All Activity

Here's one of Michael Crichton's very finest quotes, especially applicable to climate "science": "I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right ... In science, consensus is irrelevant."

What you define as everyone who's not you Therefore everyone who isn't you or just like you is inferior Hey! Maybe you should run for the liberal leadership, sounds like you're just the kind of person they're looking for

There are many many examples of this kind of thing in America. Anybody that claims voter fraud doesn't exist is an absolute liar, I believe every single federal election they discover some voter fraud. The real question is does enough of it happen to make a substantial difference to the outcome? And that's where it gets a lot harder to say for sure. But it certainly can't be discounted. Americans need to switch to a system where all of the states operate under the same rules and the rules are such that it makes voter fraud easy enough to detect but people can believe with certainty that even if a small amount went undetected it would be too small to make a difference. Democracy only works if people have faith in it. And you can't have faith in a system that you can't be sure is honest

Nope, just you people.

It's too bad for them that people like you insisted we focus on pretending we could change climate change rather than focusing on adapting. If we had ignored you people and taken steps to make sure people were safe instead they'd be alive today. The climate crisis hoax kills people. Ash to the rest crap is going to change. Which hasn't it always will. But you haven't presented any evidence as to why it's a crisis

You literally just posted that I was right and you were wrong. Your first post was maybe we should renovate storaway Then i posted that it doesn't need it. Then you aske "who mentioned renovating stornaway' LOL YOU did YOU brought it up.. The timestamps are clear, you brought it up, i replied, you got confused and asked who brought it up LOLOL FOLLOWED BY ROFLMAO!!!!!!! Apperently you don't know how time works LOLOL And rather than just admit it and move on, you tried to double down on the stupid

Well, funny story there. For most of human history in most cultures matches were more or less arranged. That's the way it was throughout the vast majority of human history until about the 18th century. Romantic partnership and marriage has only really we've been around as a mainstay since the 17 - 1800s and only in some parts of the world. And it's had a rather high failure rate, as evidenced by divorce rates. so your claim is incorrect. It's actually a new thing and to be honest in this day and age that is very hard for people to find a compatible life partner. The vast majority of people wouldn't even be able to define what one would look like, they have no idea what they need from a spouse or what the purpose of their marriage is But don't feel bad, we're pretty used to you being wrong

So everyone who isn't just like you is inferior. LOL and you're still trying to claim that the nazi's weren't socialists just like you

Well that's not going to happen until he gets this stupid war sorted out one way or another. I don't think anybody believes him when he says the street is open anymore, it's been open and closed and open and closed a dozen times. Now they're saying there's a deal in place and it'll be open again but honestly if I owned an expensive ship I would not be sending it down the street or news right now Next week's deal will be that day agree to only attack each other and ships on the straight during days with an r in it or some such damn thing But if he does clear it up then there's a good chance that has the economy bounces back if it recovers sufficiently people will forget this incident

Not me.

You didn't see any of those things. You were told by others that this was the case but you didn't see squat And you insisted that it must be true because it was in The indictment Well now there's evidence in this indictment. Yes strangely that hasn't been proven in court yet You're a liar and a hypocrite

From google ai: " Eyeball frequently will say something stupid or be given facts that prove that he's wrong only to deny it a few posts later in the same thread. The fact that everyone can see he's lying is one of the main reasons nobody respects him or believes him when he makes other claims. This is most often a result of a medical condition like Korsakoff's syndrome, dementia, or brain injury" Wow. I don't know what you've been saying to google but it's sure got some shit to talk about you Maybe all those searches for pictures of dead jewish women and children from 10/7 just before your bedtime?

Sigh… so… dishonesty or ignorance? ”Analysis of health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children: Developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders Brian S Hooker 1,✉, Neil Z Miller 2“ is not: ”Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study Lois Lamerato, PhD1 , Abigail Chatfield, MS1, Amy Tang, PhD1 , Marcus Zervos, MD2,3”

Now you're trying to be obtuse it's the same study. "Impact of Childhood Vaccination on Short and Long-Term Chronic Health Outcomes in Children: A Birth Cohort Study" You said you was aware of the study, now your playing games.

Typical reading comprehension issue from confux LOSER. LOL You : Stornoway is fine why would we renovate it? ? Me: Who said anything about renovating Stornoway except you just now?? Me: Maybe we should renovate Stornoway and really give the Stornoway Squatter something to whine about??? 7+ years no rent, no taxes, no maintenance fees, plenty of staff, cooks cleaners grounds keepers etc." and then added all the repairs and renovations done to Stornoway in recent years. Seems the one that needs, as you say " a team of top notch comedy writers to make you look more stupid than you make yourself look"

It's relevant if we're discussing their motivations. It is not, by itself, evidence that their textual conclusions were wrong. Those are two separate questions. A historian may have political bias and still correctly translate an ancient document. Likewise, a devout Christian may make a textual error. The manuscript evidence does not become true or false because of the editor's theology. Even if I granted that premise for the sake of argument, it still wouldn't establish that the textual decisions they made were incorrect. It would only suggest a possible motivation. To demonstrate they were wrong, you must show that their textual choices were wrong. That is still assuming the conclusion. You are arguing from motive rather than evidence. Even if someone had an anti-KJV bias, that does not prove every textual decision they made was incorrect. The decisions still have to be evaluated on manuscript evidence. [Ad hominem] [Guilt by association] Whether I were Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or atheist has absolutely no bearing on whether Codex Vaticanus preserves an earlier reading than the Byzantine tradition. Let's keep the discussion on the manuscripts rather than each other. Of course they do. That's why there is a textual debate. The question isn't whether they disagree. The question is which reading is more likely original. Simply observing that two manuscript traditions differ doesn't resolve that question. So do Byzantine manuscripts. No two handwritten manuscript traditions are completely identical. The existence of textual variation is precisely why textual criticism exists. The relevant question is whether the differences materially affect reconstruction of the original text, not whether differences exist. That's a conclusion, not an argument. To establish that conclusion, you would need to demonstrate that their readings are consistently secondary or corrupted using textual evidence. Calling them "depraved" simply restates your position. No, you've provided sources that argue your position. That is not the same as proof. Those articles represent one side of a long-standing scholarly debate. Appealing to an article that reaches your preferred conclusion doesn't end the discussion any more than my citing a critical-text scholar would end it. The evidence still has to be weighed. That's why the debate has continued for generations among scholars who have examined the same manuscripts.

You just gave me a link to a different study. So, did you do that on purpose to try to deceive me or was it ignorance?

Don't forget toxic masculinity - it's also a culprit. From AI: Toxic masculinity contributes to climate change through deeply ingrained social norms that link consumption and environmental dominance to manhood. These cultural scripts fuel higher carbon footprints and climate denial, hindering the collective shift toward sustainability. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] The connection between masculine identity and environmental damage manifests in several specific ways: The "Green-Feminine" Stereotype: Research shows that average consumers often subconsciously view eco-friendly behaviors as "feminine." Because of this, men are more likely to avoid sustainable products and habits for fear of appearing less masculine. [1, 2, 3] "Petro-Masculinity": Coined by political scientist Cara Daggett, this concept describes a toxic fusion between fossil fuel consumption, climate change denial, and the defense of patriarchal dominance. Driving large, inefficient vehicles and defending extraction-based industries are often culturally upheld as powerful assertions of traditional manhood. [1, 2, 3] Disproportionate Consumption: Studies demonstrate that men's spending habits result in higher greenhouse gas emissions than women's. This is largely driven by historically higher consumption of carbon-intensive goods, such as meat, fossil fuels for driving, and air travel. [1, 2] Climate Change Denial: Psychological studies, such as research conducted on adult populations in Sweden, indicate that men who feel their traditional masculinity is under threat are significantly more likely to reject climate science and resist environmental policies. [1, 2] Addressing these norms by promoting "ecological masculinities"—identities rooted in ecological stewardship, community, and care rather than dominance—is a major focus L-OH-L!!!

This is where they lose me, too. CO2 is a tiny trace element and it's NOT a pollutant. CO2 levels are the lowest they've ever been on earth before, we are actually in a CO2 famine. Yet they want you to believe that this tiny trace element is causing mass destruction all over the earth. They want you to believe that CO2 levels don't fluctuate naturally on their own - it's man who is 100% in control of it. They want you to believe that cloud coverage, solar activity, volcanic activity, including underwater volcanic activity and the natural ebb & flow of earth cycles - NONE of that has anything to do with the climate on earth. It's all because of man. There's a reason why they had to get rid of "global cooling" and replace it with "global warming' and then replace that with the generic "climate change." "Climate change" covers everything. Too much snow? Climate change! And it's YOUR fault for warming your car up when it's 40 below. Bad humans! Not enough snow? Climate change! And it's YOUR fault for using AC in the summer. Bad humans! Too much rain? Climate change! And it's YOUR fault for eating beef. Bad humans! Not enough rain? Climate change! And it's YOUR fault for not driving an electric car. Bad humans! Heatwave in France? No, you bad humans cannot use AC - let the old people die. The climate alarmist foot soldiers, they hate humans. Humans are a parasite to them. Humanity needs to die off to save the planet. It's a sick & twisted death cult.

What happens if I watch "real" news and truly accept it? Well, for sure I will be filled with hate. I will hate Christ, the nuclear family, straight white conservative males (including myself), and the country's borders. I will want to deface buildings and set cars on fire, as well. In time I will want trannies ahead of women and girls in women and girls bathrooms and locker rooms because acceptance always comes first - trans always come first, and that needs to be enforced everywhere, including private property and churches. I'll sure as hell bash Trump a lot - probably daily if not hourly. Also, my basement will be transformed into a temple of woke - all my fellow cultists will be invited. Wow, what a f*cking future.

It's obvious Israel has us by the balls somehow, but so do other countries like Somalia and Ukraine. What we need to do is expel all foreign influence in our government. Once our government is represented by REAL Americans, we can shutter most of our doors and get busy WITHIN our borders. If a city, state or federal official starts weeping like Emma Lazarus or some other crazy marxist socialist, we immediately remove their asses from office.

Which are?

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Entered-into-hearing-record-Impact-of-Childhood-Vaccination-on-Short-and-Long-Term-Chronic-Health-Outcomes-in-Children-A-Birth-Cohort-Study.pdf https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7268563/

No, the Opposition should not reflexively oppose everything the government proposes, or even oppose for political advantage. The Oppostion is there to correct errors by government.

Rare earths, baby. Look how Trump fawns on Xi these days. It’s pathetic.