclear fusion - the same process that takes place in the sun. Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of scientists and engineers, achieving this goal has proven to be elusive at best. As one prominent scientist (who's name I forget) once said, "We've been 10 years from developing viable fusion power for the past 50 years."
CONCLUSION:
No matter how one approaches the question of whether or not AGW is valid, whether you look at it from a scientific standpoint, a follow-the-money standpoint, the ethics and actions of the proponents, the data, the logic, the history and accuracy of predictions, ...everything, all the evidence points to it being a massive frau

The millions of poor misguided crap fed students are only reacting to the manure they have been fed all their lives by the liberal media, the liberal president for the last 8 out of 10 years, and the liberal school system. I'll give them this though, when they believe something, even though it's proven wrong, ( I would bet that most have never heard of the cyclic version), they put their whole heart into it. Hurray for the kids...disdain for the sons of pigs that propagate the falsehood of man made g****l w*****g to make a buck, the lying politicians that want to tax, tax, tax but do nothing, and the people that are just simply stupid enough to believe anything they're told by their party leaders. The ones with the short memories that have forgotten that Miami is supposed to be under water right now! The ones so stupid as to believe Obama even though he and mike have purchased a $15 million mansion on the sea shore ( i guess the sea levels will just not rise where they are building, huh?) The ones so selfish that they want to prevent 3rd world countries from pulling them selves up by the bootstraps to the level where the populace can have one or two healthy meals per day.
We are not the deniers...we are the ones with eyes to see and we have seen. We've seen that we have been in a cooling period for some years and should have been warmer all along. The planet is just coming up now to what is normal. You and yours don't see that because you choose NOT to, you are blind because you don't WANT to see ( original thought by abner). You refuse to acknowledge that the ONLY computer model out of 30 or so that is accurately predicting the weather is the Russian model. All the others have been programmed with false, or wrong, data. How do I know this? Because NONE of them are predicting the weather we are actually having.
You see, it is YOU and yours that are the deniers and the misleaders of our youth not only in the c*****e c****e lies, but also the desire to look for and see the t***h.

The words "assault rifle" is way over used. An ASSAULT rifle, to me, is one that can be set and fired on AUTOMATIC mode. Liberals like to classify anew AR-15 type rifle as an ASSAULT rifle because of just the way it looks. For all intensive purposes, it is just a SEMI automatic weapon.

ASSAULT weapon--pull and hold trigger, and it keeps shooting until it runs out of ammo in its magazine.

SEMI automatic weapon- ONE squeeze on the trigger, and ONE bullet fires.

Dont let the liberals make an i***t out of you. KNOW the difference between them. The liberal media are useful I***TS!

Barack Obama appears to be a tormented man filled with resentment, anger, and disdain for anyone of an opinion or view other than his. He acts in the most h**eful, spiteful, malevolent, vindictive ways in order to manipulate and maintain power and control over others. Perhaps, because, as a child, he grew up harboring an abiding bitterness toward the U.S. that was instilled in him by his family and mentors…it seems to have never left him.
It is not the color of his skin that is a problem in America . Rather it is the blackness that fills his soul and the hollowness in his heart where there should be abiding p***e and love for this country.
Think: Have we ever heard Obama speak lovingly of the U.S. or its people, with deep appreciation and genuine respect for our history, our customs, our sufferings and our blessings? Has he ever revealed that, like most patriotic Americans, he gets "goose bumps" when a band plays "The Star Spangled Banner," or sheds a tear when he hears a beautiful rendition of " America the Beautiful?" Does his heart burst with p***e when millions of American f**gs wave on a National holiday - or someone plays "taps" on a trumpet? Has he ever shared the admiration of the military, as we as lovers of those who keep us free, feel when soldiers march by? It is doubtful because Obama did not grow up sharing our experiences or our values. He did not sit at the knee of a Grandfather or Uncle who showed us his medals and told us about the bravery of his fellow troops as they tramped through foreign lands to keep us free. He didn't have grandparents who told stories of suffering and then coming to America , penniless, and the opportunities they had for building a business and life for their children.
Away from this country as a young child, Obama didn't delight in being part of America and its greatness. He wasn't singing our patriotic songs in kindergarten, or standing on the roadside for a holiday parade and eating a hot dog, or lighting sparklers around a campfire on July 4th as fireworks exploded over head, or placing f**gs on the grave sites of fallen and beloved American heroes.
Rather he was separated from all of these experiences and doesn't really understand us and what it means to be an American. He is void of the basic emotions that most feel regarding this country and insensitive to the instinctive p***e we have in our national heritage. His opinions were formed by those who either envied us or wanted him to devalue the United States and the traditions and patriotism that unites us.
He has never given a speech that is filled with calm, reassuring, complimentary, heartfelt statements about all the people in the U.S. Or one that inspires us to be better and grateful and proud that in a short time our country became a leader, and a protector of many. Quite the contrary, his speeches always degenerate into mocking, ridiculing tirades as he faults our achievements as well as any critics or opposition for the sake of a laugh, or to bolster his ego. He uses his Office to threaten and create fear while demeaning and degrading any American who opposes his policies and actions. A secure leader, who has noble self-esteem and not false confidence, refrains from showing such dread of critics and displaying a cocky, haughty attitude.
Mostly, his time seems to be spent causing dissension, unrest, and anxiety among the people of America , rather than uniting us (even though he was presented to us as the "Great Uniter"). He creates chaos for the sake of keeping people separated, envious, aggrieved and ready to argue. Under his leadership Americans have been kept on edge, rather than in a state of comfort and security. He incites people to be aggressive toward, and disrespectful of, those of differing opinions. And through such behavior, Obama has lowered the standards for self-control and mature restraint to the level of street-fighting gangs, when he should be raising the bar for people to strive toward becoming more considerate, tolerant, self-disciplined, self-sustaining, and self-assured.
Not a day goes by that he is not attempting to defy our laws, remove our rights, over-ride established procedures, install controversial appointees, enact d******e mandates, and assert a dictatorial form of power.
· Never has there been a leader of this great land who used such tactics to harm and hurt the people and this country.
· Never have we had a President who spoke with a caustic, evil tongue against the citizenry rather than present himself as a soothing, calming and trustworthy force.
· Never, in this country, have we experienced how much stress one man can cause a nation of people - on a daily basis!
Obama has promoted the degeneration of peace, civility, and quality of cooperation between us. He thrives on tearing us down, rather than building us up. He is the Architect of the decline of America , and the epitome of a Demagogue.
© Maureen Scott
 

Hmmm--the "stand your ground law"
May I point out this is not a new law as most think. You have always had the right to defend yourself in your home with deadly force if necessary. What is new is extending that right outside your home.
Many things will never be known in this case. Both parties made many mistakes that led to a persons death.
Do not try to second guess the jury from a blog. You did not hear all the evidence or see the person on trial.
The stand your ground law comes from common law. It is just a codification of common law.
The ambiguities in common law forced this law. Let me explain.
Before this law you had to make a retreat when threatened--prior to using deadly force if you were outside your home--and sometimes even if you were in your home. This was to prove you attempted to diffuse the situation and give the purp time to retreat.
The problem was many times this only encouraged them--the attack the fleeing response.
since the common law was allover the place in their holdings, many states decided a statute had to be in place to clarify the common law. (common law being what the higher courts have held that is binding on the lower courts)
Common sense says you don't want to turn your back on a knife or gun. Retreat was what exactly? one step back?--five steps back? See the problem? A codified statute that says you don't have to retreat at all is much clearer and safer. It de criminalizes the action of self protection of yourself or another person. even with the stand your ground law the question remains was deadly force justified.
This is why it was not used in the trial I am sure. Justification
We will never know if Zimmerman was told "I am going to k**l you C*****r--or beat you to a pulp-- "
Remember Zimmerman had a right to walk the sidewalk too--even if it was a dumb decision on his part. He also had a right to not be attacked ( if he was) for being dumb.
The jury has spoken--put it to bed folks!

Your quote is the reason I am more of an advocate of the Old Testament than the new. I do not believe in awarding anyone a living simply because he/she does not want to work. I do believe we should support our aged and handicapped, and we should grant our workers a better retirement than what they are getting. I do not believe the biblical adage of turning the other cheek, whether it be toward a person or country. I do believe in the Golden Rule... Do Unto Others As You Would Have Others Do Unto You. Which brings us back to the "N" word. Why is it so terrible to call someone an "N", but all right to call them a "c*****r", or "cracka.? This was displayed on National T.V. after the M/Z allocation.

The word "N" originated as a neutral term referring to black people, as a variation of the Spanish/Portuguese noun "negro," which is a descendant of the Latin adjective niger (color black). This"N" word slangingly means that it's target is extremely unsophisticated.

On the other hand, the word "c*****r" is used by b****s as a RACIAL SLUR intended toward Caucasians. It goes back to s***ery times to describe the s***e masters cracking a whip over the backs of their s***es.

Now I want anyone with any semblance of an open mind or intelligence to tell me which of these words would be the most inappropriate to use in our modern times?