jerryskids

This is how I feel. Anyone who doesn't see the decline, I instantly think either has zero ability to assess people, or willingly ignores it to avoid cognitive dissonance.

Sticking with the religion comparison, the eagerness of the ACC cult to say "the weather is [hot/cold/dry/wet/windy/calm] so therefore, climate change" reminds me of a religious zealot finding a bible quote to justify every action. That being said, the strategy of the cult leaders to change their message to "extreme weather" was brilliant; it channels that part of humans that wants to believe in the occult, things like horoscopes, palm reading, etc. Because it is very easy to believe that the weather has been a little more [insert above word] lately.

On the one hand I believe in being good stewards of the earth, and we do what we can to conserve in ways that matter (mostly conserve water in the desert). On the other hand, it's pretty clear to me that anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is a religion as much if not more so than science. I've heard it said that people who don't believe in God will find some laic thing to believe in; that humans need to believe in some higher cause. Interestingly, I googled and found data which strongly shows a (negative) correlation between importance of God and belief in ACC. https://www.prri.org/research/the-faith-factor-in-climate-change-how-religion-impacts-american-attitudes-on-climate-and-environmental-policy/ When the ACC church leaders show an interest in actually solving the problem on a significant scale (e.g., through nuclear, and natural gas as a stopgap) vs. punishing mankind, it will move more into the realm of science.

Does this mean you are now superdupermike80? or maybe supermike90?

That didn't age well; I just texted my daughter (lives in Manhattan) and it is snowing again today.

What you say is true, and you didn't understand a word I said. Or choose to remain ignorant. Either way, carry on.

Scroll up about 5-ish posts, Baker Boy already posted it: https://www.thebalancemoney.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287 The bulk of his growth was 2020; the previous three years were much less. Biden's "low" growth is much higher when viewed through that lens. Although to your point, we could give a little leeway to Biden for Covid spending in 2021. But by 2022 the major spending items related to Covid were gone.

It appears he was caught once. My experience with people who cheat is that they don't usually do it once. You can and will, of course, fall back on "but you can't prove it," and this is a true statement. I'm confident that he only cheated that one time, and otherwise strictly followed his schools' honor codes.

No, it's not better. Trump was on a typical slow increase until 2020 with Covid which should have been a one-off situation, and the amount reduced thereafter. But Biden has continued to build off of that one-off spending. Every year of his is incredibly more than we should be spending based on historical trends. HTH Simple-minded Leftists, the party of science but apparently not math, refuse to understand this. I just mentioned it above to Rusty, and typically Raven Fan comes in with a "but this one goes to 11" level comment.

Dear jeebus, it's a miracle your brain remembers to make you breathe.

That has nothing to do with the fact that "mine starts when it's cold" was a good zinger for an EV driver, and your response was weak. Also don't be Rusty/Pimpadeaux with the laugh emoticons, it looks dumb. Don't tell him though, he thinks he looks super cool.

Umm, I'd stay down for this one. You are looking foolish.

I've learned with @squistionposts that you need to pull down that dog-eared Strunk and White from the top shelf in your library to try to figure out how you can possibly parse a sentence to create plausible deniability for a Leftie. It depends on what the definition of is is, is is.

If we're talking veggies it'd be between these two, but dayum I love me some au gratin taters.

https://www.google.com/search?q=susanna+hoffs+now&sca_esv=599664238&tbm=isch&sxsrf=ACQVn0994ljsyY6CcmNlbif4qR_nlV4A4g%3A1705630041851&source=hp&biw=1368&bih=743&ei=WdmpZcSMIK74kPIP0o62oAo&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZannaeYiSNwp_7DUI01AJvIBuxc1S-Ne&oq=susann&gs_lp=EgNpbWciBnN1c2FubioCCAEyCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBMgsQABiABBixAxiDATILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIIEAAYgAQYsQMyCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBSPQkUABYrApwAHgAkAEAmAF3oAH_A6oBAzUuMbgBAcgBAPgBAYoCC2d3cy13aXotaW1nwgIEECMYJw&sclient=img Dang, she's 65 in these pic? Absolutely wood! And you can just tell from the younger vids that she knows how to please a man, and enjoys doing so.

Cmon Tim, this is @squistion-level semantic games. She was chosen because she was perceived as the best AA woman candidate available, that is indisputable, since Biden said as much. For all I know she may be an awesome back-office project manager. But she is terrible in public and as a potential POTUS candidate. You know how I know? Because we never see her. The DNC would have loved for her to be the obvious pick to take over for Joe; if she had any modicum of popularity, they'd have whisked Joe off to the sunset (for the next election if not already).

Hmm... Joe wanted to accelerate investigations into Burisma, where he knew his son was "consulting"? That's a theory I guess. Anyway, you asked what I think, and I told you that things seem a little fishy and why. At least worth investigating.

I'm still interested in your explanation of Biden's statement in the phone call, which remarkably your objective wiki article somehow missed. What is critical to repair? And if Biden is a "man of his word" in response to Poroshenko's firing of Shokin, why did Poroshenko deny that Biden had any impact, as per your objective link? The Fox News interviewer responded, "Okay, so that is not true. He didn't get fired because of Joe Biden." Poroshenko confirmed this, adding Shokin was fired by the Ukrainian parliament "for his own statement" and "he played a very dirty game unfortunately." Just seems like somethin is off.

Did Media Matters write this? 28 instances of the word "false" or "falsehood," the author needs a thesaurus. So basically this pinnacle of reporting is saying that the entire world was trying to fire Shokin because they all cared so much, but only Biden riding in on a $1B white stallion could get the job done? And also muh Russia and Trump$#@!

I'll try to read it, but I honestly hope you aren't trying to pass this off as an objective analysis when it starts: I'll add this to the "Wikipedia is biased" pile.

Hush child, I'm having an adult discussion with @thegeneralabout evidence. Maybe you can learn something. Boyo.

It's certainly evidence. Whether it is proof is for the "courts" to decide. I think the implications from the prosecution side are clear: Shokin was investigating Burisma, Biden said he had to go, and he held up the $1B until it happened. In the call Biden said regarding Shokin's replacement, "“It’s going to be critical for him to work quickly to repair the damage that Shokin did." I would assert an Occam's Razor claim to what Biden thought "critical" to repair. What do you think it meant?

I see that you are allergic to data. Good quality for a lawyer.

Seems like once again I need to educate you on the difference between evidence and proof. There is plenty of evidence. The question is whether or not it rises to the level of proof. HTH

DBacks and Suns (and Coyotes I think) were Bally Sports teams but Bally AZ went belly up during the summer. DBacks have been carried on cable and were also streamable last year (without mlb app), but Suns were moved to a local station which is carried on cable, but not streamed. To their credit, the Suns sent out free antennas to anyone who requested one (we did for our bedroom, which doesn't have a cable box). It's basically been a bit of a mess. I expect the Suns with their uber rich new owner to fix it soon, but I don't know what "fix" will mean.