Azalin

Frank Zappa - Bobby Brown Goes Down, Magdalena, Jewish Princess, You Are What You Is, Jumbo Go Away, Suicide Chump, Charlie's Enormous Mouth, and many, many more.

Or to not reply to troll posts within threads. People should realize that you have to step down to an idiot's level to argue with them, and all you wind up with is two idiots arguing. There are a few who post here (under various names) who are trolling the living ***** out of this board, and will continue to do so as long as people take the bait. I see a lot of intelligent, informed people allowing themselves to be lured into a crap-throwing contest when they'd be better off not saying anything. There are plenty of divergent opinions on this board without having to lock horns with a handful of immature choads.

Nikki Haley - she's popular in the party, has legislative and executive experience, and strong international affairs background. She has no major gaffes or scandals that I know of, has a good relationship with the press, and can be strong and direct without coming off like an unholy B word. If she wants it, I think the 2024 nomination is hers to lose. If I had to pick a candidate based solely on my personal preferences, it would be Crenshaw.

Indeed, but like moths to a flame, lots of people just can't help responding to trolls. At this point, every new poster is another sockpuppet of someone already trolling here.

It's not about us, it's about them. And if they are stupid enough to think a riot is an acceptable means of creating a jumping off point to discuss how to fix anything, they will likely have plenty of time to reflect upon their mistakes from inside a jail cell.

Well bully for them. They really instigated a constructive dialogue by getting us to argue on our forum, didn't they?

Without the likes of Chuck Jones, Friz Freleng, and the immortal Mel Blanc, is it really Looney Tunes?

People rioting, looting, and chanting in the streets are rarely attempting to provide a "jumping off" point for discussion.

Exactly. Why anyone thinks they'll get any different by engaging him is beyond me.

You and me both - I'm gonna have to step up my game!

What's the incentive for becoming educated then?

No.

I thought the exact same thing when I read that. I'd love to see that link too.

I'm afraid you're going to need to be a bit more specific - that's far too general a criticism.

If He wasn't interested in "Law and Order", he wouldn't be doing anything at all, would he?

I don't think the politicization of the issue can or should be waved away so dismissively. Injecting politics will always poison an issue, which is the absolute last thing that problems relying on science for their solution need. I can't stress this strongly enough: as much as I favor taking reasonable steps to mitigate the effect we have on our environment as a whole, I am wholeheartedly against anything like AOC's green new deal, or anything else that so blatantly asserts itself into our economy. I believe we can have both a robust free market economy and responsible energy policy.

That's a frequent effort made by EII, and why I've suspected this clown to be a sockpuppet.

Well, when we start getting to global-scale fluid/thermodynamics it's best if I do more listening than talking. I guess with me it keeps coming down to how politicized the issue has become, and how much of the information I can accept as genuine, accurate, and unbiased. I don't consider myself a climate change denier, despite that I've been called that around here many times. I think that to simply deny any possibility of our influence on climate is just as idiotic as preaching irredeemable MMGW doom & gloom. Even the most conservative people I know all want clean air and water, a healthy environment, and a stable climate. The influence of party politics is , in my opinion, the greatest impediment to getting reasonable policy put in place.

Thanks, I appreciate your response - you can probably tell, I'm no climate scientist either. As I've already said, my skepticism is mostly based on what I consider to be assumptions with regard to what "normal" is as it applies to our climate. I don't try to convince anyone that there is only one truth to the state of Earth's climate and how it evolves, but rather to see beyond what global political tribalism demands we believe about the science of climatology. It's become too politicized, and people line up on one side or another based mostly on what their team believes. That's about as unscientific as it gets. I didn't mean to say that I think the data gathered pre-NASA/NOAA is necessarily bad, just that there's room to question its accuracy. Room enough in my opinion to hold off on putting restrictive energy policies in place, or take directives from groups like the IPCC. I think we need to understand that it's important for us to be ecologically responsible where we can while working to develop more efficient means of generating energy in the future, and that we can do both without increasing cost. email Greta?

There's not a lot that I disagree with here, but I'm not completely in agreement with you when you say: ""normal” is a quantitative reference to averages of atmosphere and ocean climate data taken over the past 125 years or so and compiled by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)". I have faith in the research and calculations of both organizations, but only to a point. I sure feel old admitting this, but I'm slightly older than NASA, and almost a decade older than NOAA. That gives them a good 50-60 years of hard data to work with, but to go back 125 years takes a lot more theorizing than working with empirical, contemporary evidence. That's my biggest beef with the entire issue - how can an honest, legitimate trajectory be calculated when "point A" on the chart has such potential to be incorrect? Maybe it can be, maybe not. I personally don't believe it's solid enough to base policy that may potentially have a negative economic impact on us.

Now that's an obituary!

If that's the case, then the atheists win hands down.

This bit stood out as well: "Put another way: As long the targets of one’s conspiracy theories and attacks are regarded as villains by the guardians of mainstream liberal social media circles, journalists reap endless career rewards for publishing unvetted and unproven — even false — attacks on such people, while never suffering any negative consequences when their stories are exposed as shabby frauds."

Another tremendous loss. Rest in peace, and thanks for all the laughs.

I would love to see a little honesty, or at least clarification, with regard to the widespread use of the nebulous benchmark known as "normal". Too many of those trying to shape energy policy present Earth's climate as something static; that without humanity the four seasons would pass normally with only the occasional heat wave or cold snap. We know for a fact that the Earth was much warmer during past eras, and we know that there's been multiple ice ages. Some scientists suggest that we're still emerging from the most recent one. We know that the oceans used to be lower due to there being much more glacial ice - the lowered oceans allowed for the Aleutian Island land bridge that brought the first Americans here from Asia. Proof of a dynamic climate is all around us, but too often climate-debate talking points come back to referencing "normal" as a fixed level of routine weather and temperature that mankind (especially capitalist mankind) threatens to destroy.