Hodad

You're senile. None of that is based in fact. Go shout at the sky.

There are some. They shill for the oil companies. Internally even they acknowledge anthropogenic warming. But most are in science for the science, or they would have put their big brains to work for something easier and more profitable. There is no payday for going against the fossil fuel companies. This is deliberately obtuse. The red flags are everywhere. The science is settled--and science itself is the exact opposite of witch doctors and shamans. Those dogmatic structures are your guideposts. You align yourself to moneyed interests, politicians and truck-stop wisdom instead of a world full of scientists, science and data. Again, the level of delusion it requires to decide that scientists, governments, international bodies of all cultures and politics are coordinating a massive hoax--voluntarily submitting themselves to massive cost and pain to deal with a fictional problem--is incredible. It's "everyone is out to get me" listening to the voices in your head crazy.

That's pure rubbish. It's been politicized and you've chosen your bizarre dogma over actual science. You're no better equipped to evaluate a climate model than you are to discuss quantum entanglement, but still you believe politicians over actual scientists. It's lunacy.

How's that ignore list going for you? Do you need detailed instructions? Yes, there is overwhelming--utterly overwhelming--consensus among climatologists. It may not be 100% but it is certainly close. And no, there was no financial incentive to invent the concept of anthropogenic warming (which would have made the originators laughingstocks without data to support) nor has there been incentive to fake 40+ years of science--which is an absurd premise in the first place. All the money was and is on the other side of the fence. But even oil company scientists acknowledged warming. If you've got expertise and data to disprove the scientific consensus, go claim your Nobel prize. The world is waiting for anyone to deliver that good news if they can back it up. The level of conspiracy craziness you're wallowing in is just insane. Literally none of it makes sense. It's so out of touch with rationality and reason it's hard to know how you function in daily life.

Sure, the world is full of "faux scientists."?‍? You pretend that nothing has happened, while every we've started setting records for surface, ocean and atmospheric temperatures year after year. You're aggressively in denial, which is not a valid or helpful response to bad news. The world's scientists are not playing tricks on you. They're making you aware of inconvenient facts.

^^It's honestly difficult to characterize how dumb this is. It's your theory that thousands of intellectually gifted people (who could have done many more lucrative things), located around the world and across cultures and political systems, invested 10ish years each pursuing specialized higher education, so that they could abandon all of that science and play a long-running trick on us for the last 40 years? And with no monetary incentive, no less. Just lulz. None of them want the Nobel prize, or money or global acclaim that would come with debunking the "climate hoax." GTFO. Can you even grasp how crazy that idea is? It's like you showed up to say that there the link between cholesterol and heart disease is just doctors perpetrating a massive hoax because they are "medical activists." If it's just political noise, do better. If you honestly believe it, seek professional help.

Get back to me when you are more qualified than the world's climate scientists and have evidence to support it.

He's 100% right on that. There's no longer scientific debate about the fact of anthropogenic global warming. Just you folks who are burying your heads in the sand rather than facing an existential challenge head on. And it's completely irrelevant to the fact that US oil production is at record levels. The price of gasoline is not high because of Joe Biden or his accurate assessment of the need for clean energy. We have more domestic supply than we've ever had before, so why are you complaining about Biden? Force of habit?

1. US oil production is at record levels already. 2. Are you one of the ones who also complained when Biden released oil from the strategic reserve? When will you people learn that oil is a global commodity?

Boy, that's an odd response to discovering that your post was embarrassingly wrong. Guess you don't have "the balls" to acknowledge your mistakes and learn from them. You run along now and keep posting about your feelings and how manly you are while the adults in the room will deal in facts.

Point 2 here is particularly atrocious. You've made it clear that you're generally confused by charts and data, and indeed this chart has no hope of showing what you wish it showed. It's the wrong chart. BUT you don't need any skill in statistics to simply read the damn thing: "NOTE: All death rate data after 2019 are United Nations projections and therefore DO NOT include any impacts from COVID-19."

The fired guy being salty is no surprise, but people from his office confirmed that there was no investigation, Archer confirmed what the Burisma board was told (they wanted to keep Shokin). And remember, the entire Western world wanted Shokin fired because he was enabling corruption. He blocked a UK investigation of Burisma and that was the final straw. They decided enough was enough. This wasn't a Biden pet project or favor. It was the US government (Republicans included) the UK, the EU, the IMF and the Ukrainian people. That's why Joe was boasting about it. It's getting pretty kooky to reduce all of that to Joe doing a favor for Hunter. As for the money, I don't actually think Hunter got paid all that much in the grand scale of things. Certainly not enough to have others move and manipulate geopolitics at the highest levels. As Archer explained, that money didn't go right into their pockets. It went into the business and they took home a considerably smaller portion. -- it's a good salary for a company man, but it's simply not world-moving money. For a sense of scale, think of it this way: Joe made $16M+ in 2017 from books and speeches. And he can do that year after year. Nobody is impressed with Hunter's relative pittance or risking big paydays to help him earn it. What's universally agreed upon is that Hunter's market value was considerably higher because of who his father was. People will pay more if they think the relationship potentially includes that level of access and influence. It's also clear that Hunter played up that angle, riding his father's coat tails.

His positions are asinine-- just more populist idiocy. One has to be a literal crazy person to think that scientists around the world suddenly stopped competing to discover the truths of the natural universe and all just suddenly shifted to focus of perpetrating a hoax on the rest of us.

You have the facts incorrect. The prosecutor, Shokin, was NOT investigating Burisma. It was long dormant. In fact, he wasn't investigating any corruption and was widely understood to be enabling and benefiting from corruption. That's why the entire Western world and the Ukrainian people wanted him fired, and why Biden was publicly proud of executing that policy. Per the Archer testimony, Burisma's board was told that they had Shokin under control, and did not want him replaced with someone they didn't control. So no, Joe Biden acted against Burisma's interests in getting Shokin fired.

Ramaswamy is a rich kook with no political knowledge or experience. Gee, that sounds like a familiar recipe for disaster. But we don't have to worry about him. Republicans are who they are. They aren't going to nominate a brown man who won't even pretend to believe in Jesus.

That's pretty disingenuous. "Go there right now and stop the process that is underway right now or you won't have a country," is explicit in every sense of the word. He didn't tell then to attack the police or smash the doors, but for people who fell for his con, violence is a pretty reasonable response to what he positioned as an existential crisis. That's 100% why it happened. If he had given a more moderate speech there would have been no attack on the capitol.

Can I assume from this post that you acknowledge your error? That indeed, Trump did not simply get the crowd riled up and they decided on their own to go do things? That he explicitly directed them where to go, when to go, and set their objective? And that at best one might quibble about what a reasonable person would interpret as the desired level of force? A far, far cry from your description of events.

Yes, that's all true. We also saw in multiple court cases that those attacking the Capitol believed they were doing exactly what a Trump asked of them. Sure, they're kooks, but he helped make them that way and they received his not-so-subtle signals loud and clear.

1. Deficit by year 2. Data ending with FY 2022 3. Deficit dropping during the Biden admin, down dramatically from the Trump highs.

It really sounds like you haven't heard or read the speeches that were prelude to the attack on the Capitol. He explicitly told them where to go: to the Capitol. He explicitly told them when to go: right now. He explicitly told them to "stop the steal." The only point of equivocation is whether you believe, in combination with the explicit instructions and months of lies and priming, whether a reasonable person would expect that crowd to turn violent when he told them as he was wrapping up his speech, "And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." I think it's hard to argue that a reasonable person wouldn't expect violence from that crowd in those circumstances given those instructions. it's really not accurate to say that he riled them up and then they just decided what to do on their own. He explicitly told them when, where, what, and why. And he AT LEAST implicitly told them how, that they needed to fight against an existential crisis in this exact moment.

No, you didn't. Full stop. You are a liar. There was no "other video" of the convenience store robbery. The surveillance footage was released, by the police, and carried on CNN, FOX and other major networks the very same day it was released - 6 days after the killing on August 15. You can't produce another video. You can't show that it was released at an earlier date, because indeed it was not. But you will cling to your phony story like as an article of faith in and will repeat it ad nauseum. Your total inability to take in and process new information when it undermines your dogma is disordered behavior. You complain that people don't want to engage with the nonsense in your Gish gallops, but why would they? Seriously, when you can't even acknowledge the basic facts of a shared reality, why would anyone debate opinion? Seek professional help.

Nothing wrong with having people on ignore, but it takes a special kind of coward to shout about having someone on ignore, and then continue vto talk about and reply to that person. Congrats on the dubious achievement of finally being special. That was not a generic insult, BTW. I don't know ahy other poster who, regardless of debate topic, compulsively vomits forth the same litany of recycled accusations as if they are some religious mantra. It's exactly like the batshit crazy guy on the street corner preaching rehearsed and rehashed nonsense to any poor soul who happens to pass by. And yes, though CNN is not something I seek out, it's fairly decent news. I don't watch any televised news, but their online stories and excerpted broadcast segments are usually reasonable. They did not, for example, report that Michael Brown was a gentle giant. Nobody at CNN knew Michael Brown. Instead, they did what news organizations do: they interviewed friends and family and reported what the interviewees said. And guess what, when the police released the footage of the Brown robbery CNN ran it the same day, specifically citing the dueling narratives. ^^ This is not news to you. We've actually had this conversation multiple times. You falsely claimed that FOX ran the robbery video on the day Brown was killed - 6 days before police released that footage. I showed you time-stamped stories showing that both FOX and CNN ran the footage on the same day it was released (6 days after the killing) and still you couldn't manage to admit the error and absorb that fact into your perspective. Do you have a magic TV that can show you the future? No, of course not. But you're too farking crazy to adjust your facts, so you repeat the same debunked mantra ad nauseum. Seek professional help ASAP.

Oh, boy. Someone bumped the lunatic jukebox and now its stuck blaring out it's greatest top 40 fictional hits again. What a deeply defective conspiracy bot this one is.

She was fired from Biden's staff, literally, 30 years ago. Whatever she was back in 1993, she's clearly a nutball now.

You are being gross. We don't need a "liberal" version of Reason10. A man was killed, with lots of inputs leading to that outcome, but his friends and neighbors and family aren't giddy. The agents who opened fire aren't giddy. There's something wrong with you if this sad affair brings you joy.