hehehehehehehe

How 'bout this one?

http://skreened.com/republicantshirts/i-heart-american-flag-donald-trump

Love it!!!!

You sir, are an honorable man and I salute you... :D

If at all possible, get pics of your friends' reaction to it! :D heh

Michale

How 'bout this one?

http://skreened.com/republicantshirts/i-heart-american-flag-donald-trump

Please note the ' :D ' :D

Michale

Roberts was not alone in being denied a hearing or a vote by Biden. According to a report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), in 1992 Biden killed the nominations of 32 Bush appointees to the federal bench without giving them so much as a hearing. And that does not count an additional 20 nominations for the federal bench where Biden did not hold hearings that year, which CRS excluded from its count because they reached the Senate “within approximately [four] months before it adjourned.”

Basically, ya'all are accusing Republicans of playing politics with Judicial nominations.

But as I have proven beyond ANY doubt, it's nothing different than Democrats have said AND done...

So let's drop the holier-than-thou routine.. :D In the case of playing politics with Judicial nominations to further the agenda/advantage of a Party, there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans...

Michale

It IS true.. And I gave you the EXACT quote...

Now, you can use ANOTHER quote from Biden to argue...

But that doesn't change the FACT that Biden *DID* say exactly what the Republicans are saying now..

But, now that the shoe is on the other fit, NOW all of the sudden, "Biden didn't mean it.."

OK Fine.. Crawl into Biden's head and divine that Biden didn't mean it..

But you simply CANNOT argue that Biden didn't SAY it.. Because he did..

Why won't you read or listen to Biden's full remarks?

I did.. And I am taking the parts of the remarks that support my conclusion..

Just as you are.. :D

Michale

Well, that's excellent, if true. But, I've been following things relatively closely and I just have not heard the Republican leader of the Senate nor the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee say that they will do what Senator Biden advocated and support the president's nominee in an election year so long as the president "consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation."

If Republicans today have said anything like that, then I missed it but, I'm very happy to hear it!

Why won't you read or listen to Biden's full remarks?

That's a very good point as well..

I would love to see Obama nominate Sandoval and watch the Left Wingery's collective heads explode..

It would be more fun than watching McConnell as he grimaces, "Oh shit!! NOW what do we do!!???"

:D

Michale

So goes the myth that Democrats would "NEVER" let election politics taint the judicial nomination process.. :D

Michale

But the simple fact is in 1992, Biden said the EXACT same things that the GOP is saying now..

In 2007 Schumer said the EXACT same things that the GOP is saying now...

Now you can try to Gruber-rize it and claim they didn't MEAN what it obviously means..

But the simple fact is, the words were said and, without the fog of partisan ideology, the meaning is clear...

Michale

They sure are and the entirety of the speech is a fascinating glimpse back to a time when government functioned. Context is important....to some of us.

So very true.

Indeed, read or listen to any one of Biden's speeches on the Senate floor or anywhere else and the glimpse back to an era where politics was actually functional will be just as fascinating.

The Senate is an entirely different body today than what it was in Biden's time. His farewell address to the Senate was very illuminating.

Did I just say that? Heh.

What I meant to say was that the congressional Republicans remain clueless as to what may hurt them. Who do they think they are, anyway, Donald Trump?

And the words were very clear and very concise and completely unambiguous..

They sure are and the entirety of the speech is a fascinating glimpse back to a time when government functioned. Context is important....to some of us.

Of course he (and ya'all) want to walk them back NOW, because the shoe is on the other foot..

Again, if you need a paragraph from a speech taken out of context to sleep at night all the more power to you...If one reads the entirety of the speech one realizes quickly there is nothing to walk back. But just in case we need to clarify, here is a little gem from Biden on the matter....

"Nearly a quarter century ago, in June 1992, I gave a lengthy speech on the Senate floor about a hypothetical vacancy on the Supreme Court, Some critics say that one excerpt of my speech is evidence that I oppose filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year. This is not an accurate description of my views on the subject."

Doesn't sound like a walk back to me...Just saying....

But that doesn't change the fact that the words were very clear..

Since we are big on clear words, here is a little gem from McConnell in 2005.

"regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. "

Pretty clear Eh?

Just to wet your appetite for more of what Biden said, here is a small snippet of his remarks:

"I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate,” he said. “Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President [George H.W. Bush] consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.”

Well, you must read or listen to them, first.

And, then you will know that there is no need to walk them back.

In fact, once you actually read or listen to Biden's full remarks, you will immediately realize who knows what they're talking about on this issue and who doesn't.

In any event, I expect President Obama to nominate someone whose credentials and qualifications preclude any serious attempt by the congressional Republicans to derail the confirmation process as they may do so at their own distinct peril.

JL

If McConnell sticks to his guns and refuses to process the nominee, it will indicate that he is confident of a GOP White House win in November...

If McConnell caves and processes Obama's Republican nominee, it will indicate that McConnell is not real sure of a GOP White House win...

Michale

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... Or the one.."

'nuff said... :D

Michale

But, kudos on the movie quote.. :D

Michale

And the words were very clear and very concise and completely unambiguous..

Of course he (and ya'all) want to walk them back NOW, because the shoe is on the other foot..

But that doesn't change the fact that the words were very clear..

But it's a moot point.. Obama appears to be ready to nominate a Republican to the SCOTUS bench, so, the GOP will likely do what you want them to do and process the nomination...

Happy? :D

Michale

You should listen to the whole speech Biden gave in 1992 Re. nominating Supreme Court justices during a presidential campaign.

It's easy to misinterpret what Biden says because, what Biden says is so often very lengthy and informative and not too many people have the capacity for listening attentively for the length of time required.

As always, when Biden speaks, people become better informed ... IF they choose to listen ...

Biden may have said those words at a different point in time..

But that's not what he said when I quoted him..

I know it is hard to do sometimes but....try a little leg work vs just relying on click bait. The quote I supplied came later in the speech you were utilizing for your quote....

Just to make it even clearer...

As I say, some view this position as contentious, while others, I suspect--in fact, I know, and the Presiding Officer knows as well as I do--will say that I am not being contentious enough. They suggest that since the Court has moved so far to the right already, it is too late for a progressive Senate to accept compromise candidates from a conservative administration. They would argue that the only people we should accept are liberal candidates, which are not going to come, nor is it reasonable to expect them to come, from a conservative Republican President.

Once a nomination is made, the evaluation process begins, Mr. President. And here there has been a dramatic change from the Bork nomination in 1987 to the Thomas nomination in 1991.

Gold Five: Stay on target.
Gold Leader: We're too close!
Gold Five: Stay on target!

Star Wars 1977....

So I still contend that what the GOP is doing is unprecedented and again not doing the job they are obligated to perform.

The GOPers should go through the process, if they don't like the nominee they don't have to vote for him....isn't that how divided government is supposed to work.? It seems to me that Biden is making that claim.

Unless, of course, it's you or one of your loved ones...

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point..

In my book, NO privacy is worth an innocent life...

Michale

I already linked [133] to an NYT article about all the other iphones to be unlocked via the All Writs Act. See Google's ventures in China to understand the likelihood of China and other governments demanding whatever access the FBI manages to get. Hardly hysterical fear mongering if it's all in the pipeline already or there is a decent amount of precedent that has already happened, or both in this case.

Is the personal privacy of ANYONE more important than saving lives???

Yes. The personal privacy of EVERYONE is more important than saving a few lives...

But to answer your question: see comment [113] above.

So, all you have is hysterical fear mongering...

Even if true, so what..

Do you WANT terrorists and child molesters and scumbag criminals have a secure way to commit their crimes???

Is the personal privacy of ANYONE more important than saving lives???

Mine sure as hell ain't...

Michale

And yet you can't provide an example. Interesting that...

Yea?? Like what?

Really? Are you sure you have experience in this area?

But to answer your question: see comment [113] above.

Yea?? Like what?

Really, could you show me where I have said anything close to this?

Your fealty to Obama is well documented.. Just read chrisweigant.com Sep of 2006 thru the present.. :D

Michale

it's been about six years since that was enough for me. nonetheless, comey seems to be about as straight a shooter as there is. he'd make an interesting supreme court pick were the president so inclined...

JL

Yes it does! :D

Apple's undue burden is that their marketing takes a hit.

Big whoop...

A lot more at stake than some marketing...

That's always been good enough for you in the past...

Really, could you show me where I have said anything close to this? Or are you going to pull your lazy standby that not saying something means automatic acquiescence?

And your vast experience in the field tells you this?? :D

And yet I don't see you calling for the confiscation of all guns or reducing the speed limit to 35 MPH. Both would save countless innocent lives but come with undue burden.

The "undue burden" may be MORE lives lost..

Apple's undue burden is that their marketing takes a hit.

Big whoop...

If Comey is going to blatantly lie to the American people and his agents act somewhat keystone copish, I think there is grounds for some doubt. Can we really trust the FBI's investigation into Hillary's email server at this point?

Obama trusts him..

That's always been good enough for you in the past...

Michale

Anyone here want to apologize to Perry??

:D

Michale

Highly unlikely. The two terrorists showed quite good OpSec with destroying their personal phones, running fake facebook accounts and their computer hard drive has yet to be found. The FBI already screwed up by having the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health reset the icloud password in the hours after the attack, preventing a possible backup that Apple could turn over and have done so in other cases (they should have known). It looks like the FBI wants the data on the phone to tie up the investigation rather than uncover terrorist plots. Some of the victims were contacted by that phone in the month leading up to the attack. Considering it's his work phone and he killed his co-workers, I find that a bit dubious in value...

Seems to me that there is no burden that is "undue", if it saves one innocent life..

And yet I don't see you calling for the confiscation of all guns or reducing the speed limit to 35 MPH. Both would save countless innocent lives but come with undue burden. So, saving innocent lives only matter when it aligns with your political bias? Or were you just trying an appeal to emotion?

Some more proof [NYT] that Comey is a lying sack of shit. Nine more iphones waiting for help to unlock under the All Writs Act.

They can be trusted... Right???

If Comey is going to blatantly lie to the American people and his agents act somewhat keystone copish, I think there is grounds for some doubt. Can we really trust the FBI's investigation into Hillary's email server at this point?

How do you define "undue burden" in the context of the fact that there may be intel on that iPhone that could prevent another terrorist attack??

Call me silly, but (taking the page from the Global Warming fanatics) if there is even a 1% chance that there is intel on that phone that could save lives, I would think the bar for "undue burden" would be very very high...

Seems to me that there is no burden that is "undue", if it saves one innocent life..

But of course, Apple feels that their marketing is more important than that...

When all is said and done, Apple has a court order and the owner's permission...

That's all that is needed..

After all... It's OBAMA's FBI and OBAMA's DOJ...

They can be trusted... Right???

"Riiiggghhtt?? Buddy???"
-Woody, TOY STORY

:D

Michale

You were here during the Bush years, right??

I heard it PLENTY then... :D

Michale

If the president consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.

Biden may have said those words at a different point in time..

But that's not what he said when I quoted him..

In either case I feel that it is high time that some arseholes that we are paying a nice salary to get to doing their jobs....and if they make the wrong decision they should put on their big boy pants and pay for it at the polls.

I feel the same way.. But I ALSO felt the same way when the Democrats in the Senate refused to pass a budget...

Unfortunately it will be a cold day in hell before that happens since EVERYONE is to busy walking the fine line of getting suckers to vote for them while remaining beholden to their owners...ooops I mean donors...

yup.....

Michale

I think you forgot some more words so I fixed it for you....

If the president consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.

Now don't get me wrong here, I will agree with you that D and R have both placed their stamps on the supreme nom process, it's politics afterall, but this level of obstructionism is quite frankly disgusting and unheard of.

Perhaps I am viewing it through the simple lens of Scalia, Article 2 section 2....uses the word shall alot and has nothing on time constraints in a presidents term or the Senate not performing the process of nomination in a election year. It clearly states what the Executive and the Legislative branches shall do.

To me it is simple, the president nominates and the senate either votes yes or no on the individual and in a perfect world of functional government both sides argle bargle about how they got screwed and the american public weighs in if they think the legislative or executive got it wrong. Maybe the congress critters listen or more than likely won't.

In either case I feel that it is high time that some arseholes that we are paying a nice salary to get to doing their jobs....and if they make the wrong decision they should put on their big boy pants and pay for it at the polls.

Unfortunately it will be a cold day in hell before that happens since EVERYONE is to busy walking the fine line of getting suckers to vote for them while remaining beholden to their owners...ooops I mean donors...

I seem to have a vague recollection of promising you that I wouldn't refer to Joe Biden as Uncle Joe anymore..

If I had promised that, then I do apologize for doing so..

Channeling my inner Bob Seger was just too much temptation to resist.. :D

Michale

GOP Judiciary: No hearing on Obama court nominee
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/270423-gop-judiciary-no-hearing-on-obama-court-nominee

Uncle Joe has spoken...

"You remember Uncle Joe.. He was the one afraid to cut the cake."

:D

Michale

U.S. judge orders discovery to go forward over Clinton’s private email system

A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that State Department officials and top aides to Hillary Clinton should be questioned under oath about whether they intentionally thwarted federal open records laws by using or allowing the use of a private email server throughout Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/us-judge-weighs-deeper-probe-into-clintons-private-email-system/2016/02/23/9c27412a-d997-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html

Top aides to a Presidential Candidate being questioned UNDER OATH during the midst of the campaign...

Something about chickens, coming home and roosting come to mind.. :D

Michale

Yea, that's what you keep claiming..

Yet, we never see the evidence to support the claim.. :D

Funny I would have thought the only argument that matters is whether custom building a new operating system for helping breaking in to a single phone would be an "undue burden" under the All Writs Act.

"You would think so... Yet, here we are..."
-Homer Simpson

:D

Michale

It's that simple...

Funny I would have thought the only argument that matters is whether custom building a new operating system for helping breaking in to a single phone would be an "undue burden" under the All Writs Act.

Because I have played this game too many times only to have you bring it up again, and again, and again. I posted an accurate model. You acknowledged it. You brought it up again and I linked back too it. At some point you are either lying or have Alzheimers, which is it?

It's that simple...

Michale

Exactly... :D

Michale

Why can't you prove I am lying? :D

Because I am not.. :D

Michale

Yawn. Already have. Try reading...

SBCDPH has authorized the FBI to act on it's behalf..

So, you have nothing...

Appealing to emotion makes one a lying sack of shit?? You just incriminated the entirety of the Left Wingery.. :D hehehehehe

And still nothing...

Funny.. You didn't seem to think that when Comey was slapping down President Bush...

Did I? Please point the post out where I did so...

“It is worth noting as well that the user of the phone is now dead, the user was made aware of his lack of privacy on the work phone while alive, and the owner of the phone consents to both the search of the phone and to Apple’s assistance in this matter,” according to the court document.
http://www.sbsun.com/general-news/20160217/san-bernardinos-irc-shooting-investigation-thwarted-by-apple-inc

"No studying... {{harrumph}}"
-Peter Venkmen, GHOSTBUSTERS

:D

Michale

Why do you keep lying?

And the fact that you have yet to show ANY Global Warming prediction or ANY Global Warming model that has been accurate...

Why wasn't the Global Warming pause accurately predicted??

Wait.. Don't tell me.. Let me guess. There IS no Global Warming pause..

Yea.. And there wasn't any MWP either. :D

Do ya'all make up this stuff as you go along?? :D

"Do you think he plans it all out, or just makes it up as he goes along?"
-First Mate, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN, On Stranger Tides

:D

Michale

By all means. Make the argument... :D

Also, can you link to this relevant fact? I have yet to see where the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health is asking for the phone to be modified. The court order only specifically mentions the FBI.

SBCDPH has authorized the FBI to act on it's behalf..

Slathering on the emotional BS while trying to make it seem this is just a one time request in his response to Apple makes him a lying sack of shit.

Appealing to emotion makes one a lying sack of shit?? You just incriminated the entirety of the Left Wingery.. :D hehehehehe

Or possibly a incompetent idiot.

Funny.. You didn't seem to think that when Comey was slapping down President Bush...

Funny how that is, eh? :D

Michale

You mean the only relevant fact to the argument you want to make. Quite a few other relevant facts in the situation...

Also, can you link to this relevant fact? I have yet to see where the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health is asking for the phone to be modified. The court order only specifically mentions the FBI.

As to Comey being a "lying sack of shit"... Do you have ANY evidence to support such a claim??

Comey is a lawyer. He has been one most of his career. He knows this is not a one time request. Once Apple succumbs to the All Writs Act, judges will order it again, and not just Apple, other tech companies as well. China and other foreign government will also make these requests. Slathering on the emotional BS while trying to make it seem this is just a one time request in his response to Apple makes him a lying sack of shit. Or possibly a incompetent idiot. Take your pick...

Obama launches ANOTHER illegal plan to close Gitmo.. Yaaawwnnn...

I guess MY plan of just taking all the scumbags out, shooting them and feeding them to the sharks didn't get to Obama...

Republicans *AND* Democrats have told Obama emphatically and without equivocation... NO!

Which means Obama is going to do it anyways....

Color me surprised... :^/ NOT...

Michale

But you have already conceded that humans can't control climate..

NOW you are claiming they can..

No wonder you always lose these debates...

:D

Michale

Not for the same reason that you refuse to link any accurate model or prediction, I can tell you that. :D

You mean all the evidence you can't seem to come up with? Are you going to cut and paste from a denier site again? Yawn.

Read the works of Judith Curry or Richard Lindzen plus tens of thousands of other REAL scientists...

Unlike you, I always source my claims..

More bullshit, eh? I have linked to it at least twice in previous discussions, and you allegedly looked at it at least once.

yea, that's what you always claim.. Yet you never actually have any facts to support the claim. :D

ontrol ever so slightly is another name for affect. Launch every nuke, you will change the climate quite drastically.

No.. It will change the WEATHER drastically.. Climate is measure in aeons.. You lose.. :D

Well, that's your accusation. Can you back it up with anything other than faulty logic?

Can you refute it?

Nope... Ergo.. :D

Michale

There is no chance the earth will be destroyed but that is not what I said about extinction. Try reading again. Plus you make these allegations about the hysterical left but can never seem to link to them when asked. Why is that?

That's the theory.. And there IS some scientific evidence that supports that theory.. Just as there is some scientific evidence that DISPUTES the theory. It is THAT scientific evidence that all of you ignore..

You mean all the evidence you can't seem to come up with? Are you going to cut and paste from a denier site again? Yawn.

And don't think I didn't notice how you, once again, fail to provide ANY evidence of an accurate computer model or prediction that supports the Global Warming theory...

More bullshit, eh? I have linked to it at least twice in previous discussions, and you allegedly looked at it at least once.

And, to REVERSE that affect means that we would need CONTROL of the climate, no matter how slight..

Control ever so slightly is another name for affect. Launch every nuke, you will change the climate quite drastically. Stop burning all fossil fuel, you will affect the climate. Turn the Sahara in to a lush jungle? Nope we do not have that control yet.

Ergo, the entire Global Warming issue is nothing but a redistribution of wealth con...

Well, that's your accusation. Can you back it up with anything other than faulty logic?

I just found out that George Zimmerman works in the gun shop right next door to my computer shop!!

I have GOT to meet that guy!!! :D

Michale

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3459573/The-shocking-moment-accused-woman-shoplifter-slammed-ground-Florida-cop-left-pool-blood-gaping-head-wound.html#newcomment

You fight the law... The law wins...

Every time....

Michale

And, to REVERSE that affect means that we would need CONTROL of the climate, no matter how slight..

Control, which you just conceded is not possible in the here and now..

Ergo, the entire Global Warming issue is nothing but a redistribution of wealth con...

Michale

From the mouth of god, in a manner of speaking.. :D

I believe that lays the matter to rest.. :D

Michale

"because I believe a thing to be true, it must be true."

:D

Michale

:D

Michale

The fact that there may be relevant data on the iPhone to prevent another terrorist attack is not relevant to the issue.. It certainly is important and ANY intel gleaned from the iPhone pertaining to terrorism would be useful...

But all of that is not relevant.

The ONLY relevant fact of this case is that the ***OWNER*** of the iPhone has requested that it be unlocked...

THAT is the only fact that matters...

As to Comey being a "lying sack of shit"... Do you have ANY evidence to support such a claim??

Or is that just your natural anti-cop bias?? :D

Michale

I did.. You said there is no chance that the planet is going to be destroyed and that there is no chance that the human race will become extinct..

Ergo, anyone who claims that such can happen is indulging in hysterical fear mongering..

And there is the problem in a nutshell. We can't control the planet's climate. But we can and have affected it.

That's the theory.. And there IS some scientific evidence that supports that theory.. Just as there is some scientific evidence that DISPUTES the theory. It is THAT scientific evidence that all of you ignore..

What part of that ***fact*** do you NOT understand???

The asterisks.

Emphasis..

"Dooooyyyyyy!!"
-Vanillope Von Schweet, WRECK IT RALPH

:D

Michale

As you yourself just admitted...

No, not even close to what I said. Try reading again...

Humans CAN'T control the planet's climate...

And there is the problem in a nutshell. We can't control the planet's climate. But we can and have affected it.

What part of that ***fact*** do you NOT understand???

The asterisks.

.... the DAY/NIGHT cycle..

WE SIMPLY MUST STOP THE PLANET FROM ROTATING TO SAVE ALL THOSE MILLIONS, POSSIBLY BILLIONS OF LIVES THAT DIE BECAUSE OF THE NIGHT!!!

Yea.. That sounds as ridiculous as your claim... :D

Humans CAN'T control the planet's climate...

What part of that ***fact*** do you NOT understand???

Michale

Oh bullshit.. That's all we hear from the Hysterical Left...

We only have 10 years to save the planet!!!

This confab is the LAST chance to save the planet!!!

It is NOTHING but hysterical fear-mongering..

As you yourself just admitted...

As the only one around here that consistently brings this subject up, maybe you should be asking yourself that question...

Actually, more often than not, I only bring it up in response to someone else bringing it up..

In this particular commentary, it was Neil...

Michale

Humans are NOT in danger of becoming extinct...

True, but few if any in the scientific community has ever made those predictions. Millions, possibility billions of humans are likely to die in the next hundred to two hundred years directly from climate change if we keep going in the direction we are currently. Or at least that's the range of predictions I have seen. There are some "worst case we can possibly think of" scenarios that have a human extinction, but more speculative thinking than anything that has been properly investigated.

Can we now shut up about climate change??

As the only one around here that consistently brings this subject up, maybe you should be asking yourself that question...

The planet is NOT in danger of being destroyed...

Humans are NOT in danger of becoming extinct...

Can we now shut up about climate change??

Michale

Then you might want to clue in the Hysterical Left Wingery...

Because that's their whiney cry... Humans are "destroying the planet"...

climate change theory is new enough that it hasn't yet reached the status of scientific law,

And yet, the afore mentioned Hysterical Left Wingery is claiming that "the science is settled"...

Now you are saying that it's a new theory and as such, it's NOT settled science..

Which is it??

The problem is not change in and of itself but, rather the rate of change and the irreversibility of it and what we need to do now in order to be able to both adapt to the change and to mitigate what we can of the destructive consequences of that change.

And yet, humans can't control the weather...

How do you propose that humans control the climate??

More bullshit, eh? The first time I provided you with an accurate model to which you acquiesced.

You haven't provided an "accurate" model..

You're just a broken record on this subject. How many times do I have to confirm that the planet will still be here even on the extreme end of climate change? Humans will almost certainly be here as well...

Then speak out against the fear mongering of the Hysterical Left Wingery that claims ad nasuem that humans are destroying the planet...

Michale

More bullshit, eh? The first time I provided you with an accurate model to which you acquiesced. The next time you brought up the exact same question you challenged the model. It's still a valid question. How accurate does a model have to be? Perfect to a millionth of a degree at all times or just to the constraints of the model builders? Somewhere in between? You are the one dodging the question with the "is is" crap...

The climate has ALWAYS changed.. The climate will CONTINUE to change with or without humans present..

And no one has ever disputed that. It's the speed of change that is important.

PROVE that it's a threat to the survival of the planet..

You're just a broken record on this subject. How many times do I have to confirm that the planet will still be here even on the extreme end of climate change? Humans will almost certainly be here as well...

Yes, the climate is constantly changing. That is a given.

The problem is not change in and of itself but, rather the rate of change and the irreversibility of it and what we need to do now in order to be able to both adapt to the change and to mitigate what we can of the destructive consequences of that change.

global warming isn't a threat to the planet, just to species unable to adapt to dramatic changes, such as us humans. michale, your habit is to demand ironclad proof of scientific claims, but that's not how science works. nothing is absolute; not even those principles so thoroughly proven we refer to them as "laws." just because you treat science as if it were a religion doesn't make it one.

there is a piano hanging over your head, and the rope holding the piano is fraying. based on the law of gravity, we can infer that it will eventually fall on your head. it may take many years of failed research to figure out exactly when or at what angle, but doubts about whether it will fall are so infinitesimal as to be meaningless.

climate change theory is new enough that it hasn't yet reached the status of scientific law, but it's getting closer - political movements on either side notwithstanding.

JL

But you have yet to prove that said piano poses a threat..

Yes, the climate is changing...

The climate has ALWAYS changed.. The climate will CONTINUE to change with or without humans present..

PROVE that it's a threat to the survival of the planet..

You can't...

Ergo, it's ALL faith...

Michale

You haven't yet at all..

The first time we discussed this, you refused to provide ANY facts until I defined what "accurate" meant.. I responded that is true Clintonian in nature, putting forth the debate as what the definition of "is" is...

That's where THAT discussion was left..

Then, a bit ago, you once again brought up the illusion that you have already refuted this.. I then responded with the same facts I mentioned above.. Towhit, you refuse to provide any evidence to support your claims until I give you the definition of "accurate"..

And that's where it stands..

You want to provide ANY evidence of ANY *ACCURATE* computer models or predictions made by the Global Warming religious fanatics....

By all means.. Do so...

Michale

in the grand scheme, the accuracy of predictive models is not particularly relevant to climate observation. i can incorrectly predict twenty thousand times that a piano will fall on you, but that still won't disprove the fact that the piano is hanging above your head.

that said, newer IPCC models predict fairly well the long-term trends in ocean temperatures and changes in sea level. air holds a much smaller percentage of the earth's heat, so predictions of surface air temperature will be less reliable.

JL

We're talking FLAT OUT wrong. EVERY ONE of them..

And just how many times do I have to prove this is total bullshit?

you're objectively wrong on global warming. predictive climate models have always been inexact.

We're not talking "inexact"...

We're talking FLAT OUT wrong. EVERY ONE of them..

More later... Got to run...

Michale

The FBI is using an emotionally charged event to unlock a phone of dubious value to get a legal precedent that will reduce the security of everyone's electronic devices. World wide.

Oh, and your "honorable" James Comey is a lying sack of shit who is doing exactly what you usually rail against but evidently gets a pass because of political (or possibly law enforcement) bias...

you're objectively wrong on global warming. predictive climate models have always been inexact. measurements of ocean temperature and airborne carbon, much less so. basically, we've observed a piano hanging over your head by fraying rope, and you're saying it might not exist because nobody has yet accurately predicted just when or in which direction it will fall.

I think the only salient point is that the *OWNER* of the iPhone has stated they want it cracked..

That should be the only fact that matters...

Michale

I am willing to entertain the possibility if there is any factual evidence to support it..

But being that Trump trounced, I don't think that's the case..

If so, which side will that help in November?

IF so it will help the Democrats...

But what's more likely is that the Right Wingery is enthused and excited about a Trump Presidency..

If so, which side will that help in November? :D

Michale

Do you think the turnout numbers might be driven by people wanting to vote against the crazy? If so, which side will that help in November?

The GOP has had record turnout...

The Dem has seen their turnout numbers slide..

That doesn't bode well for the Democrat Party in the General...

Michale

Michale

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/05/26/the-gop-race-at-the-bottom/#comment-59776

:D

Michale

Well, it WAS a T-Shirt bet..

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/06/09/program-note-49/#comment-60163

Narrowing it down.. :D

Michale

"GOOD TA SEE YA!!!"
-Billy Madison

:D

Michale- I think I lose a bet about Jeb Bush. But I can't remember what it was. Only that I thought Jeb would win the primary as the establishment candidate.

Boy ... did I ever blow that one! What'd we bet again? Do you remember?

I think it was a t-shirt bet, but beyond that.. Lemme see what I can dig up.. :D

Remember a time-frame???

Michale

The green profiteers may be self interested hypocrites, but that doesn't make them wrong.

Those who use Citizens United to their financial benefit may be self interested hypocrites, but that doesn't make them wrong.. :D

But you are absolutely right. The fact that they are profiting from their con does not make them wrong..

It's the fact that there has never been ONE SINGLE MODEL that has been accurate, the fact that there has never been ONE SINGLE PREDICTION that has come to pass....

THAT's what makes them wrong...

The oceans are warmer, the icebergs are smaller,

And no other possible explanation?? During the day, do you see that big huge orange/yellow thingy in the sky??

Are you trying to tell me that 6 billion people are more powerful than that??? :D

the human race may not be long for this world.

Probably not... But that has nothing to do with humans effect on the climate..

GT,

Of COURSE burning fossil fuels causes problems.. Launching every nuclear missile on the planet will cause "problems"...

But will it effect the CLIMATE of an entire planet measured out over eons??

No, it won't...

Humans on the planet is like a man sitting in a dingy in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.. He unzips and pisses into the ocean.. Yea, it's probably not the best thing to happen for that immediate vicinity.. But the idea that it could affect the entire chemical makeup of the entire ocean and could actually RAISE the level of the entire ocean??

Ridiculous...

Basically, Global Warming is a religion.. You have one group of priests (scientists) that say one thing. And then you have another group of priests (scientists) who say that the first group is utterly and completely wrong...

It's the Protestants and Catholics without the bloodshed and terrorism...

The Global Warming con is built completely and utterly on faith..

For every "scientist" you can point to that says Global Warming will kill us all in 30 days, I can point to an equally renown scientist who says the first scientist is full of shit..

So, you COULD be right about humans effect on the planet..

But you COULD also be wrong..

But ya'all can't admit that because you have faith...

Neil,

I've dived right down to the scientific papers, read all the counter arguments from the deniers, and it is obvious to any non-biased person what the reality is.

Do you accept the science of those who dispute the Global Warming theory as valid science??

No??

So, who'se the denier?? :D

That says it all right there..

You only believe YOUR "priests"...

The other "priests"?? Well, they must be heretics..

That's why ya'all simply CAN'T win a Global Warming debate...

Because your entire argument is based on faith.. Faith that the "facts" you follow are accurate...

If you could point to a SINGLE MODEL that has been accurate, a SINGLE PREDICTION that has come to pass... Then you MIGHT have a valid argument...

But you can't, so you don't...

Michale

I am, however, completely with you that Scalia was one of the worst justices ever. The idea that Supreme Court decisions should come down to who can make up the best bullshit about what some people who've been dead for over 200 years thought about the Constitution should go down as one of the lamest philosophies in history.

If Scalia had any balls, he'd say "Here's what I think ...". Instead, he takes what he thinks and tries to hide it behind some people who've been dead for over 200 years.

Worst. Justice. Ever.

Michale- I think I lose a bet about Jeb Bush. But I can't remember what it was. Only that I thought Jeb would win the primary as the establishment candidate.

Boy ... did I ever blow that one! What'd we bet again? Do you remember?

Sorry ... things been real busy lately.

-David

I'm not doing the climate science argument with you. I've been there too often on Disqus with deniers to be bothered any longer.

I've dived right down to the scientific papers, read all the counter arguments from the deniers, and it is obvious to any non-biased person what the reality is.

I'm just a bit more optimistic than most on the solution side.

So...glad to see that you have completely ignored the fact that one of the worlds most profitable companies and one of the worlds most profitable special interest groups was made well aware of the problems of burning fossil fuels by their own scientists not by some green interest group.

Answer me this....If the science is so flawed why then did Exxon and the API decide they need to not only bury the science but spend 10s of millions of dollars to set up shell groups to attempt to call the science into doubt before it leaked out. If the science is balderdash why not just publish the hell out of it and let other scientists do the work for you?

I assume since you don't buy into humans altering the climate, you also have issues with acid rain, holes in the ozone layer, and smog.....

Has the planet ever been warmer in the past??

Yes it has...

Did human beings cause THAT warming??

No, they did not...

So, basically what ya'all are saying is that all the other times, it was something else..

But THIS time... Ooooo THIS time... it HAS to be humans..

Human beings could no more affect the climate of the entire planet than they could affect the ORBIT of the planet...

It's simply not within the realm of their current technology...

I mean, look at it..

Humans can't even SCRATCH the surface of WEATHER CONTROL...

And ya'all want to control the planet's CLIMATE!!????

What have ya'all been smoking!?? :D

Michale

As for actually winning the Presidential Election, Rubio is now the top BF rated Republican, with an 18% probability compared to Trump's 15%. Cruz is given only 1%.

As I interpret these results, the Betfair markets see SC as a tactical victory for Trump (a small number of delegates at round one of the convention) but a strategic defeat. With just 2 candidates left, Trump has lost his most potent weapon: the ability to divide and conquer the GOP. It's now a quasi Tea Party candidate Trump vs a quasi Establishment Rubio. It's not that Trump has done badly overall. Far from it, he may yet end up President - but it's basically a dead heat, with Rubio ahead by a nose. That's a big shift in the political landscape as described by the punters of Betfair. Jeb._ is gone and I suspect Cruz will have pull the plug fairly soon.

Yea???

By flying around in private airplanes and driving around in private limos and dumping MILLIONS of tons of carbon into the atmosphere and preaching, "SEND ME MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND YE SHALL BE SAVED!!!!"

Face it....

The facts CLEARLY show that Global Warming fanatics are nothing more than televangelists for the 21st century....

Michale

And yet, not ONE SINGLE thing is being done to stop us from "screwing up" the planet..

So-called scientists and doomsayers and politicians and lobbyists are STILL driving their cars, STILL smoking their cigarettes, STILL flying hither and yonder... Getting rich by the millions and BILLIONs while they still pollute the planet...

They claim that we have mere YEARS before the point of no-return is reached...

And yet... they do NOTHING to stall it...

They preach and they bitch and they moan about what OTHER people should and should not do..

But THEY don't do shit..

So.. Forgive me if I don't accept their political correctness.

When THEY start walking the walk, then... AND ONLY THEN... will I even consider their talk...

Global Warming is a political con.. Pure and simple... EVERY prediction... EVERY model has been WRONG...

There is not a SINGLE prediction, a SINGLE model that has ever come to pass...

It's really that simple...

Michale

Looks like Trump is just another PCer who called for the removal of the confederate flag from South Carolina.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/donald-trump-confederate-flag-119325