Money for Sgt Bilko


User avatar
Posted by Sgt Bilko
08 Jul 2015, 4:54 am

Sgt Bilko       
User avatar
      

Posts: 9901
bingster » 06 Jul 2015 9:20 pm wrote:

Oh, yeah? Instead of couching your point in ignorance riddle me this, joker: Where does it say in the Constitution that gays DON'T have the right to get married? And if the restriction isn't there, what gives the states to ban it? What legal excuse do you have to block gays from this "religious undertaking"?

If the constitution does not mention it that means it is a states right or lower jurisdiction down to the people. Did you ever bother to read the 10th amendment.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
1

User avatar
Posted by Sgt Bilko
28 Jul 2015, 7:47 pm

Sgt Bilko       
User avatar
      

Posts: 9901
Reasonable » 27 Jul 2015 9:54 am wrote:
Remember when scientists said 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded on Earth? We no longer need to worry about that.

Now, they say it's shaping up to be 2015. The globe also just had its warmest June on record, when a heat wave struck Pakistan, killing more than 1,200 people.

Expect this trend to continue. Earth is experiencing the highest temperatures ever recorded in the last 136 years, according to the latest report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Glaciers keep melting, sea levels keep rising. Scientists keep banging the alarms. But perhaps most disturbing is the rapid rate at which climate change is occurring —what NASA recently called "unprecedented in the past 1,300 years."

Meanwhile, an ominous new study published in Science on Thursday said woolly mammoths and other giant hairy beasts that no longer walk the Earth weren't pushed into extinction by human hunters, as previously thought. In fact, it appears they were early victims of climate change, a series of abrupt temperature spikes.

As the lead author said, "it raises serious concerns about the future of our environment."

Natural causes of climate change are still in play today, and monitored by scientists. But their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid global warming we've seen in recent decades. This is primarily the result of human activities, like the burning of fossil fuels, mainstream scientists agree.

A 2013 study found that many species will have to evolve 10,000 times faster than they have in the past to keep up with the Earth's current pace of warming. So let this be a warning: if we don't slow this dangerous trend, we could all end up like the woolly mammoth.

The climate deniers are gradually being cornered. It's sad that it took this long, and we didn't heed the scientific advice to curb global carbon emissions decades ago. But the hard evidence continues to pile up. It should light a fire under the debate leading up to December's Paris conference on climate change. So should the Pope's call for climate action.

How much longer until the troglodytes join in?

Most Americans — even most Republicans — now say they support government action to curb global warming, a poll earlier this year found. Two-thirds said they were more likely to vote for candidates who campaign on fighting climate change. They were less likely to vote for those who questioned or denied science that shows humans caused global warming.

Another recent poll found that in the crucial presidential swing states of Colorado, Iowa, and Virginia, a clear majority of voters agree with Pope Francis' call to action on the issue, and believe climate change is caused by human activity.

Granted, it may not be their top election issue. But this shows that the arguments of deniers are increasingly untenable and outrageously out of touch. Climate deniers are heading to extinction faster than any other species, and so, we hope, are the Republican candidates who pander to them.

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/201 ... orial.html

You ignore this graph. The temperature has only been RECORDED since the middle of the 1800's. There is reasearch using data from the glaciers, trees, etc. that give us a picture of temperature, CO2, and other phenomenon going back millions of years. Here is a sample of more recent times. About 10,000 years.

Image
1

User avatar
Posted by Sgt Bilko
28 Jul 2015, 8:11 pm

Sgt Bilko       
User avatar
      

Posts: 9901
danobivins » 28 Jul 2015 5:13 pm wrote:
A simple post to keep things clear & simple. According to the historical cyclical pattern, we should be in the early stages of an ice age right now.
Instead, this year and last yr were the hottest around the globe since records started being kept in the 1800,s.
Small Pacific island nations have had to evacuate due to the rising sea levels inundating their islands.
Right now.
Sorry kids, 97% o the experts can,t be wrong.

So rag head explain to me that according to the graphs we are now coming out of the little ice age. Your prediction is a centuries too late. We dropped into the little ice age at the end of the Medieval times. We are just now coming out of it since about 1900. Please explain the contradiction to your theory and fact of the history of temperatures over the past 10,000 years.

Soldier up now and give me the details about how the graph does not match your statements.
3

User avatar
Posted by Sgt Bilko
31 Jul 2015, 6:48 am

Sgt Bilko       
User avatar
      

Posts: 9901
TotallyRad » 30 Jul 2015 12:59 am wrote:
Cannonpointer » 29 Jul 2015 11:44 pm wrote:
TotallyRad » 29 Jul 2015 10:30 pm wrote:
You can quote parts that are relevant to your post as most GOOD journalist are wont to do. Also, You're welcome to your opinion, but Please don't represent it as fact. :rofl:


It is a fact - whether you care or not. Perusing science journals and quantifying "agreement" across an entire community with an amorphous and ever-shifting catalogue of assumptions, based on something as GENERAL as the author's apparent agreement with one discrete element of those assumptions, to wit: That man's activities "measurably" effect climate change (with no regard as to whether the scientist in question assigns 99% or less than 1% of the blame to humans - OR as to whether the scientist in question even considers climate change to be a negative) - that simply IS NOT, IN THE ADULT WORLD, a legitimate basis for proclaiming 97% support for a broad base of claims which cannot have been verified merely by the agreemet as to ONE element of the "consensus" the author pretends exists.

There IS a way to do things, in science.

That's just not one of them.

You're a layman. You clearly are unaware of how these things work. But if you lay down 60 bucks and take a continuing ed statistics 101 course at your local ju-co extension, then you, too, will understand why the 97% joke is UTTERLY midway-ready rube bait. Yes - it fails at THAT level - at the fucking 101 level.

Frankly, I expect reasonably mature and educated folks to be able to simple suss things like this out for themsselves. But I DO like you.

Carry your billfold in your front pocket for a while. Its better for your back.


I understand what you're saying and I can't really argue that you'rer wrong. My biggest bone of contention is the stated belief that man made climate change isn't real. It's impossible for pollution to have zero impact on the climate. What impact, I don't know and frankly, No one else knows either.

I've looked at the NASA website and I have a lot of questions. Why was the AMA one of the groups referred to?

I have one question and it makes a lot of people on both sides of the argument really angry with me: Does pollution impact the climate?

As for Poptech, He's a hack who's trying to muddy the waters of discussion.

If you really want to understand the issue look into all of the prophecies made about what was going to happn and see how many of them have come true? You will find almost none if any at all. That is how you test those who prophecy.
1

User avatar
Posted by Sgt Bilko
03 Aug 2015, 12:30 pm

Sgt Bilko       
User avatar
      

Posts: 9901
Reasonable » 02 Aug 2015 1:26 pm wrote:
JunkerGreen » 02 Aug 2015 1:10 pm wrote:

Except that nobody really cares, and I mean nobody.


Nearly 58 percent of registered voters said they wanted a candidate who would take action to fight climate changes, and 38 percent said the position is very or extremely important, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released in April.

What piece of trash did you get that trash from? In polling voters they asked them what issues they wanted to hear from the candidates. Out of the 15 or so it didn't even make the list.

PATHETIC
5

User avatar
Posted by Sgt Bilko
08 Aug 2015, 9:40 am

Sgt Bilko       
User avatar
      

Posts: 9901
danobivins » 07 Aug 2015 10:17 pm wrote:
You dumbass, Schumer is a Zionist jew that voted for the Iraq war and the patriot act, and works for Israel.
Of course he opposes the Iran deal.
if the deal is castrated by Congress, iran is guaranteed to develop a nuke bomb if they want. that's the funny part of this.
The repubs and Netanyahu are dumbasses. but sometimes dumbasses cause good results, I consider a nuclear-armed iran a peace influence, countering Israel's constant belligerence and threats to use their 248 nukes.

Dano is a typical radical aka progressive. It shows through loud and clear in this post. He believe Israel is always in the wrong and that the Muslims should do what they want, attack Israel and kill all of the Jews. He applauds Iran whose Ayatollah who is in absolute charge wants to send a nuclear bombs to hit Israel and usher in their messiah. He and the other leaders do not care if Iran gets wiped out doing that. And that is the Iran Obama is making this chicken shit deal with. I go with Ben Carson who said a third grader could have come up with a better solution. Iran gets everything and we get nothing.
0

User avatar
Posted by Sgt Bilko
05 Aug 2015, 9:22 am

Post 05 Aug 2015, 9:22 am
Sgt Bilko       
User avatar
      

Posts: 9901
Brattle Street » 04 Aug 2015 10:03 am wrote:
RichClem » 04 Aug 2015 9:56 am wrote:
TotallyRad » 01 Aug 2015 11:28 am wrote:

God damn it, You just resist knowledge as if it were toxic. I set up this thread specifically to demonstrate to you about the problems with generalization and strawmen. Not only did you not get it, You doubled down on your ignorance.


WTF are you babbling about? I don't use strawmen.

And I cited many specifics above where liberals oppose freedom.

Figures you'd bungle that.


fuck off you PROVEN LIAR.

why should anyone trust you?

The liar here is you.!!!!!
3

User avatar
Posted by Sgt Bilko
18 Aug 2015, 10:35 am

Sgt Bilko       
User avatar
      

Posts: 9901
TotallyRad » 18 Aug 2015 8:26 am wrote:
TheAmerican » 18 Aug 2015 7:09 am wrote:
bingster » 18 Aug 2015 12:35 am wrote:
What's the point? That we're NOT the Greatest Country in the World? Duh!


We USE to be the greatest 7 years ago!

Just to show how fast someone can fuck it up!


No, We've been heading this way for decades.

Only under Obama has the idea that our kids would be better off than us has died!!!! Progressives have messed up this country!!!
-1

User avatar
Posted by Sgt Bilko
18 Aug 2015, 9:45 am

Sgt Bilko       
User avatar
      

Posts: 9901
Brattle Street » 14 Aug 2015 11:20 am wrote:
Pregnar Kraps » 14 Aug 2015 7:00 am wrote:
onlyaladd » 14 Aug 2015 3:20 am wrote:
Historically high under Reagan, hostiricaly low under Obama.
The U.S. abortion rate declined to 16.9 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in 2011, well below the 1981 peak of 29.3 per 1,000 and the lowest since 1973 (16.3 per 1,000), according to “Abortion Incidence and Service Availability in the United States, 2011,” by Rachel Jones and Jenna Jerman. Between 2008 and 2011, the abortion rate fell 13%, resuming the long-term downward trend that had stalled between 2005 and 2008. The number of abortions (1.1 million in 2011) also declined by 13% in this time period.


Then you'd have to conclude, << == no pure bullshit. that conclusion does not logically follow. you are being deliberately dishonest. )) from this textbook example of how statistics can be made to serve any twisted rationale <<== your turn to turn over you cards. I am calling your bluff. NOW if you had a shred of integrity and the slightest idea of the demand of scholarship, you would go about the process of applying your claim to the case in hand. What is this twisted rationale that you are claiming. How is it employed and how is it deceptive? Do you think your are capable of that? I doubt it. I think you are are an amateur propaganda bullshitter but you can prove your claim if you think you are able. )) or idea, that if there were never any more GOP Presidents abortion would be completely eliminated in time << == no pure bullshit. that conclusion does not logically follow. you are being deliberately dishonest. Why don't you dust off your brain cells and admit that many variables are not considered in your asinine conclusion. Your ass is demolished, twit. Any propaganda bullshit you can cook up I will be able to shove down your throat. It is not difficult at all. )).

And yet we ALL know that is exactly what WOULD NOT happen.

And we ALL know that is exactly what the Liberal mastermind had in mind when this statistic was harvested and processed. <<== this twit uses his own motivations in erroneously assuming that everyone thinks like him.))

He wanted to help create a false impression <<== how is it false? you have failed to identify that.)) of the truth of the matter, which is that only because of Conservatives and GOP Administrations have we seen any lessening of the numbers of abortions performed annually.

And now look at who is serving this bullshit up for us to swallow. <<== YOU have been served dickhead. We are watching for your comprehensive reply that establishes your claims as accurate and honest. Your bluff is called boy. ))

Why, it's "onlyaladd."


you have already proven that you are a dishonest piece of shit and did a runner both times i proved it. There is no reason to believe that this time will be any different. Come on smart guy. Take me on. I DARE YOU!

The LIAR is at it again!!!!

MORE SMOKE DISSIPATING IN THE WIND!!!
2

User avatar
Posted by Sgt Bilko
18 Aug 2015, 1:58 pm

Sgt Bilko       
User avatar
      

Posts: 9901
onlyaladd » 18 Aug 2015 10:05 am wrote:
Sgt Bilko » 18 Aug 2015 9:52 am wrote:
Your insane rants convince nobody and are a waste of space on this board.

MORE SMOKE DISSIPATING IN THE WIND

Thanks endo for adding absolutely nothing to the discussion.

ROTFLMAO


You think Brattle makes any sense???? If so you have a major mental issue!!!!
1