Could be Trump?

[Grey Area]

I love the smell of vaporised jihadis in the morning. Smells like bacon.

[Al Swearegen]

Al: sorry, I don't have all morning to read posts, especially not ones where you're still evading after that disaster of a post. It's painfully obvious that you're talking out of your arse.

Next.

There was nothing disastrous about either of my posts and it begs a question. IF you did not read my last post as you imply here then under what pretext do you claim that I am evading something in the post? No? You are talking out of your arse aren't you?

I think a good rule of thumb is what you project on others are your own faults that you are intimate with and cast off yourself onto others.

Your disaster of a post made it obvious that a) you have problems articulating clearly (because I wasn't the only one to read it the way I did) and b) you don't have a clue about the subject.

This would be the opportunity for you to clearly state your views on climate change (as in caused by man).

Nope, you and not only you, get resistant to ANYTHING that does not say something along the lines of "Every change in climate is due to man-made climate change and man is ultimately responsible for everything bad in the climate".

If I say ANYTHING is up for question you stop reading or comprehending and YOUR inability to push yourself to see exactly what I have said reinforces your erroneous position. I hardly think that is on me.

[Icequeen]

British intelligence passed Trump associates' communications with Russians on to US counterparts.

British and other European intelligence agencies intercepted communications between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials and other Russian individuals during the campaign and passed on those communications to their US counterparts, US congressional and law enforcement and US and European intelligence sources tell CNN.
The communications were captured during routine surveillance of Russian officials and other Russians known to western intelligence. British and European intelligence agencies, including GCHQ, the British intelligence agency responsible for communications surveillance, were not proactively targeting members of the Trump team but rather picked up these communications during what's known as "incidental collection," these sources tell CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/13/politics/trump-russia-british-intelligence/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/european-countries-shared-trump-russia-intel-with-us-agencies-report/article/2620248

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia

Thank you Britain.

[Al Swearegen]

I tried to follow that Al, I really did.  What I came away with was "I disagree with science I don't understand, and distrust those people who can derive conclusions from things I don't understand".

What science have I said I disbelieve? NOT climate change and I said a few times now I believe in climate change and so being that it is NOT that....what science do I disbelieve?

What I said is not THAT hard to follow.

If I told you that MOST people believe that there are changes in the climate. We would both be in agreement.
If I told you that the Earth over millennia has changed it's climate drastically and is continuing to change, we would likely not disagree that either.
If I told you that man does and can change the climate with his actions, We would still be in agreement. (In fact, I listed my efforts in this regard and gave what I believe are some pretty solid examples of this).

Yet, you say I am denying science. It is rather strange.

So given all the above, whenever there is a change in the climate and people instantly go to "Climate change" as an explanation and someone like me says "Make your case for THIS instance being a case of man made climate change" what I get is a smug condescending "You are a climate change denier" attitude. Maybe not specifically by you but I certainly get it.

Agreeing with the basic premise that man can and does change the climate DOES NOT mean that every instance of change in climate is due to man. It is not radical to question the instances or ask for evidence. It could be in ANY situation of changes in climate that man has had some effect on the climate or most of the effect, all the effect or none at all.

I would imagine that the best position is not skepticism but being open to all viewpoints. I am pretty sure that if the human race was wiped out overnight, the Earth would still continually change and that many changes that may well have been blamed on man's influence was simply the Earth being the Earth. By the same measure, I am sure doing the right thing and making the right changes will make a marked improvement in combating what changes man has made or influenced on the climate.

Too many people blame man made/influence climate change on every change in the climate, and too many people say there is no such thing. I think they are both wrong and I am happy to calll them out.

In other words, you don't understand the science and have trouble accepting the conclusions. You don't want to look like an outright denier of climate change caused by man because that would make you look stupid, but since it's me pointing this out, it's something of a rock and a hard place thing for you now.

Not at all. It would be an idiot's interpretation which is why I am a little curious as to why you are making it. The default position ought to be that there is an amount of evidence showing that Climate Change caused by man IS a real thing but that this proves that SOME changes in the climate have been influenced if not caused by man. That SHOULD be the default position.

Calling this position skepticism is stupid and calling it Climate Change Denialism is BEYOND STUPID. So Odeon, given YOUR comments, why are you taking the latter approach? (The answer is not "But you said, as I have been reaffirming the same position over and over and I can do that by quoting what I said word for word and highlighting where these themes are repeated).

If you are struggling with this, I have an even more difficult task, which aspects of man Made Climate Change and which incidences of Climate change have I disputed? All of them? Some of them? Any of them? None of them? You may need a bit of a run-up to tackle this one.

If I were you, I would go with a condescending non-answer or vaguely blame me for not writing clearly (You refusing to comprehend what was pretty elementary). Up to you though.

[odeon]

Al: sorry, I don't have all morning to read posts, especially not ones where you're still evading after that disaster of a post. It's painfully obvious that you're talking out of your arse.

Next.

There was nothing disastrous about either of my posts and it begs a question. IF you did not read my last post as you imply here then under what pretext do you claim that I am evading something in the post? No? You are talking out of your arse aren't you?

I think a good rule of thumb is what you project on others are your own faults that you are intimate with and cast off yourself onto others.

Your disaster of a post made it obvious that a) you have problems articulating clearly (because I wasn't the only one to read it the way I did) and b) you don't have a clue about the subject.

This would be the opportunity for you to clearly state your views on climate change (as in caused by man).

Nope, you and not only you, get resistant to ANYTHING that does not say something along the lines of "Every change in climate is due to man-made climate change and man is ultimately responsible for everything bad in the climate".

If I say ANYTHING is up for question you stop reading or comprehending and YOUR inability to push yourself to see exactly what I have said reinforces your erroneous position. I hardly think that is on me.

Where did I say "every change"? I do imply "most" because science very strongly supports that conclusion (and yes, I do understand the science), but I did not say "every change"

So yes, this is on you, your inability to articulate and your inability to understand the evidence. I'd stop if I were you because you are embarrassing yourself.

[odeon]

British intelligence passed Trump associates' communications with Russians on to US counterparts.

British and other European intelligence agencies intercepted communications between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials and other Russian individuals during the campaign and passed on those communications to their US counterparts, US congressional and law enforcement and US and European intelligence sources tell CNN.
The communications were captured during routine surveillance of Russian officials and other Russians known to western intelligence. British and European intelligence agencies, including GCHQ, the British intelligence agency responsible for communications surveillance, were not proactively targeting members of the Trump team but rather picked up these communications during what's known as "incidental collection," these sources tell CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/13/politics/trump-russia-british-intelligence/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/european-countries-shared-trump-russia-intel-with-us-agencies-report/article/2620248

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia

Thank you Britain.

The did try.

But you know, if you drop some big bombs, reverse your stance on key issues and generally make some noise, hopefully people will forget about this particular little embarrassment.

[odeon]

I tried to follow that Al, I really did.  What I came away with was "I disagree with science I don't understand, and distrust those people who can derive conclusions from things I don't understand".

What science have I said I disbelieve? NOT climate change and I said a few times now I believe in climate change and so being that it is NOT that....what science do I disbelieve?

What I said is not THAT hard to follow.

If I told you that MOST people believe that there are changes in the climate. We would both be in agreement.
If I told you that the Earth over millennia has changed it's climate drastically and is continuing to change, we would likely not disagree that either.
If I told you that man does and can change the climate with his actions, We would still be in agreement. (In fact, I listed my efforts in this regard and gave what I believe are some pretty solid examples of this).

Yet, you say I am denying science. It is rather strange.

So given all the above, whenever there is a change in the climate and people instantly go to "Climate change" as an explanation and someone like me says "Make your case for THIS instance being a case of man made climate change" what I get is a smug condescending "You are a climate change denier" attitude. Maybe not specifically by you but I certainly get it.

Agreeing with the basic premise that man can and does change the climate DOES NOT mean that every instance of change in climate is due to man. It is not radical to question the instances or ask for evidence. It could be in ANY situation of changes in climate that man has had some effect on the climate or most of the effect, all the effect or none at all.

I would imagine that the best position is not skepticism but being open to all viewpoints. I am pretty sure that if the human race was wiped out overnight, the Earth would still continually change and that many changes that may well have been blamed on man's influence was simply the Earth being the Earth. By the same measure, I am sure doing the right thing and making the right changes will make a marked improvement in combating what changes man has made or influenced on the climate.

Too many people blame man made/influence climate change on every change in the climate, and too many people say there is no such thing. I think they are both wrong and I am happy to calll them out.

In other words, you don't understand the science and have trouble accepting the conclusions. You don't want to look like an outright denier of climate change caused by man because that would make you look stupid, but since it's me pointing this out, it's something of a rock and a hard place thing for you now.

Not at all. It would be an idiot's interpretation which is why I am a little curious as to why you are making it. The default position ought to be that there is an amount of evidence showing that Climate Change caused by man IS a real thing but that this proves that SOME changes in the climate have been influenced if not caused by man. That SHOULD be the default position.

Calling this position skepticism is stupid and calling it Climate Change Denialism is BEYOND STUPID. So Odeon, given YOUR comments, why are you taking the latter approach? (The answer is not "But you said, as I have been reaffirming the same position over and over and I can do that by quoting what I said word for word and highlighting where these themes are repeated).

If you are struggling with this, I have an even more difficult task, which aspects of man Made Climate Change and which incidences of Climate change have I disputed? All of them? Some of them? Any of them? None of them? You may need a bit of a run-up to tackle this one.

If I were you, I would go with a condescending non-answer or vaguely blame me for not writing clearly (You refusing to comprehend what was pretty elementary). Up to you though.

See my previous reply.

[Al Swearegen]

Al: sorry, I don't have all morning to read posts, especially not ones where you're still evading after that disaster of a post. It's painfully obvious that you're talking out of your arse.

Next.

There was nothing disastrous about either of my posts and it begs a question. IF you did not read my last post as you imply here then under what pretext do you claim that I am evading something in the post? No? You are talking out of your arse aren't you?

I think a good rule of thumb is what you project on others are your own faults that you are intimate with and cast off yourself onto others.

Your disaster of a post made it obvious that a) you have problems articulating clearly (because I wasn't the only one to read it the way I did) and b) you don't have a clue about the subject.

This would be the opportunity for you to clearly state your views on climate change (as in caused by man).

Nope, you and not only you, get resistant to ANYTHING that does not say something along the lines of "Every change in climate is due to man-made climate change and man is ultimately responsible for everything bad in the climate".

If I say ANYTHING is up for question you stop reading or comprehending and YOUR inability to push yourself to see exactly what I have said reinforces your erroneous position. I hardly think that is on me.

Where did I say "every change"? I do imply "most" because science very strongly supports that conclusion (and yes, I do understand the science), but I did not say "every change"

So yes, this is on you, your inability to articulate and your inability to understand the evidence. I'd stop if I were you because you are embarrassing yourself.

Oh please, you are figuratively donning a clownsuit, wig, and red nose and then pointing at me and saying "Look at the size of that guy's shoes".

I think I can hold up just fine.

I am enjoying your efforts. So I am inarticulate and a climate denialist or was it a climate change skeptic? I do not have a problem with you holding any stupid opinion that you hold nor do I have an issue with your inability to comprehend what I write or for you to make silly claims. HOWEVER, this is I2 and now comes the bit where you can back yourself.

You may wonder what there is to back (In fact I more than suspect in your enthusiasm to throw accusations and condescend, you did not read well enough to know what I said)?

What scientific claims specifically have I said were not true?
Which scientifically proven man-made climate change have I said are incorrect (and be specific)?
Have I said at any stage that Man made climate change is not real?
Which Scientist have I disputed (be specific)?

So, no Odeon, you do not get to fall back on vague and/or condescending dismissals. You get to simply back your claims. If you can't I will press for a callout.

[Grey Area]

[Icequeen]

Got to admit that always sounded better than "Massive Ordnance Air Blast".

Who names these damn things anyways?

[benjimanbreeg]

British intelligence passed Trump associates' communications with Russians on to US counterparts.

British and other European intelligence agencies intercepted communications between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials and other Russian individuals during the campaign and passed on those communications to their US counterparts, US congressional and law enforcement and US and European intelligence sources tell CNN.
The communications were captured during routine surveillance of Russian officials and other Russians known to western intelligence. British and European intelligence agencies, including GCHQ, the British intelligence agency responsible for communications surveillance, were not proactively targeting members of the Trump team but rather picked up these communications during what's known as "incidental collection," these sources tell CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/13/politics/trump-russia-british-intelligence/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/european-countries-shared-trump-russia-intel-with-us-agencies-report/article/2620248

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia

Thank you Britain.

The did try.

But you know, if you drop some big bombs, reverse your stance on key issues and generally make some noise, hopefully people will forget about this particular little embarrassment.

British 'intelligence', American 'intelligence'.  Same shit.  Luckily, people who aren't brain dead can remember the same 'intelligence' that told us all the bullshit about Iraq. 

Trump's probably trying to save himself from those who are out to get him, as in the ones who want these wars. 

[DirtDawg]

Woo Hoo. There is a health plan worth saving. 

That's probably a bunch of crap.

Some of it, but my wife's job includes full family insurance coverage under a group insurance plan and finding anything even marginally comparable to the massive coverage we enjoy would cost us well over twenty thousand dollars per year to upkeep on our own.

Yes!! Her insurance is truly about one sixth of her total wage!

As far as glasses referring to the point made here, My "old man"  eye examine is extensive (to protect the doctor from malpractice lawsuits) and it takes many tests and most of an afternoon, about thirteen hundred dollars worth of tests, but it is "free"  (paid for by our expansive insurance coverage) for us and my glasses are covered up to one hundred dollars, normal lenses covered, but no specialties are included.

My daughter likes the cute teen styles and needs a simple astigmatism correction, so hers are "free"  (within the confines of our insurance plan). My son on the other hand is a fucking "Marmaduke" -  clumsy ass bigfooted stumbling dog. Love him to death, but he is now bigger (six feet two tall, two hundred forty five pounds) than I am at eighteen and as clumsy as any typical four year old. He needs those bendy glasses that supposedly can not be broken. Being super-sensitive to light we also pay for his lenses to be shading or darkening in sunlight, kind of a big cost.  We pay out an additional two hundred dollars for his spectacles.

ME, I can not see through glass very well regardless, so I have to have the finest space age super clear Lexan, treated with rare earth elements to ensure they are glare free and super light. I also need to have super light frames made of very expensive titanium alloy and since I have a very large head they have to be the super sized for giants to be usable for me (yep, you could say I look like a fucking bug wearing my glasses). Also, I need to wear trifocals to see up close well, but I can not stand to have lines in my field of view, so I have to buy the "progressive trifocal"  type of lenses that have no visible lines. All told my glasses cost one thousand two hundred dollars to buy. Fortunately our insurance covers up to seven hundred dollars on mine because of my astigmatism and age.

Mine cost, out of pocket, just over five hundred dollars because of our extensive insurance coverage.


This may be an extreme case, but I would not want to try to navigate this industry without some kind of insurance coverage.

[DirtDawg]

Hold on.  You're a climate denier now?

Anything for Trump.

What do you mean, Odeon?

Context your answer in the fact that I am not a climate denier.

One of the first things I ever found on the internet back in the nineties when I finally got an account was satellite pics of some of the most massive icebergs breaking off from peninsulas in Antarctica and I was wondering WTF!??!

I might have started "the climate change frenzy" on my own.
 

[Jack]

Some of it, but my wife's job includes full family insurance coverage under a group insurance plan and finding anything even marginally comparable to the massive coverage we enjoy would cost us well over twenty thousand dollars per year to upkeep on our own.

Yes, insurance without an employer contributing is expensive, some people don't have an employer option and people who can afford it have to pay it. Still don't believe anyone's existing insurance premiums and deductibles increased by 21,500 per year because of Obamacare.

[Jack]