User avatar
bingster

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 112

Wow... a Misty vs. RichClem fight. Thanks for the memories.....

User avatar
bingster

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 112

Misty » 02 Dec 2016 12:33 pm » wrote: I'm glad you clarified that, because I never said those things.

Trump does acknowledge climate change when it comes to his golf course in Ireland.
He's trying to get permission to build a sea wall to prevent erosion at his seaside golf resort due to rising sea levels.
His permit application for the wall explicitly cites global warming and its consequences as a chief justification for building the sea wall.

But they're so much fun.
:)
I'll never call Trump stupid, but I sure think his supporters are. He doesn't believe most of the crap he says but says it to get votes. I'm looking forward to his inaugural. I think he's going to come off as a reasonable, intelligent person and his supporters are going to **** bricks.

User avatar
bingster

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 112

golfboy » 25 Sep 2016 7:38 pm » wrote: Candy Crowley "fact checked" Romney, and produced an Obama 2nd term.
Too bad she was wrong.
This is the kind of "fact checking" Misty wants. Anything to help Hillary win.
Candy Crowley didn't give Romney the 47% comment or the "binders of women' comment... Romney lost the election because his **** was weak and he sounded like a throw back to the mid 20th century.

User avatar
bingster

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 112

Sgt Bilko » 13 May 2016 9:33 pm » wrote: You obviously do not understand urinals in men's restrooms.
and you obviously don't know there AREN'T urinals in ladies rooms...

User avatar
bingster

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 112

golfboy » 06 May 2016 3:41 pm » wrote:You mean the guy that works for George Soros, and is a campaign donor to Obama and Hillary?
That guy?

Sounds like a good hire by Trump.

I guess in liberaland, it's better to hire someone who is ignorant about finances as your campaign finance director.
Why not? You guys often hire people who know nothing about their cabinet jobs i.e. FEMA, EPA, etc...

User avatar
bingster

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 112

Misty » 30 Mar 2016 10:12 pm » wrote:
I knew it. He never really wanted to be president.
He was just supposed to be a protest candidate, but his ego got the best of him.
I think he's probably more surprised by his success than anyone else is.

Read Cegielski's open letter, here.
I always thought he was running to boost his TV ratings. Your post isn't surprising to me at all.

Did you see the latest zany comment from Cruz? "Stone is a man for whom a term was coined for copulating with a rodent. Let me be clear. Donald Trump may be a rat, but I have no desire to copulate with him." I would expect that both Trump and his wife are expressing a HUGE sigh of relief over that revelation...

User avatar
bingster

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 112

Misty » 30 Mar 2016 9:19 pm » wrote:John Kasich did a town hall meeting with Chuck Todd tonight from St. Helen's Church in Howard Beach, Queens just 2 minutes from where I spent most of my life.
I watched the whole thing and it only reinforced my feelings that I did the right thing by registering as a Republican so I could vote for him in the PA Primary on April 26th.
I don't agree with all of his positions, but I was very impressed by his depth of knowledge of the issues and his overall demeanor.

It was light years away from the garbage that we have been hearing from those two jackasses who are running against him.

My only criticism of Gov. Kasich is.....1. you don't eat pizza with a knife and fork,
and 2. you should have gone to Lenny's Pizza, not Gino's.

Image
You fold it!

Image
The only knock I have on him (besides his being a Republican and all) is that he claims he helped Bill Clinton lower the deficit by "lowering" taxes. Did I miss something?

User avatar
bingster

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 112

[quote="Misty » 24 Mar 2016 6:42 pm"][/quote]

Wow...he's humping that vinyl chair with no hands...

User avatar
bingster

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 112

Typical male bravado. Dude gets attacked by a mosquito but insists it was a dragon...

User avatar
bingster

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 112

roadkill » 14 Mar 2016 1:11 pm » wrote:

Yeah...no need to mention Tommy Boy who rushed the Trump stage. :)
Is anyone supporting the guy? Maybe we would be mentioning "tommy boy" if Trump wasn't so quit to respond with a blatant lie.

User avatar
bingster

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 112

Anyone find the video he's talking about?

Funny how Trump won't admit defeat. He's told the video is a hoax, but he still insists that the guy in the discredited video is dragging the flag. Amazing...

User avatar
bingster

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 112

golfboy » 09 Mar 2016 12:02 pm » wrote: Proving once again, that you still don't get it. Just like the GOP establishment.
snicker

Let me let you in on a little dirty secret: there's nothing to get. Trump is the wizard of oz. Nothing he promises is either possible or good for the country. He's a showman playing to the ignorant masses who never had a voice, because they're practically too ignorant to read or write. They're too stupid to represent...

User avatar
bingster

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 112

golfboy » 08 Mar 2016 11:12 am » wrote: No, cons like him because of their hatred for the GOP.
But when you don't understand reality, feel free to create your own. Not like you weren't going to anyway.

You can always tell when a liberal knows he has had his *** kicked, he screams "racist" and runs away.
They hate the GOP because it's bought and paid for by the likes of Trump. So vote for Trump? No wonder Trump is popular. Cons are wildly stupid.

User avatar
bingster

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 112

Trump's tax plan raises that 47% to 51% but cons still like him because of their hatred for minorities.

http://www.rightsidenews.com/us/politic ... -and-cons/

User avatar
bingster

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 112

Rubio said that Donald Trump ordered a full length mirror for the debate even though the podium comes up to his chest. "I guess he wanted to make sure his trousers weren't wet", Rubio said.

Yeah, it's all getting very childish.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/feud-mar ... d=37223251

User avatar
bingster

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 112

golfboy » 22 Feb 2016 3:48 pm » wrote:
But it doesn't. You know greenpeace lies, right?
Their own link says that the EPA didn't do their studies because of "industry pressure".
Do you believe that under Obama, that the EPA wouldn't go after oil companies, given the chance? :rofl:

and you think the EPA shouldn't "go after oil companies, given the chance" under any president?

User avatar
bingster

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 112

golfboy » 22 Feb 2016 1:16 pm » wrote: Again, if you don't know the science behind fracking, you really should shut up.
You're just embarrassing yourself.

Even the EPA has said there is no danger to ground water from fracking.
Educate yourself. Stop being a liberal.
Despite reading your entire link, I found nothing to say that "fracking can't contaminate ground water". What science are you imagining?

User avatar
bingster

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 112

golfboy » 22 Feb 2016 1:25 pm » wrote: Nope. There have been individual cases like where a well has blown out, but fracking cannot contaminate ground water.
That's ****. The study says fracking HAS contaminated ground water. How is it possible that fracking "has" when you say it "can't"?

User avatar
bingster

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 112

golfboy » 22 Feb 2016 1:16 pm » wrote: Again, if you don't know the science behind fracking, you really should shut up.
You're just embarrassing yourself.

Even the EPA has said there is no danger to ground water from fracking.
Educate yourself. Stop being a liberal.
Instead of embarrassing yourself, why don't we instead agree that the "consensus" is not in yet.

Image

The latest EPA report on fracking has led to an acute case of selective reading in the media, and the problem exists on both sides of the debate. In the end, the conclusion might be that more research is required.

Hydraulic fracturing, known commonly as fracking, has been at the center of a heated debate for many years. Proponents say that fracking and other new drilling techniques have ushered in a new oil and gas boom, which is quickly lessening U.S. dependence on foreign oil and improving the economy.

Opponents claim the practice contaminates drinking water and has other harmful environmental effects (like earthquakes), often using ignitable tap water as evidence.

The report from the environmental protection agency (EPA) was meant to declare a winner. Unfortunately, both sides found what they liked and ran with it.

Republican Senator Joseph Imhofe led the charge in a press statement.
“The EPA’s report on hydraulic fracturing confirms what we have known for over 60 years when the process began in Duncan, Oklahoma – hydraulic fracturing is safe.”


He went on to blame the Obama administration for vilifying the practice.
“This is the latest in a series of failed attempts by the administration to link hydraulic fracturing to systematic drinking water contamination.”


According to Politifact, Imhofe’s statement is false. The report does not conclude that fracking is safe, and that was confirmed by an official from the EPA. In fact, the report actually documents cases of real-life water contamination.
On the other side, the Natural Resources Defense Council used the EPA report to exaggerate the problem well beyond the real evidence.

“This draft study provides solid scientific analysis that fracking has contaminated drinking water around the country… But despite the holes, it is clear EPA has found impacts — they just cannot be sure how widespread those impacts are.”


Unfortunately for the nonprofit and its senior policy analyst Amy Mall, the report didn’t say that either. Instead, it claimed that the EPA found no evidence of “widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water.”

The report merely showcased a few instances of water contamination but says they appear to be isolated. According to the Washington Post, the report still says that future fracking activity might lead to polluting wells and aquifers.
So, who won?

The most concrete conclusion may well be that reading a 998-page technical report from the EPA illustrating 950 points of data is difficult, even for policy experts.
Still, whoever declares first victory will likely be remembered as correct, even if they’re later proven wrong. That puts a lot of pressure on readers to skim, skip, and spin the material.
The other thing both sides seem to agree on is there are holes in the report, and the EPA thinks so too. Bloomberg highlighted some of the companies that refused to give up data, which may have clouded the study’s results.
There might too much spin to trust anyone on the EPA fracking report, but for citizens concerned enough to give it a crack, the full study is here.

http://www.inquisitr.com/2149077/fracki ... oth-sides/

User avatar
bingster

Post

User avatar
  
  
Posts: 112

greatnpowerfuloz » 20 Feb 2016 8:43 pm » wrote:
I'd find that too much torture. Revenge would start looking like an option.

Random thought: How could she marry such an ugly man?
Like an ugly man has a lot of hot women to choose from....