Ok...First it was ALGORE retrenchment...now it's Fakegate!

[OCinBuffalo]

RCP Article...or Obituary?

 

This is hysterical. Absolutely hysterical. Many of you here have heard me say "if you want something done, put the far left in charge of doing the opposite"...right? Well,

 

How many more examples do we need? It's quite possible that more would get done on behalf of these twits if they simply stayed home and didn't infest the streets and parks with their diseases, retarded "statements", failed attempts at manufacturing outrage, and just flat out lying, stealing and cheating.

 

This is a scientist, with a f'ing McArthur grant no less, who oversees ethics in science....lying, stealing, and then cheating...all in a row. But we are supposed to believe that "science" is beyond question...because it's science? That's funny....sounds like the Catholic Church of the Borgias.

 

And, how the F can a McArthur "genius" not comprehend the concept of a timestamp? I'll tell you: it's not that he didn't know about it, it's that he has such contempt for you, and is so "right", that he doesn't need to bother actually putting forth an effort in his scam, you are too stupid to know about meta-data, and, he is beyond your questions anyway.

 

And you know what, forget this scandal thing. The real beating takes place in the WSJ op ed and especially the response:

The Trenberth letter tells us that "computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean." The ARGO system of diving buoys is providing increasingly reliable data on the temperature of the upper layers of the ocean, where much of any heat from global warming must reside. But much like the surface temperature shown in the graph, the heat content of the upper layers of the world's oceans is not increasing nearly as fast as IPCC models predict, perhaps not increasing at all. Why should we now believe exaggerating IPCC models that tell us of "missing heat" hiding in the one place where it cannot yet be reliably measured—the deep ocean?

Yes, heat is being stored in the bottom of the F'ing ocean, because heat don't F'ing rise when we we are talking Global Warmin, son. It's possible for heat to be increased at the bottom...while not being increased at the top....by....F'ing magic. You know that pesky bottom...the same place where all the shovel ready/green jobs/Jimmy Hoffa/Mermaids/Sealabs are being concealed.

 

The bottom of the ocean is of course a Republican, and gets all it's money from the Koch brothers.

Edited February 24, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[B-Man]

This is how the global-warming community operates.

 

Activists accuse skeptics of being anti-science and dishonest under the apparent belief that they are honest and analytical. They're filled with their integrity until they get frustrated.

 

They say that they only want to debate, except the debate is over.

 

Then they wonder why skeptics don't believe them.

 

 

Anyone who uses the phrase "the science is settled" doesn't understand how science works......................thats an inconvenient truth.

 

 

.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

RCP Article...or Obituary?

 

This is hysterical. Absolutely hysterical. Many of you here have heard me say "if you want something done, put the far left in charge of doing the opposite"...right? Well,

 

How many more examples do we need? It's quite possible that more would get done on behalf of these twits if they simply stayed home and didn't infest the streets and parks with their diseases, retarded "statements", failed attempts at manufacturing outrage, and just flat out lying, stealing and cheating.

 

This is a scientist, with a f'ing McArthur grant no less, who oversees ethics in science....lying, stealing, and then cheating...all in a row. But we are supposed to believe that "science" is beyond question...because it's science? That's funny....sounds like the Catholic Church of the Borgias.

 

And, how the F can a McArthur "genius" not comprehend the concept of a timestamp? I'll tell you: it's not that he didn't know about it, it's that he has such contempt for you, and is so "right", that he doesn't need to bother actually putting forth an effort in his scam, you are too stupid to know about meta-data, and, he is beyond your questions anyway.

 

And you know what, forget this scandal thing. The real beating takes place in the WSJ op ed and especially the response:

 

Yes, heat is being stored in the bottom of the F'ing ocean, because heat don't F'ing rise when we we are talking Global Warmin, son. It's possible for heat to be increased at the bottom...while not being increased at the top....by....F'ing magic. You know that pesky bottom...the same place where all the shovel ready/green jobs/Jimmy Hoffa/Mermaids/Sealabs are being concealed.

 

The bottom of the ocean is of course a Republican, and gets all it's money from the Koch brothers.

 

 

Could you provide a little more context for your quote? Where did it come from and is it from an e-mail or a research paper?

[OCinBuffalo]

Could you provide a little more context for your quote? Where did it come from and is it from an e-mail or a research paper?

Within my link, there's 2 links that the author refers to: a WSJ op ed signed by 16 climate scientists, physics guys, etc., and, their response to the attacks by warmists on the op ed. The quote comes from the response....and quotes one of the attacks. So basically its: idiot says missing global warming heat is actually hiding in the bottom of sea, in his letter--->quoted by the 16 scientists--->quoted by the RCP article-->quoted by me above.

 

You asked for it, you got it. It's all there, all you have to do is read.

 

How funny is it that, when confronted with the FACT that the amount of increased heat required to prove man-made global warming....is missing, the best they can do is say it's hiding at the bottom of the sea.

 

Ahh, the far left. Their propensity towards unintentionally F'ing themselves over makes me smile every week. Perhaps I should make a cheeseburger rule, like DC_Tom, for them. Instead of cheeseburgers....what should it be?

[Chef Jim]

Within my link, there's 2 links that the author refers to: a WSJ op ed signed by 16 climate scientists, physics guys, etc., and, their response to the attacks by warmists on the op ed. The quote comes from the response....and quotes one of the attacks. So basically its: idiot says missing global warming heat is actually hiding in the bottom of sea, in his letter--->quoted by the 16 scientists--->quoted by the RCP article-->quoted by me above.

 

You asked for it, you got it. It's all there, all you have to do is read.

 

How funny is it that, when confronted with the FACT that the amount of increased heat required to prove man-made global warming....is missing, the best they can do is say it's hiding at the bottom of the sea.

 

Ahh, the far left. Their propensity towards unintentionally F'ing themselves over makes me smile every week. Perhaps I should make a cheeseburger rule, like DC_Tom, for them. Instead of cheeseburgers....what should it be?

 

Foie Gras.

[DC Tom]

Within my link, there's 2 links that the author refers to: a WSJ op ed signed by 16 climate scientists, physics guys, etc., and, their response to the attacks by warmists on the op ed. The quote comes from the response....and quotes one of the attacks. So basically its: idiot says missing global warming heat is actually hiding in the bottom of sea, in his letter--->quoted by the 16 scientists--->quoted by the RCP article-->quoted by me above.

 

You asked for it, you got it. It's all there, all you have to do is read.

 

How funny is it that, when confronted with the FACT that the amount of increased heat required to prove man-made global warming....is missing, the best they can do is say it's hiding at the bottom of the sea.

 

Ahh, the far left. Their propensity towards unintentionally F'ing themselves over makes me smile every week. Perhaps I should make a cheeseburger rule, like DC_Tom, for them. Instead of cheeseburgers....what should it be?

 

Every time someone comes out with a silly global warming "study," release 10 cf of methane.

 

Really..."heat hiding at the bottom of the sea"? Nice and tough to measure, good luck disproving it. Pay no mind to the fact that the deep ocean is isothermal, at about 3 degrees Celsius.

[OCinBuffalo]

Foie Gras.

 

No. I like pate in some instances but this, IMHO, is gross.

[Chef Jim]

No. I like pate in some instances but this, IMHO, is gross.

 

I'm sure we'll find someone to take yours. By the way you realize I'm not talking pate right?

 

The reason I felt it was appropriate was because it's the dish of the evil rich and it epitomizes animal cruelty.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Within my link, there's 2 links that the author refers to: a WSJ op ed signed by 16 climate scientists, physics guys, etc., and, their response to the attacks by warmists on the op ed. The quote comes from the response....and quotes one of the attacks. So basically its: idiot says missing global warming heat is actually hiding in the bottom of sea, in his letter--->quoted by the 16 scientists--->quoted by the RCP article-->quoted by me above.

 

You asked for it, you got it. It's all there, all you have to do is read.

 

How funny is it that, when confronted with the FACT that the amount of increased heat required to prove man-made global warming....is missing, the best they can do is say it's hiding at the bottom of the sea.

 

Ahh, the far left. Their propensity towards unintentionally F'ing themselves over makes me smile every week. Perhaps I should make a cheeseburger rule, like DC_Tom, for them. Instead of cheeseburgers....what should it be?

 

I think most would agree that global climate change is happening with the general tendency being toward warming. It just isn't happening as fast as it was predicted. However most of the hottest years on record are with in the past ten. It's the cause of it that is up for debate,

 

The way I look at this however is we know it's happening. We know that CFCs and CO2 cause greenhouse effect and that the world is warming as we are pumping massive amounts of these gasses into the atmosphere.

 

It's kind of like if I have high blood pressure. I should stop eating salt. The salt might not be what's causing my blood pressure to spike but I cut it out of my diet anyway.

[DC Tom]

I think most would agree that global climate change is happening with the general tendency being toward warming. It just isn't happening as fast as it was predicted. However most of the hottest years on record are with in the past ten. It's the cause of it that is up for debate,

 

Key word being "on record". Records go back - at best - four hundred years (Royal Navy logs). Reliably, maybe 150 years. Everything else is conjecture (and not always solid conjecture - anyone know the differential rate of diffusion of oxygen isotopes through ice? Yeah, neither do the people who measure temperatures in ice cores.) You can't draw a long term conclusion on that historical baseline.

 

It's kind of like if I have high blood pressure. I should stop eating salt. The salt might not be what's causing my blood pressure to spike but I cut it out of my diet anyway.

 

Not a bad analogy, actually.

 

Unfortunately, probably completely irrelevant. At this point, both the Amazon basin and the Arctic tundra are ceasing to be carbon sinks and becoming carbon sources. If man-made CO2 is the cause of warming, it's about to take a back seat natural causes no matter what we do.

[OCinBuffalo]

I think most would agree that global climate change is happening with the general tendency being toward warming. It just isn't happening as fast as it was predicted. However most of the hottest years on record are with in the past ten. It's the cause of it that is up for debate,

 

The way I look at this however is we know it's happening. We know that CFCs and CO2 cause greenhouse effect and that the world is warming as we are pumping massive amounts of these gasses into the atmosphere.

 

It's kind of like if I have high blood pressure. I should stop eating salt. The salt might not be what's causing my blood pressure to spike but I cut it out of my diet anyway.

As Tom said, it's conjecture at best. But if we are objective, all the evidence points to:

1. A small group of scientists stumbled upon a convenient theory that not only had the right amount of scare factor to garner lots of money for research, it offered a political opportunity.

2. They used that money to solidify their positions in the scientific community because hey, he who makes the rain gets the fellowship at the university.

3. They used their newly gained position to gain even more money, word got around amongst the political types who give the money, and now these scientistd were able to bully other scientists

4. Some of the political types, being political types, recognized the political opportunity.

5. And so, they made a political deal with the scientists "give us what we want, and we will give you lots of money".

6. The political types expanded the opportunity, and other political types from other countries saw how it could be co-opted to suit their needs.

7. Meanwhile the domestic political types realized that they could gain seats and power if they could really push the theory from just a theory, to a "certainty".

8. Once this all came together, these scientists and politicians realized that the ends had become the only thing that mattered. There was too much to gain. And any means necessary, any lie, any theft, any distortion, any unfounded character attack, anything at all, became not only justified, it became...expected.

 

Suddenly a failed Presidential candidate mattered again. Suddenly, a political party that was mostly getting killed in elections since 1980 had a chance again. Suddenly a bunch of scientists who weren't all that relevant or important, were some of the most important scientists in the country, and now celebrated as geniuses . And of course, the head of the IPCC saw a chance to make lots of money by fixing the game, which of course would allow him to begin his writing career, and let the world know about his inner sexual awesomeness. :lol:

 

Occam's razor: based on what we know now, the above is clearly the most likely, and therefore probably correct.

 

But, again, this is the far left we are talking about, so, not only was this doomed to fail, the ass was sure to fall out of it directly due to them doing idiotic things, and getting caught, or having them backfire.

 

See, when you refuse to see the world as it is, it makes actually accomplishing things in the world damn near impossible. You keep tripping over stuff, bumping into things, and your thumb keeps getting stuck in your ass.

Edited February 25, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[Bigfatbillsfan]

As Tom said, it's conjecture at best. But if we are objective, all the evidence points to:

1. A small group of scientists stumbled upon a convenient theory that not only had the right amount of scare factor to garner lots of money for research, it offered a political opportunity.

2. They used that money to solidify their positions in the scientific community because hey, he who makes the rain gets the fellowship at the university.

3. They used their newly gained position to gain even more money, word got around amongst the political types who give the money, and now these scientistd were able to bully other scientists

4. Some of the political types, being political types, recognized the political opportunity.

5. And so, they made a political deal with the scientists "give us what we want, and we will give you lots of money".

6. The political types expanded the opportunity, and other political types from other countries saw how it could be co-opted to suit their needs.

7. Meanwhile the domestic political types realized that they could gain seats and power if they could really push the theory from just a theory, to a "certainty".

8. Once this all came together, these scientists and politicians realized that the ends had become the only thing that mattered. There was too much to gain. And any means necessary, any lie, any theft, any distortion, any unfounded character attack, anything at all, became not only justified, it became...expected.

 

Suddenly a failed Presidential candidate mattered again. Suddenly, a political party that was mostly getting killed in elections since 1980 had a chance again. Suddenly a bunch of scientists who weren't all that relevant or important, were some of the most important scientists in the country, and now celebrated as geniuses . And of course, the head of the IPCC saw a chance to make lots of money by fixing the game, which of course would allow him to begin his writing career, and let the world know about his inner sexual awesomeness. :lol:

 

Occam's razor: based on what we know now, the above is clearly the most likely, and therefore probably correct.

 

 

The above would be the exact opposite of a Occam's razor. Not to mention that this really isn't a situation where Occam's razor would apply.

[OCinBuffalo]

The above would be the exact opposite of a Occam's razor. Not to mention that this really isn't a situation where Occam's razor would apply.

Specifics. ??? How is it the exact opposite. Heh. This should be good. In fact I can't wait. Not a situation where it would apply.....hysterical! How is that? I feel like Ricky Gervais waiting for what is about to come out of his idiot friend's mouth. Please, don't disappoint. Here, I'll help you:

 

Which is more likely:

that we actually have the data to accurately determine, incontrovertibly I might add, than man causes global warming, and that the missing heat is hiding at the bottom of sea

 

-or-

 

that the above corruption and collusion occurred for both monetary and political gain?

 

------------------------------

 

After that fun is over, here's my next post in advance.....

 

Even if we assume that everyone is innocent in this, and that their intentions were 100% noble and selfless, which would of course necessitate that we throw out the Climategate emails, and a guy getting caught red handed stealing and lying in an effort to create an anti-Climategate, even if we deny that reality.....are you telling me you aren't aware of the concept of "groupthink"?

 

Let's pretend that you are a serious person. IF that is so, your assignment is to look up The Bay of Pigs and The Challenger Disaster. This is what happens when we consider our ideas good on the sole basis that we thought of them. It is also what happens when all contradictory evidence and warnings that what we believe isn't so, are ignored, because we have irrationally deemed what we believe to be....incontrovertible, and then have seen fit to bet all our chips upon it.

 

Now, even if we put aside all the batshit crazy, and immoral activity from the left on this...which is more likely:

 

The first thing above....

 

-or-

 

once again we are seeing the effects of groupthink?

Edited February 25, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[DC Tom]

Specifics. ??? How is it the exact opposite.

 

You built a really complex theory that an entire branch of science was covertly perverted by a cabal of a select few researchers.

 

That's not Occam's razor. That's the complete antithesis of Occam's razor. If your theory depends on people being endlessly clever, it's not Occam's razor. If it's based on everyone being endlessly stupid, THAT'S Occam's razor.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Specifics. ??? How is it the exact opposite. Heh. This should be good. In fact I can't wait. Not a situation where it would apply.....hysterical! How is that? I feel like Ricky Gervais waiting for what is about to come out of his idiot friend's mouth. Please, don't disappoint. Here, I'll help you:

 

Which is more likely:

that we actually have the data to accurately determine, incontrovertibly I might add, than man causes global warming, and that the missing heat is hiding at the bottom of sea

 

-or-

 

that the above corruption and collusion occurred for both monetary and political gain?

 

------------------------------

 

After that fun is over, here's my next post in advance.....

 

Even if we assume that everyone is innocent in this, and that their intentions were 100% noble and selfless, which would of course necessitate that we throw out the Climategate emails, and a guy getting caught red handed stealing and lying in an effort to create an anti-Climategate, even if we deny that reality.....are you telling me you aren't aware of the concept of "groupthink"?

 

Let's pretend that you are a serious person. IF that is so, your assignment is to look up The Bay of Pigs and The Challenger Disaster. This is what happens when we consider our ideas good on the sole basis that we thought of them. It is also what happens when all contradictory evidence and warnings that what we believe isn't so, are ignored, because we have irrationally deemed what we believe to be....incontrovertible, and then have seen fit to bet all our chips upon it.

 

Now, even if we put aside all the batshit crazy, and immoral activity from the left on this...which is more likely:

 

The first thing above....

 

-or-

 

once again we are seeing the effects of groupthink?

 

Are you serious? OK, lets see if I can get this across.

 

An example of Occam's razor would be something like:

 

Millions of datapoints from thousands of locations all over the world point to a warming trend. Therefore we conclude there is a warming trend.

 

An example of something that is not Occam's Razor would be:

 

Almost all of the world's climatologists are conspiring to dupe the public out of billions of dollars by claiming that the world is warming. Now here's an 8 step theory as to how they plan to do it.

 

Occam's razor basically states that you need not multiply assumptions beyond necessity to explain a conclusion. Such as if you have two theories that explain the same thing, the one that is less complex would tend to be the right one.

 

Now do you see how it doesn't work?

 

And I'll stay away from your idea that this is somehow the result of group-think as not to embarrass you.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Bigfatbillsfan

[OCinBuffalo]

You built a really complex theory that an entire branch of science was covertly perverted by a cabal of a select few researchers.

 

That's not Occam's razor. That's the complete antithesis of Occam's razor. If your theory depends on people being endlessly clever, it's not Occam's razor. If it's based on everyone being endlessly stupid, THAT'S Occam's razor.

No, it's not that complex at all.... I just broke it down into it's most basic components so that even BF Round 2 could understand it.

 

But that's just it. My theory is dependent upon the fundamental delusion of the far left: that are endlessly clever, when the reality is that they are in fact endlessly stupid. That is the most likely explanation of how a supposed McArthur genius...is tripped up by a F'ing timestamp. And, clearly my dependency has plenty of data to support it. You might even say it's: incontrovertible.

 

Is it not? Seriously, well, as serious as I can say this without laughing....no I can't. It's just too funny. It's catalyzed hubris, and the best part is when they try to play it off like the 8th grade girls they are. I have another thought: that McArthur money would have been better spent on you, studying anything, to include 8th grade girls. Certainly you can conceive a timestamp.

 

It's exactly like what happened with the Democratic momentum from 2006, the most likely explanation for blowing the massive lead they had is most certainly them being endlessly stupid. Same thing with the Global Warmists. At one point they even had Newt F'ing Gingrich buying in(um, example of a political type, being a political type), the only way you go from that, to where they are now, is if both they and what they are saying, are endlessly stupid.

 

There's no other explanation that even approaches it....

[Bigfatbillsfan]

No, it's not that complex at all.... I just broke it down into it's most basic components so that even BF Round 2 could understand it.

 

But that's just it. My theory is dependent upon the fundamental delusion of the far left: that are endlessly clever, when the reality is that they are in fact endlessly stupid. That is the most likely explanation of how a supposed McArthur genius...is tripped up by a F'ing timestamp. And, clearly my dependency has plenty of data to support it. You might even say it's: incontrovertible.

 

Is it not? Seriously, well, as serious as I can say this without laughing....no I can't. It's just too funny. It's catalyzed hubris, and the best part is when they try to play it off like the 8th grade girls they are. I have another thought: that McArthur money would have been better spent on you, studying anything, to include 8th grade girls. Certainly you can conceive a timestamp.

 

It's exactly like what happened with the Democratic momentum from 2006, the most likely explanation for blowing the massive lead they had is most certainly them being endlessly stupid. Same thing with the Global Warmists. At one point they even had Newt F'ing Gingrich buying in(um, example of a political type, being a political type), the only way you go from that, to where they are now, is if both they and what they are saying, are endlessly stupid.

 

There's no other explanation that even approaches it....

 

This argument is so stupid I have a hard time believing it isn't satire.

[OCinBuffalo]

Are you serious? OK, lets see if I can get this across.

 

An example of Occam's razor would be something like:

 

Millions of datapoints from thousands of locations all over the world point to a warming trend. Therefore we conclude there is a warming trend.

A warming trend, or a man-made warming trend? Based on putting thermometers on the tops of buildings near roofing tar and in parking lots on asphalt? Why was that done? Was there any effort to control for that? What possible motivation besides cooking the data, literally, was there for that?

 

But even if we assume the data was collected properly, the issue here the extension of a possible trend, into an obvious fabrication, into immediate political action.

 

If I am a "denier", WTF am I denying? It's kinda hard to pin down when what you are claiming keeps changing, isn't it? I'll make it easy for you: I am denying that you and every other "warmist" have any credibility on this issue, and will continue, rightly, denying it until you prove otherwise. You have seen fit to cash in your benefit of the doubt and/or "just in case" status. That was a choice, and it has consequences.

An example of something that is not Occam's Razor would be:

 

Almost all of the world's climatologists are conspiring to dupe the public out of billions of dollars by claiming that the world is warming. Now here's an 8 step theory as to how they plan to do it.

Thanks for the narrative from 2005 there buddy, is Pope John Paul still dead?

 

I am sorry, but it's 2012 and here's the news: a large and growing number of scientists have now either reversed their position on man-made global warming or are now actively debunking it. In fact, there never was a "consensus", and that never mattered anyway, as the 16 climate scientists in the WSJ op ed accurately point out: science is not a democratic activity. Or, as DC_Tom demonstrates on a daily basis, it's also not a popularity contest.

 

That you think you need to talk in terms of "all the world's climatologists" was the very thing that first set off my BS radar in 2005. If you are right, you don't need to try and peer pressure me into believing you. Do you think I give even the tiniest crap about what anybody else thinks when I know I am right? Nope. Why would I?

 

See, those of us with a lot of experience being right in contentious situations, and winning because it's literally our job? We know you're full of ****. We don't need the details, we can play it blind. When we're right, all we have to do is state our case, sit back, smile and wait. Soon the other guy will trip into proving themselves wrong. It's absolutely about confidence, but it also requires actually being right, or, mostly right anyway. When you have to resort to "everybody's doing it"? We know-->you don't have it.

Occam's razor basically states that you need not multiply assumptions beyond necessity to explain a conclusion. Such as if you have two theories that explain the same thing, the one that is less complex would tend to be the right one.

 

Now do you see how it doesn't work?

 

And I'll stay away from your idea that this is somehow the result of group-think as not to embarrass you.

You'll stay away, because you have no chance proving otherwise.

 

Hey, you're the one talking in terms of "all the world's climatologists", and then telling me that isn't a text book case for potential groupthink...at the same time. Nice.

 

Remember that part about tripping and proving themselves wrong?

 

This argument is so stupid I have a hard time believing it isn't satire.

Oh, don't misinterpret, it's absolutely satire....

 

....it's just that, you can't get the joke. Wait.....can't or won't? Hmmmm

 

What is a timestamp? Do you know?

 

EDIT: Believing you are clever, when in fact you are an unmitigated moron. Isn't that how we ended up with Obamacare? Didn't the Democrats "cleverly" pass it by "cleverly" circumventing Scott Brown's election? Then "cleverly" give all their constituencies and donors waivers, but then get caught? Weren't they being "clever" when they convinced themselves that it would become popular, once we all saw just how "clever" it was? See, if we merely replace "clever" with "stupid", we get the accurate picture of exactly how the Democrats got here.

 

Ipso facto the belief that they are clever, when in fact they are idiots.

Edited February 26, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[DC Tom]

No, it's not that complex at all.... I just broke it down into it's most basic components so that even BF Round 2 could understand it.

 

But that's just it. My theory is dependent upon the fundamental delusion of the far left: that are endlessly clever, when the reality is that they are in fact endlessly stupid. That is the most likely explanation of how a supposed McArthur genius...is tripped up by a F'ing timestamp. And, clearly my dependency has plenty of data to support it. You might even say it's: incontrovertible.

 

Is it not? Seriously, well, as serious as I can say this without laughing....no I can't. It's just too funny. It's catalyzed hubris, and the best part is when they try to play it off like the 8th grade girls they are. I have another thought: that McArthur money would have been better spent on you, studying anything, to include 8th grade girls. Certainly you can conceive a timestamp.

 

It's exactly like what happened with the Democratic momentum from 2006, the most likely explanation for blowing the massive lead they had is most certainly them being endlessly stupid. Same thing with the Global Warmists. At one point they even had Newt F'ing Gingrich buying in(um, example of a political type, being a political type), the only way you go from that, to where they are now, is if both they and what they are saying, are endlessly stupid.

 

There's no other explanation that even approaches it....

 

That's retarded.

 

You've actually managed to post something stupid enough to make me agree with BF-squared. I owe you for that, !@#$.

[OCinBuffalo]

That's retarded.

 

You've actually managed to post something stupid enough to make me agree with BF-squared. I owe you for that, !@#$.

 

Shh. Just sit back, crack one and don't Fing ruin it for me, Mr. "The teacher leaves me in charge when she goes pee"....

 

Actually, it's probably already Fed. Time to go out anyway....hopefully BF2 will provide....

Edited February 26, 2012 by OCinBuffalo