Englebert

So no offerings on the topic...you just want to participate in the contest? Is this correct? Funny your one post will probably be your last...and it was such a very feeble and childish post...fits right in with the agenda. I have a feeling that with your limited skillset, you can bring this topic even further into the gutter. Are you proud?

Do you consider yourself a kook? Let's test your awareness skills. Do you think "normal" people would agree with your self analysis? Do you think "normal" people consider any of your posts credible?

I also dreamed of you responding to my reply in your post in which you called me out. But alas, and predicted, it was merely a pipe dream. Do you feel like a big man to punch then run like a frightened schoolgirl? I have more faith in Nancy Pelosi or AOC to accidently utter an intelligent statement than I do with you. Where do you think that places you on the scale of intelligence? You seem to think you have the ability to judge others...can you judge yourself? Give yourself a grade...so the hilarity can resume on this board. Your comedy routine has been noticeably absent.

So once again this topic has fallen to page two...so let's get it back up to where it belongs, considering President Biden (cough cough) believes this topic is one of the utmost existential threats to mankind (and he is the most powerful man on the planet). Since the most powerful man on the planet (redundant for effect), along with his most powerful supporters, not to mention the majority of the largest political party in the U.S. (and therefore the world), all think in unison on this topic, shouldn't we the common people get some minute glimpse of some miniscule sliver of evidence of Man's quest to destroy the Earth. Hoops tried to explain the fallacy then intelligently bolted from the topic once real evidence was required. He tried the ol' tried and true deception based on ambivalence of the audience. And as all before him, failed miserably to produce any proof. A corner is now once again occupied. Who is next? Who will step up and provide evidence of what Hoops labeled a consensus of evidence? Who will forgo the tripe previously offered...in which no constraints, no benchmarks, no pinnacles, no high and low standards of Earth's resiliency were identified, but somehow deemed by "experts" as inevitably being crossed? Who will provide that long sought evidence of Man's contribution to weather manipulation, while simultaneously ruling out the more obvious culprits? You Man Made Global Warming cultists have had plenty of time for research...so who will step up? I'm guessing there is still a whole lot of peeing in the corner. Since I'm confident that none of you will step up, the pressing question is how long will it take for you to perform your mental gymnastics to blackout this post and return to mocking people that don't conform to your religion? Ball is in your corner...keep it dry (unstained).

Nice to see you still think you can dictate who can and cannot post to your topics. I guess you will now cry to a moderator again that I am derailing your post, even after you directly called me out with an insult. I can't fathom how, but it's seems you have gotten dumber in your time off. Do you consider yourself normal? You must think you have the ability to judge others. Can you judge yourself? How does it feel to get sent to the corner of the room for time out, donning the dunce cap, only to return to your seat...and still proclaim you are the smartest guy in the class. So again, do you think your behavior is normal?

And one more thing. AOC stated a couple of years ago that Earth would be irreparably harmed (i.e. game over for Earth, all life forms extinct) in 12 years unless we bow to the alter of Global Warming cultist and give up our worldly possessions in order to save her. (paraphrased, but please point out any inaccuracies.) She didn't indicate how long extinction would come after the 12 year line in the sand, but she stated that 12 years was the ultimatum timeline to alter our ways...or else doom is inevitable. Do you agree with her? Is AOC the messiah of the Man Made Global Warming hypothesis? Do you disown her views or agree with them? I find it funny that you insult people that disagree with AOC. Maybe you do too. I don't know. Let's see. Just for fun, let's throw Al Gore into the mix. Next time manbearpig comes a'calling, I need to remember to give him a call. Is he the messiah of MMGW, or does AOC hold that title? Should Nancy Pelosi get consideration for the title? What about Chucky Schumer? Can't forget ol' Joe Biden? How about any of the comedy crew at CNN or MSNBC? Should they be in the running for the messiah title? I'm starting to see why you think there is a consensus. Do you see the common denominator...and no, it is not political affiliation.

That was a lot of work on someone's part only to verify the conclusion that Man Made Global Warming in just an opinion based on junk science wrapped in the farce of real science. Point 1 is rife with altered, edited, and even made-up data, so any results are definitely in question. But Points 2 and 3 are the real kicker. If you notice, not one shred of evidence is presented to verify Man's effect, only conjecture and wild speculation. You (if it was you that wrote this) even threw in an insult...saying someone must be naïve not to believe in the author's viewpoint. And incredibly, but predicted, no extraneous variables have been addressed...extraneous variables that very well could be the overwhelming factors for any perceived change...negating or regulating to inconsequential Man's role. That is a spit in the face to scientific methodology. And to try to pass this off as science is laughable, not to mention incredibly arrogant and naïve. When are these "scientists" going to incorporate studies on sunspots, solar flares, sun hibernation, the Moon's varying gravitation pull, the Earth's varing axis spin, the Earth's varying orbital path, volcano emissions, earthquake emissions, Earth's varying magnetic fields, neutrino bombardment, etc. The list goes on. To simply ignore these factors and place the blame directly on Man is the very definition of naivety. And please explain why every single temperature forecasting model (not 50%, not 75%, not 95%, not 99%, but 100%) produced by these "experts" has been wrong...wildly wrong. And not wrong on both sides, but always predicting warmer temperatures than what ultimately pans out. That is a 100% failure rate. Hmmmmm. So again, to summarize, you have zero evidence of Man Made Global Warming. But you will continue to insult people who do not worship at the alter of this cultist theory. Hate to see you leave the topic. You've performed a good service by letting readers see for themselves the FACT that no evidence exists. Maybe people that don't pay much attention to this topic can easily see for themselves the absence of any credible evidence, laid out in a short synopsis.

That's funny. I have "debates" with many people, and quite frequently, and they don't devolve into childish banter. Maybe because they don't hurl insults then play victim when the insults are hurled back. Hmmmmmm.

How about you answer the following questions: You won't because it would crush your feelings...and you feel you would loose intellectual points with your secret compadre. But I will try anyway: Will you apologize for denigrating people that are skeptical, or seek more evidence of Climate Change (insert your title here)? More importantly, will you refrain from denigrating people in the future that do not adhere to your opinion of Climate Change (insert your title here)? Do you admit that Climate Change (insert your title here) is an unproven theory that is in no way akin to the accepted theory of gravity? Do you admit that Climate Change (insert your title here) experts do not adhere to scientific methodology, therefore believers in this theory should be the ones that are labeled "science deniers". You will think this is childish. So do I. But this is where you led the discussion. You started this with an insult. You then got offended when you were insulted back. You can make amends for your original sin by answering the above questions. I will be shocked if you answer them. I bet you will attempt continuing obfuscation by again claiming this whole thing is childish, or you've answered the questions before and that your refuse to beat a dead horse, or that you are above the fray (too intellectually superior to admit guilt...even though you are clearly guilty), etc, etc, etc. Which do you choose? Admission or shovel or hiding in the corner?

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).