Infidel Dog

Curiously enough, I just noticed there's a post on Professor Lomborg at WuwT right now. And seeing as you wanted expert opinion posted here, here ya go: Biden’s climate ‘fix’ is fantastically expensive and perfectly useless-Bjorn Lomborg

Is that all it says now? Used to be full lying paragraphs. I know Wikipedia (especially the sections on climate) has been taking a lot of flak for awhile now about how leftist editors have taken over to only let the Greta Thunberg version exist on Wiki pages. Maybe they fixed that. I doubt it though. I notice they slipped the "denial" lie in there though. So it looks O'Donnel's boys are still there even if he's gone. BTW Watts up with That wins awards for best science blog. Most popular too. Do you know who Bjorn Lomborg is yet?

And your definition of "extreme" is anybody not falling in line with your leftist group think. Oh and your silly biased fact check links all need to be fact checked.

Not if it's actual voters who vote this time.

Yeah, yeah, we know Petros. Lefties don't like media from the right. Don't care. Here's one of Trump's lawyers explaining how Nancy and her little Kabuki troop failed at impeaching the President. Again...

Here's one RINO we know has lost about a dozen votes we know of: https://nypost.com/2021/02/16/kinzinger-claims-family-shunned-him-for-trump-impeachment-vote/

Pretty much all the RINO republicans that sided with Nancy on the impeachment are either being censured in their home state or it's in the works to do it. Pretty sure at least a couple of them are up for re-election in the mid-terms. They're history whoever they are. Won't get past the primaries.

I see why Progs don't like Steve Bannon. He says Trump might run for congress in 2022 to lead an impeachment against Biden. Most likely a troll but a funny one. I chuckled. He should run for the Senate and take McConnell's job. I hear Lara Trump is considering running for the Senate seat of her Father-in-laws other enemy in North Carolina. That would be more fun. Two Trumps in the senate.

Which point is that? That you fear the actual topic of the thread or that the idea Michael Brown was some kind of hero was and still is a flat out propagandized lie? https://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/12/14/cnn-draws-scathing-criticism-over-hands-up-display-a-parody-of-a-news-channel-165321/

There was only one side of the story presented in the CNN agitprop attempt at making Brown a hero martyr for the identity politic cause. And the DOJ report was just 6 months later. If CNN didn't want to be called liars perhaps they should have waited until the facts were in, or at least found more witnesses than Mike Brown's lying street thug Buddy. I hear the shop clerk Big Mike robbed and bullied was available for comment. But in another most likely vain attempt to bring the thread back on topic and because I know what a fan you are of hearing both sides of the story, here's the President's son giving his opinion on the Dem's second impeachment failure:

The testimony of the guy CNN was pimping out as a reliable witness was riddled with lies. The incident report from the DOJ showed that. Look, Mike Brown wasn't a Gentle Giant hero. He was a dumb hood who liked to push his weight around. He was dumb enough to try to grab a cop's gun and his stupidity earned him a trip to the morgue. End of story. Now, if you'd ever like to discuss the actual topic of this thread this is interesting: WINNING: Trump Approval RISES Among Republicans Following Partisan Impeachment

Look your deceptive distraction and obfuscation tricks aren't working. Get back on topic, will you. Here's something to consider. What did Nancy know and when did she know it? There are those starting to think they impeached the wrong person.

Maybe Sleazy Joe can have his buddies put up more frozen windmills.

Now I imagine you'll be rushing over to some place like Wikipedia, Mike. The first thing you'll discover is they don't think much of Anthony Watts. I don't care. You requested an "expert." He's trained in the field has decades of study and experience and he says this: And as I've told you before another name you should look up concerning the mitigation versus adaptation debate is Bjorn Lomborg.

Tucker at least investigates the problem. He doesn't just spew teenage angst. But here you go. Here's weather expert Anthony Watt's explaining what the problem is in Texas. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/15/texas-frozen-wind-power-outages-ensue-electricity-now-at-unheard-of-9000-per-megawatt-hour/ Feel free to find an expert to tell us why Texas needs more wind turbines and less natural gas.

People are freezing to death in Texas. No. This isn't a 'weather is climate' post. People are freezing to death in Texas because Windmills froze up and some power grids failed. This in a state that has more natural gas than any other place on the continent. Apparently this happens in California too. I hear about Brown and Blackouts in Europe a lot too. https://video.foxnews.com/v/6232518760001#sp=show-clips I hear Biden wants more windmills and an end to Fracking for natural gas.

I wonder how Nancy is going to hide her misdeeds and incompetence when she does this: Pelosi announces a 9/11-style commission to investigate “domestic terror attack” at Capitol Best guess is it will be another Shifty Schiff hiding in the basement, perpetrating a closed "Investigation," leaking out the odd Dem gem he approves of, kind of investigation. Doesn't it seem like she keeps getting more and more desperate the more she fails?

"Hands up don't shoot" was a lie. If you're saying I didn't already say so, well, that's a lie. Just for a couple of examples. But speaking of Nancy Pelosi and her second lame attempt at impeaching a President there's an interesting tale as to why the Dems didn't call witnesses even though they wanted to...bad. In a quick sentence Nancy had something to hide. A pretty big something, actually. Here’s Why the Democrats Didn’t Want Trump’s Legal Team to Call in Pelosi to Testify in Sham Impeachment Trial https://libertyonenews.com/heres-why-the-democrats-didnt-want-trumps-legal-team-to-call-in-pelosi-to-testify-in-sham-impeachment-trial/

Speaking of distraction though, we're getting off topic. Here let me help bring it back:

And bias can be a lie. You offered up a good example of that with the picture at the top of the CNN story. As did I with "Hands up. Don't Shoot." "Michael Brown's friend" in the CNN pic was a proven liar and his testimony was riddled with lies. CNN pimping him out as some sort of respected witness is a lie told out of bias. You trying to obfuscate from the well known fact that the "Gentle Giant" myth was a pile of BS by introducing an unrelated argument of the difference between bias and falsehood. I don't know if that's a lie but it's definitely deceptive. Michael Brown was not a "Gentle Giant." He was an over-sized thug who had just stolen from a convenience star by using his size to intimidate the clerk. When a Police Officer pulled up on him he attacked the officer. "Hands up. Don't shoot," never happened.

BTW the Corporate Media's telling of the Trayvon Martin story was also a load of crap.

Well, in this case and using the CNN example Google found for you you're looking at biased lies. There were 2 official investigations of the Michael Brown case. One by a black, leftist DA. Both exonerated officer Darren Wilson of any wrong-doing although said DA tried to weasel word his way out of admitting it. You see that picture of Big Mike's friend lionized there at the top of the CNN fabrication they're calling a story. Everything he said was a proven lie. It was known to be a lie when CNN was doing this in the pic below in regards to the massively proven lie that "the Gentle Giant" and his partner in Crime had been told to put their hands up and pleaded "Don't shoot." See this: That's another CNN lie. Or pardon me is it just bias when they lie like that? Hands up. Don't shoot. Never happened in the Michael Brown case. Saying it did is a lie and some liars still tell it. Somebody from your side of the aisle here was explaining to me how superior you guys are because you prefer an objective telling of the story. If that's true I imagine you'll be wanting to hear the DOJ report on the first investigation. Here ya go. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf See what I mean. What CNN told you was a lie or as a superior intellect like yourself might prefer "a bias."

So tell me some more about why you're angry at Tucker Carlson for being correct back in May of 2020.

Oh and did you notice the highlighting in the Wikipedia quote above? Birx is a known liar.

Not exactly... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Birx But it is true she's been hopping about from position to position since the beginning of her career. And Trumps gone and Biden's in and now she hates Trump and loves CNN. However, I admit, Trump made a lot of bad hires. When he comes back in 2024 one hopes he'll work on that. He should delegate better. But would you like to hear some more of what she had to say during her time in the previous administration regarding how they would inflate the numbers by listing anything as a Chi Comm death? "There are other countries that if you had a preexisting condition and let's say the virus caused you to go to the ICU and then have a heart or kidney problem some countries are recording as a heart issue or a kidney issue and not a COVID-19 death. Right now we are still recording it and we will I mean the great thing about having forms that come in and a form that has the ability to market as COVID-19 infection the intent is right now that those if someone dies with COVID-19 we are counting that as a COVID-19 death." https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/05/29/us_covid-19_death_toll_is_inflated.html#!