Infidel Dog

Speaking of dumbocrats and the evil things they do, turns out that every once in a while there's one smart enough to see where the line that shouldn't be crossed needs to be. Take Tulsi Gabbard for example:

Gee, maybe you're right Beave. Maybe political witch hunters like Mueller and his backers and wire tapping criminals like Obama were kind of dumb, and most likely evil. Uncustomary astute observation, Beave. Good one.

BTW do you Biden supporters on the Troll brigade remember this? Watch Joe Biden Call KKK Member and Democrat Robert Byrd a 'Friend' and 'Mentor'

Make up your mind Davey Boy: Former KKK Leader David Duke Backs Democrat for 2020 Election

McCarthy was right. He's an American hero. C'mon Sweet Pea. Lob me another softball. Trolling the Trolls is my favorite game.

The article goes back to one day after the inauguration so he's talking about continuing on with the trump plan. You might know it as "Operation Warp Speed." It's how Trump managed to get a Vaccine so fast to hand down to Sleepy Joe in the first place.

I just told you the Commie faction of the Democrats under useful idiots like Sanders and AOC is a joke. Why? Did McCarthy also say that? You mean he was also right about that one too? Joe Biden would love a record like that. Being right about at least two things in a lifetime.

And I heard something different than that: "Politico editor Sam Stein said the assertions in the story were "not true," as a distribution plan was part of the Trump administration's Operation Warp Speed. "Biden folks are spinning here or trying to lower the bar strategically," he tweeted. "There was, indeed, a plan from Trump. I listened in on govs calls on vaccine distribution. The plan had obvious shortcomings. but to say there’s nothing to rework is not true." The Washington Post's Dan Diamond linked to the piece and called it an apparent "gambit to lower expectations," noting that Trump, while "dangerous" on his response to coronavirus, had set up a system that's distributed 36 million doses to the states. The Trump administration fell well short of its initial goal of getting 20 million Americans vaccinated by the end of 2020, but the rate of Americans vaccinated per day has ramped up in the new year." https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-under-fire-for-scoop-pushing-biden-vaccine-talking-points

Maybe it's Biden's covid plan he's so impressed with. No wait...turned out Biden didn't actually have one of those:

The commie faction of the Democrats are a joke: I'm more worried about the corporates, money managers and globalist elites pulling the strings behind the scenes. They're just using the Progressive Socialists for thugs and stooges.

I can't help noticing how people making silly claims like this are afraid to be specific. What specifically are you glorying in? The opening of the border encouraging more caravans from central America? Chasing girls out of sport by making them compete against biological boys? Making women in the military shower with men? Invading Syria? Turning the Hill into a police state? Having Jill do a photo op offering the National Guard a basket of cookies then sending them off to camp out in parking garages? What is it specifically you're so proud of? Anyway the way I hear it Biden's still hiden. Susan Rice is sending out all the orders. https://populist.press/bidens-shadow-president-exposed-as-calling-the-shots/

For noticing you were lying by making the insinuated if not outright claim somebody, anybody was laughing about the killing of a Capitol Hill police officer, you mean? I don't need an excuse. I noticed the lie and called it a lie. It's a thing I do with lies.

You sound like you're looking for an out. Go then. But if you ever do want to have a serious discussion on how to handle possible risks of climate problems I'm here for you.

Biden Administration Adds Forcing Female Soldiers To Shower With Men Oh and speaking of the Virginia decision showing voting irregularities are still being considered in court the general issue is being looked by opinionator Dan Boginino as he takes us through a debate Rand Paul had with opinionator from the left, George Stephanopoulos. It's a good one because it gets us into how the left is demanding the right shut up about the fixed election and there are those who won't and make superior points doing it.

Oh so you've resolved the mitigation versus adaptation debate have you? Good for you. Congratulations. How did you do that? The rest of the world would like to know.

Possible risk. And I'm for adapting to any problems as they appear. That would include a meteor strike or the explosion of the Yellowstone super-volcano. Or for that matter an alien invasion.

Tucker was saying last night that Nancy is trying to pass a law that legalizes all the Democrats fraudulent shenanigans that allowed them to fix the last election.

As to cheering on the protest that got out of control at the capitol building I'm not sure I would apologize for that anymore than you guys will apologize for the weeks you cheered on the takeover of the Wisconsin capitol building. But no it was pretty clear you wanted people to think somebody cheered on the death of a police officer, Bubber. That would be a lie. That never happened.

Apology for what? When you say: It's pretty clear you want to insinuate somebody cheered on the death of Brian Sicknick. Nobody did that. You're lying.

The lie would be your claim that anybody cheered that on while it was happening. Also reporting on what actually happened regarding Brian Sicknick's death is vague. The circumstances surrounding his death remain unclear. But we do know nobody was cheering it on while it was happening.

On "warning of risks" we could talk about the precautionary principle if you like or discuss the mitigation versus adaptation choices of dealing with possible problems. I'm an adaptation man myself.

Who cares if the weather is delivered in full degrees? The same person who can't help noticing that you can't actually precisely measure global climate to tenths of a degree with any kind of reliable precision. We know precise measurement aren't possible for a fact because they have to keep adjusting said measurements. The current fad is to adjust older temps colder and more recent temps warmer - thus allowing warmiacs to pull their hair out over the scary 10th degree graphs. Different climate measuring estimators from satellite to land measuring services come up with different estimates. And neither of those claim to have fully accurate measurements for the poles. They estimate. So my point is when you're getting scared of what you call "the obvious scale of the problem," even though you don't seem to be able to tell me what that is or why you so "objectively" find it so scary you're coming to your conclusions based on estimates and predictions you don't actually know the accuracy of.

No. The graph on the left doesn't zoom out. The graph on the right magnifies so that you are concerned with tenths of a degree. Normally when we think of weather we think of it in full degrees. When it becomes climate we pretend we can see it clearer in a magnification to tenths of a degree. We can't but you can get a better reaction when you pretend you can. My point was you can't actually measure earth's climate precisely to a tenth of a degree so this assertion of yours that you are the one concerned with objective reality is objectively incorrect. We come to conclusions on climate based on estimates. We estimate the global temperature has risen about a degree in the last century or so. Don't be fooled by the difference between Fahrenheit and Celsius in the 2 graphs I showed you. Global temperature rise is usually presented in Celsius and is claimed to be about 1 to 1.5 degrees since 1850. A cabal of scientists predicts that in another century or so it will rise 2 degrees or 1 degree more than it did in the last 100 years. They imagine this extra degree will come out of postulated positive feedbacks. It's just a hypothesis but they predict this extra degree will lead to catastrophes that exist at the present time wholly in their imaginations. That's where it becomes political. Not from any what you call "objective reality" but from subjective projections. It's like, "OMG! We're all gonna die. Quick raise taxes. Give us global political control." The politicizing of imagined problems is the problem. If you sincerely want to impress me with your objectivity and what you call "the obvious scale of the problem" first of all tell me specifically what that is and what your evidence is for it. Otherwise you're just falling into the trap of politically charged subjectivity. This while you tell me I have no objectivity.

Here ya go Mike. See if you can figure it out by this one: If you're still having trouble it's explained here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/11/graph-vs-graph-political-journalism/ Although the watemelon boys tell me you're not allowed to read Wuwt.

OMG, Mr Science...seriously? You want to lecture me about climate graphs and don't know the common ones you're most likely pretending expertise on where you see the rise since the thaw following the little ice age are measured in tenths of a degree Celsius? There is a graph where they measure the change by full degrees and it's one straight line along the horizontal axis. I'll see if I can find it for you.