monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@Lash,

Quote:

Watching, crowing. Depends on the perspective of the one choosing verbs.

Not really, the author of the article was crowing.

1 Reply

@camlok,

camlok wrote:

Quote:
This sort of back and forth is pointless.

You don't understand much about science, do you?

No, I guess not...and I'm evil.

Why don't you educate me on "science"

1 Reply

@camlok,

camlok wrote:

Let's allow that one, even though it is a lie.

It is perfectly true.

camlok wrote:

That puts the USA far ahead in its vicious war crimes against over seventy sovereign nations, all those tens of millions murdered by the beacon of freedom.

Those supposed war crimes are a figment of your imagination.

camlok wrote:

There was no South Korea. It was a US orchestrated figment. The US collaborated with Japanese troops to murder many of the south's people and then the US brought in its brutal, right wing dictator, right wing and brutal and vicious like you love to illustrate you are in all your posts.

Oh nonsense. Why does it bother you that much that we prevented a brutal tyranny from overrunning the people of South Korea.

Do you really hate the South Koreans that much?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

oralloy wrote:
I bet if I were to look into the matter again, I'd find that the alleged scientists were still skewing their data.

Let's bet the survival of the next two or three generations, shall we?

I'm not going to give credence to skewed data. Period.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

So you are saying the Kim Dynasty has not killed millions of it's people? Stop being obtuse.

Stop being just another brainwashed American. Provide something to back up your point.

Ask yourself how many Americans would be slaughtered if the tables were reversed. Consider how many the US has slaughtered just to steal others wealth.

Isn't that crass. I'm sure there are many other adjectives much more appropriate that you could come up with to describe the deep evil that is the USA. Look at how willing "they"are to murder their own just to get their evil put into another war policy.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

You make the rules, or are you a member of that committee in Norway?

One does not have to be a member of the Nobel Temper Tantrum Squad to take notice when they scream and fling their rattle across the room.

0 Replies

@camlok,

You didn't answer my question.

This is becoming a pattern.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

camlok: You are the guy who would see all Syrians murdered to save your grandson.

Finn: Guilty as charged.

How many times should such deep evil be pointed out?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Remember "shock and awe?" That worked.

Shock and Awe was a proposal for a sudden strike with an immense number of precision weapons that would make Saddam's government and military essentially vanish while leaving civilians unscathed.

It was never carried out. It was publicized just before the war as misdirection so that Saddam would focus his defensive efforts in the wrong areas.

izzythepush wrote:

It does give the impression that Trump is doing something, and has already been seen on this thread the idiots who voted for him are lapping it up, and that's why Trump dropped the bomb in the first place.

Trump didn't have this MOAB dropped. And it isn't the Trump voters who keep obsessing over the fact that it was used.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I'm confident that the military planners involved are breathlessly awaiting Blatham's confirmation.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

I think your 99% is very inflated.

There isn't a field in the world that can boast of 99% ethical conformity.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

The number of scientists who deny man-made global warming represent about 3% of the scientific community.

NASA (infamous commie group) has a very good site up
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

This is a common mischaracterization of the debate. Al Gore, Michael Mann & co started out with rather wildly exaggerated predictions of rapid warming and even more rapid increases of the rate of warming that simply didn't materialize. More reasoned analysis by a wider group of scientists, now augmented by much improved world wide data (it's still not perfect - the earth has no simple thermometer) has yielded much smaller estimates of expected warming. The problem is complex and the earth's geological history involves cycles of warming and cooling and variations in CO2 levels that sometimes confound presumed cause and effect - there are many other variables involved here. Recent analysis demonstrates that the recent observed changes in earth's temperature correlate better with CO2 concentrations than any other variable studied, but that's where it stands.

The debate today involves the effects of the expected warming (both good and bad) and what to do about it. There's no shortage of BS on either side of this argument. The tradeoffs involve effectiveness in reducing warming, cost and the side effects of proposed "solutions" on the sustained life and welfare of the earth's 7 billion human inhabitants. Current policies involving reducing energy demand and "renewable" wind & solar technologies will not solve the problem without massive adverse effects on humanity, and all that goes with it. Time and expected new technologies are factors that should be considered, along with the often little noticed adverse effects of subsidies for current marginally effective technologies on investment in newer, better ones. The rejection by environmentalists of proven technologies such as nuclear power should also be reevaluated.

Finally we need to face the issue of whether we should seek an authoritarian world-wide solution to such a problem. There is the little detail of human history to consider here. It doesn't provide much encouragement for that prospect, and the faithfulness of signatories to the various conventions already signed is ample proof of that.

Meanwhile folks look for a way to bell the cat, while condemning the skeptical critics..

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

"They just see the data differently".
Welcome to the realm of alternate facts.

You're a climate scientist? Who knew?

0 Replies

@camlok,

camlok wrote:

Dog almighty, you are deeply propagandized, georgeob1, or like Finn, just deeply evil.
Or, so deeply evil that you spread what you know is rank US propaganda.

So you hate the people of Ukraine too, and wish upon them a brutal oppressor?

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

No, I guess not...and I'm evil.

No back and forth needed there.

Quote:

Why don't you educate me on "science"

Ummmm, first "back and forth" is the essence of science. That is exactly what scientists do.

Why are we even having this discussion? I thought you had a measure of intelligence.

But you are one of the ones who fled from the discussion of science precisely because you knew your science was no science. Count the number of other cowards who have done the same. Including the "scientist", farmerman.

1 Reply

@blatham,

We shall see, won't we?

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The only action they might take that will prompt intervention from the rest of the world and result in the elimination of the regime is an all out invasion of South Korea. If they had a means to send nuclear missiles against the intervening nations' homelands it could be the deterrent they seek. The rest of the world might shrug it's shoulders and say "It's up to the South Korean army."

Keep in mind that since North Korea is a hostile nuclear power, we are under no obligation to wage conventional war against them.

Our very first move against them in a war might be to launch hundreds of thermonuclear warheads.

If we felt that war was imminent and inevitable, we might choose to launch hundreds of thermonuclear warheads at them before they even took a hostile act.

If in the future North Korea succeeded in developing the means to launch a nuke at mainland US, I think it would be unlikely that North Korea would retain that means after being struck with hundreds of thermonuclear warheads.

Even if North Korea has not yet developed the means to strike mainland US, we might make the same massive nuclear strike as a way of preventing them from launching nukes at our regional allies.

1 Reply

@camlok,

Everything at globalresearch.ca is completely untrue.

But they are so bad at their lies that sometimes it is fun to laugh at them.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Quote:
Watching, crowing. Depends on the perspective of the one choosing verbs.

Not really, the author of the article was crowing.

Have to reiterate here. She seemed to be informing, although I didn't notice any quotes from the Republican perspective. Not sure that would have a place in that article.

I said tsunami. A calculated choice to inflate the opposition victories - because I think this is only the beginning. I guess I'm open to charges of minor crowing...

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Even accepting that CC presents a major threat, the notion that it will wipe out mankind is absurd, and leads a lot of people to doubt the premise.

We have a lot more to worry about from Icelandic and Indonesian volcanoes than CC. Are you on a volcanic bandwagon too?

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know