Orlando Buffalo
-
Posts
8,740 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Orlando Buffalo
-
-
1 hour ago, Big Blitz said:
He repealed the freaking Hyde Amendment.
So yes, yes he does promote abortions, the most active president in history to do so.
I can not find where he did repeal it, I am assuming you mean by one of his executive orders, do you know which one? I honestly can't find it quickly using Google
1 hour ago, 716er said:There's a group called Catholics for Choice with a vast membership and a Board of Directors.
All of those folks are still able to receive the sacrament without issue.
Why don't the bishops go after them?
Never heard of them, they make no sense and are not recognizable, so why bother with them? You don't worry about people who can't effect you generally
-
I am not happy that the Church is going down this road because I have not heard Biden praise women who have had abortions. If he would sign a bill promoting abortions I could see an argument but right now I don't think he is actively undermining our teachings, he is just not actively supporting it.
-
1
-
-
On 6/21/2021 at 9:39 AM, Governor said:
It’s “another” false flag event. LMAO. Because there’s been so many.
Why do you feel that delaying the certification of the vote by a day is worse than the murders and destruction of entire city centers during last summer?
-
1
-
-
On 5/18/2021 at 8:59 AM, Tiberius said:
Wow, California has a huge budget surplus!!
How is West Virginia doing?
They received 151 billion from the Biden Stimulus- so they were 110 billion short until then.
-
4 minutes ago, 716er said:
Cancel them. Genius.Laughing at someone for being stupid is not cancelling them, but the fact you are confused explains why you think people keep "cancelling" you.
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, 716er said:
What would you do with the Dems? Do you have a final solution?
Yes, try and explain to them how demented their view points are and if that does not work then make fun of them for their stupidity until they just shut up.
-
14 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said:
I’m not familiar with Florida Keys topography, but I absolutely do believe in the accuracy of global sea level data from the past 150 years. We have multiple ways of verification, including landmass deformations and tide gauges and, most recently, satellites. The different methods applied at different locations all point to the same conclusion with relatively minor numerical deviation. You at least appear to be more confident in the data since about 2005, all of which indicate global sea levels having risen between 50-65 millimeters (1.9-2.6 inches) over the past 15 or so years. Oceanographers, civil engineers, the U.S. Navy, and people who live and work along coasts don’t disagree with those numbers. Many lives and careers depend on such data being accurate and uncorrupted.
Your second-to-last sentence is very telling and is unfortunately where I sensed this discussion was headed. Healthy climate change skepticism in this country has devolved into a logically unfalsifiable conspiracy theory. Instead of constantly demeaning climatologists from afar, please try conversing with some so that you may have your scientific concerns properly addressed.
It is not a conspiracy theory when they can't show you the raw data. Asking for the proof is what intelligent people do. Allowing the skeptics access to your data is what scientists do and unless it has changed recently climate data is still protected from those that trash it. Lastly my original point, that you seem to have confirmed, that everything that was in An Inconvenient Truth has not come to pass. You and I will most likely never see eye to eye for several reasons 1) I am skeptical of anyone who wants my money for a vague cause 2) I don't trust goverment to fix it even if correct 3) the world is constantly changing and global warming has spend 30 years telling me they know why and then being wrong- often completely wrong.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Governor said:
Oh no. Tucker the snitch!
I don't subscribe to the NYT- does he give any specifics or just a general "Tucker talks with Liberals"?
-
1 hour ago, Tiberius said:
Good. Too bad Conservatives don’t try and follow the churches teaching on that and try and stamp out this sin.
Why doesnt the Church go after that sin? Why no protests at late night drug stores that sell condoms? And these Catholic Supreme Court people with just a couple children. I bet they are usin* birth control. Sinners
I think the Church should consider separating the sins into some categories. Maybe call one mortal sins and the other group venial sins. The mortal sins could be for really bad things and the lesser sins could be for smaller much more common ones. Maybe if we did that then countries could set up judiciary systems with similar idea of felonies and misdemeanors. Your shallow thought process misunderstands what it means to be Catholic.
-
9 hours ago, Governor said:
Jeez. You’re a real mess dude. Why twist yourself into knots on something like this? Not everything in life is a deep state conspiracy.
A bunch of meathead cult members attacked the capital because they were sad about an election defeat. There really isn’t anything else to it. Why launch a terrorist attack on the capital and then be too scared to take credit for it?
It’s time to snap out of it. This can’t be healthy. The Trump era is over. I’m here to help.
It is now a conspiracy to state the FBI has done some screwed up stuff in it's history? You truly believe a bunch of unarmed dolts were able to overpower all those cops. And you actually believe NPR is a right wing rag now?
Or you believe 35 of the less than 200 cops were all individually choosing not to do their job and let the idiots in? Your ability to never see malfeasance except for by Trump people is astounding.
-
1
-
-
If we use the holiday to point out that we as a nation are at our best when we are free to pursue our best life then I am all for the holiday. When liberals try to use to promote CRT then it becomes a worthless day of more division.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Niagara Bill said:
I am Catholic, and can think for myself and I do not need the preaching of bishops who think pedophilia is ok and cover up is not lying. In 1500's this church tried to take over the world and supported slavery. This church refused to accept divorce and would not allow battered women who divorced an abusive husband to take communion. Your married partner could commit murder and be forgiven but divorce or abortion cannot.
Changes in the church move to slowly in this age.
I will continue to love the Lord, and enjoy attending church services, but I will not blindly listen to doctrine from these men. A church who does not even see women as equals in 2021.
I think it is possible to be devoted and disagree with these mear mortals.
It also saddens me to hear of this decision.
The church is not pure but you must truly hate yourself if you are a Catholic but believe the overarching church supports pedophilia. The greatest stain on the church during my lifetime is allowing priests to move around after being caught. Abortion is another topic if you believe life begins at conception, since you are taking a life. I don't have a good new law to protect both the mother and child because there are proper reasons for it and I don't trust politicians with something so important but the casual way some people go about it is wrong.
-
13 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:
WTF?!?!
1. Hurricanes overall HAVE become more numerous and stronger since 2006, according to NOAA, The Earth Institute at Columbia, NASA, and pretty much every credible climate scientist on this planet. I never argued otherwise. You cherry-picked your data and I explicitly told you how you did so to reach an incorrect logical conclusion.
2. Al Gore did NOT predict “much less snow” for the planet, if that is your intimation. He made a single sloppy literary reference for a single mountain peak. You fixate on this one technicality that he got wrong, but then you fail to address the broader intended point of shrinking alpine glaciers around the world. Why is that?? Hmmm…
You also very conveniently choose to not address EVERYTHING ELSE that Al Gore covered in his documentary. Why is that?? You claimed that he basically got everything wrong, but then you don’t back that assertion up with ANY data references. BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS WITH PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH PAPERS.
Oh, and then you concluded your post with a classic “weather = climate” fallacy. Impressive.
Weather eventually equals climate. But I assume you mean crap science that is being quoted below where they argue the water has raised 9 inches, if it had raised 9 inches in 150 years the Florida Keys would look much different, as well as many other areas. If you believe stupid crap like this I can't help you.https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/12/us/hurricanes-climate-change/
As for gore and snow here is entire comment:
"And now we’re beginning to see the impact in the real world. This is Mount Kilimanjaro more than 30 years ago, and more recently. And a friend of mine just came back from Kilimanjaro with a picture he took a couple of months ago. Another friend of mine Lonnie Thompson studies glaciers. Here’s Lonnie with a sliver of a once mighty glacier. Within the decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro.” -Algore, “An Inconvenient Truth” (2006)
Of course 2018 had more snow on Kilimanjaro than in recorded history. We also would be in the hockey stick part of the graph if he was right based on the amount of pollution from China and India if he was correct.
Lastly there are no peer reviewed articles because the data is controlled, we know all the data prior to 2005ish was questionable and the raw data is gone. If you only question the data that disagrees with you then you are not a scientist, and most of these guys are trying to prove their point
-
20 hours ago, BillStime said:
I thought he was arrested?
-
6 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said:
Ok, I haven’t seen the documentary since middle school and I don’t feel like watching it again lol... So instead, I ran a word search of “snow” and “hurricane” on a full PDF transcript of “An Inconvenient Truth.”
The only snow-related prediction Al Gore made was that “within the decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro.” I assume this was intended to be a cutesy reference to the Ernest Hemingway story? It’s actually the glaciers we care most about, and they are most definitely shrinking near Kilimanjaro’s summit. How much these specific changes are connected to global warming is very debatable, but the general shrinking of glaciers around the world is indisputable and fully in accordance with global warming predictions.
Al Gore never made any official predictions of hurricanes in his documentary, aside from general allusions to them getting stronger and more frequent over time. But this is also indisputable, according to the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). You referenced the specific drought of no Category 3+ hurricanes striking the U.S. between 2005 (Wilma) and 2017 (Harvey), but that is a bit misleading because it ignores data like major hurricanes that struck other locations during that time, the severity of hurricane seasons since Harvey, and total number of hurricanes…not to mention financial damage and death tolls. This is somewhat analogous to the “weather versus climate” debate when it comes to data selectivity. But in all honesty, hurricane monitoring is a much less certain metric for global warming compared to the other ones, due to the nature of ocean currents.
I have no idea where you’re going with the data fabrication accusations. If this is a reference to the November 2009 Climategate controversy, it was debunked years ago. Climate science is no different with their data transparency than any of the other natural science subfields. It is practically impossible for science to maintain a grand operation of willful systemic data fabrication. The profession has way too many built-in mechanisms of checks and balances, especially on the international arena.
I still believe the U.S. can do its part in meeting the 2050 Paris Agreement goals without adversely affecting our economy. Doing so, however, will require more vigorous investments in nuclear energy and reforestation than we’re currently seeing from Biden. Advancements with carbon capture technology are simply moving way too slowly, as are positive changes within major greenhouse gas-polluting industries like agriculture and aviation.
In my opinion, our ideal composite energy solution should be centered around nuclear and solar, as well as electric vehicles. Bear in mind that I did not whimsically reach this conclusion! All energy resources have benefits and drawbacks, of course, but prioritizing these three would be the most optimal from the perspective of energy production versus risks of environmental degradation.
A note on electric vehicles: lithium-ion batteries are already more “green” than conventional fossil fuels, in overall terms of usage plus resource extraction. We can render them more friendly to the environment by working with several South American countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile) and making sure suitable government regulations are imposed on brine deposit mining. I also like the progress that scientists and engineers are making on viable battery material alternatives to lithium, which is why I’m so sanguine about electrical cars.
So he was totally and completely wrong on the two things I remembered. Your argument is that I am right but some caveat that is trying to save face. He predicted much less snow, which has not happened and he predicted more hurricanes right before the longest period of no hurricanes in US history, almost as dumb as giving a speech on global warming in NYC on the coldest day in the city history, which he also did.
-
7 hours ago, Governor said:
If you’re in your 20’s and wanna dick around in Florida for a few years, that’s perfectly fine, but have a plan and exit strategy.
if you’re in your 30’s and just moved your family to Florida, you just made a terrible mistake unless you’re coming from an equally wretched place like Ohio, Missouri, etc.
We got really lucky and escaped the South in our 40’s and it’s totally different in NJ now. It’s a real pleasure to live here. Quality of life is amazing.
I had a job where I traveled the country and spent at least a month in more than dozen states working. NJ, outside of the Cherry hill area maybe, is not great and not even Cheryl Hill has anything over my town except Wegmans. My area has had to open 3 new high schools in the past 5 years because so many northerners are coming to live here, along with foreign nationals. Your argument is for a state that is losing people to my state, so keep believing what you want but there is a reason my town has exploded in population while yours doesn't grow.
-
On 6/16/2021 at 12:14 PM, B-Man said:
The line in the federalist article is the defining comment for our media now- if they were trying to create racial division how would they act differently? The media no longer reports the news, they try to create it in their image.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Governor said:
As I said if spending more money is a good thing, as this study believes, FL will be hurt by it. The study mentions in the writeup how much they pay per teacher.
-
16 hours ago, Governor said:
It all depends on what you value in life. Florida and Texas are retail states so their economies are quite deceiving. The working class is much poorer compared to NJ.
Do you value retail shopping more than overall health, crime, education, environment, etc? It’s ok if you do.
I have been to Patterson, Camden, and Newark and if you think they have anything good vs where I live on Florida you are nuts. And we have already had this discussion the only ranking that NJ beats FL educationally is in spending, as far as performance FL wins.
-
9 hours ago, SectionC3 said:
Start on page 56. Enjoy, Chef Jim Crow.
Simp, huh? Gargle some more HCQ. While you’re at it, do recall that the issue wasn’t safety, it was efficacy. As in, HCQ is not and was not an effective treatment for COVID.
HCQ is generally harmless and is a medicine given to fight malaria. But I know you say gargle because you still believe that women in Arizona used the fish tank cleaner for a reason other than murdering her husband. The woman is a liberal who knew other liberals are so dumb they would believe her
https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/woman-blamed-trump-giving-her-133613382.html
-
18 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said:
There are multiple irreversible tipping points in the evolution of global warming. The article is highlighting one of the earliest that could be expected to go. Passing through one tipping point does not mean we shouldn’t try to avoid the others. As damaging as the loss of summer Arctic ice coverage would be, something like permafrost thawing in the Northern Hemisphere would be much more devastating to future generations. Because we’re dealing with feedback control systems that proceed nonlinearly and that could trigger cascading positive feedback loops, I don’t have a problem with the alarmist tones in the article.
What specific climate change metrics (surface temps, ice sheet sizes, glacier sizes, snow cover, sea level rise, ocean temps, ocean acidification levels, various extreme weather events, etc.) did Al Gore get wrong? Can you state his erroneous claims verbatim from the documentary and then provide the numbers from peer-reviewed research papers that contradict his claims? I’ll spot you the Mount Kilimanjaro glacier example, though Gore could have used plenty of other glaciers to make his point.
It has honestly been a very long time since I saw the film, so I should probably watch it again over July 4 weekend to judge how well it has aged. But when critiquing the documentary’s veracity, we need to be mindful of distinctions between worst-case scenarios and expected ones. We also need to be cognizant of the fact that only 15 years have passed. Hey, at least Al Gore covered the thermohaline circulation science better than “The Day After Tomorrow” lol…
Which data sets are you determining to be incomplete? How are they incomplete? What should climate scientists do to assemble more complete data?
A few quick responses:
1. All known major non-anthropogenic climate change factors have been isolated and ruled out with rigorous data processing techniques. Atmospheric carbon rose ~31ppm from 1988 (the year of James Hansen’s Senate testimony) to 2006 (the release of Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”) and then an additional ~37ppm up to now. Simultaneously, mean Earth surface temperature rose ~0.33 degrees Celsius from 1988 to 2006 and then an additional ~0.39 degrees Celsius up to now. If anyone has a better explanation for this correlation, please cite the research paper you are referencing or tell us your novel hypothesis!
2. Water, methane, ozone, sulfur dioxide, and nitrous oxide are the other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere besides carbon dioxide. The methane also oxidizes into carbon dioxide over time, a lesser-known scientific fact that proponents of the fracking industry like to omit! The other ~99% of stuff in the atmosphere (mostly nitrogen and oxygen) does not contribute at all to global warming.
3. Most climate scientists and many green energy engineers are active members of and financial contributors to all sorts of environmental conservation organizations.
Kay remember when he said no more snow? Or that hurricanes were part of global warming and then we had a record long time without hurricanes in the USA? He got one small part "right" assuming the data is not manipulated again. I will believe it is correct when the data is opened up to those whose openly disagree.
-
I will make my last points and then I am done with this thread- those who are against the expansion to include at least one of the non power 5 teams each year are the worst kind of elitist in the sports world. They don't believe the Miracle should have happened, or Hoosiers should have happened, and truly do not think BYU deserved the title despite being undefeated. Because it is unlikely it should not be given a chance. And to the two Bama fans downplaying the UCF 2017 team I just watched the entire peach bowl and UCFspent 3 qtrs kicking the crap out of the Auburn team that decimate the Bama team. It reminds me of the Bills vs 49ers this past year. UCF offense was clearly better than Alabama's unless your beliefs from before the season mean everything and what happens on the field means NOTHING.
-
14 minutes ago, 716er said:
This is the kind of content that makes this place the ***** hole it is.
Nice
Please explain- you think these protesters are better than the trucker?
-
1 hour ago, Cynical said:
At least you admitted the comparison of FB to BB was bad, but then you follow it up with comparing CFB QBs that made it in the NFL.
Not sure what you are trying to argue there.
But, if spitting out random factoids is the way to go:
Joe Montana was drafted in the third round, Drew Brees was drafted in the second round, and as we all know, Brady in the 6th.
AJ MacCarron was the starting QB at BAMA for 4 years, and guided BAMA to 3 NC during that time.
He is one only 7 QBs to win back to back NC.
His NFL career has not been quite so spectacular.
This is an interesting comment, given what you say just after this.
I don't care if "UCF actually scored the most points on every team they played that year."
Doing that against Austin Peay, UConn, and FIU is noting to brag about, considering the rest of that cup cake schedule they played in 2017.
And this: "Your comment that UCF would not have scored against Alabama shows your ignorance of UCF in 2017. UCF put up 31 against Auburn which is more than any other team that year."
UCF scored 34 points, by the way.
Auburn scored 27. And even took a lead at one point in that game.
Auburn had more total yardage than UCF.
The difference was Auburn coughed the ball up 3 times. Even 1 less TO, I think the game ends in a different outcome.
IMO, I will not say UCF would not score against Bama, but I have no problem stating Bama would walk away with a pretty convincing win.
I also believe if UCF played AU's 2017 schedule, UCF would have ended up with at least 4 losses during the regular season.
I can say with certainty you did not watch that UCF game vs Auburn because UCF had a terrible first quarter and then smoked them. As I have asked what fact based argument do you have that Bama would have smoked them? Bama lost while putting up 13 points. I am not stating UCF was clearly better but all your arguments are not based on what happened that year when the premier win for Bama was a team not in the top 20. As for the random facts he stated the better QBs are all going to the great teams and that is certainly not true.
If you could create your own gender, what would it be?
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Y'all strange as all heck- I have never thought to identify as anything other than I am. Maybe it is part of the privilege of being great at everything I do.