Online Now 1722

The Bucknuts Hot Spot

The place to be for topics too hot for any place else

On this Board 71
Record: 9642 (12/28/2012)

Online now 1524
Record: 10904 (2/4/2012)

Boards ▾

The Front Row

The place to discuss inside information, the latest rumors and scoop on the Buckeyes

Around the 'Shoe

Anything and everything football related that has to do with your Buckeyes

The Best Damn Recruiting Board

If it's football recruiting, OSU-style, it's cussed and discussed here

Bucknutin' But Net

Talk a little Buckeye basketball with your fellow Ohio State hoopsters

The Bucknuts Hot Spot

The place to be for topics too hot for any place else

The Buckeye Babe Thread

Share your favorite pix, a special lady in your life or someone else's life

Reply

The rejection of science on the right

  • TimMcM said...

    You haven't been around here very long, but we have had a couple of massive threads on global warming and the con view point is by far a minority view among scientists. The majority of scientists either disagree with the data grccoins presented or disagreed with the conclusions made from the data because it is either refuted by other data or there is overwhelming data that leads to a different conclusion.

    I have no idea which side holds the truth. Though I read all the posts on those threads I seldom posted. My problem is I prefer my science without a partisan interpretation. One of the two sides of this argument and the supporting scientific data fits nicely into the the ideology of each of the major two political fractions. Because each side believes the data that supports their agenda there is no constructive debate going on, at least in American political theater. If forced to pick, I would have to go with the consensus which is the position opposite the this Board's con brain trust, no offense. But since I am not force to pick, I won't. I will however point out when the Right just throws out evidence, due to partisan reasons, not scientific ones. I'll leave it to you and your con cohorts to do the same when it is done by the Left.

    Show me where the "majority of scientists" either disagree with grccoins data (and tell us what you mean by that inasmuch as one does not "disagree" with data--data is either true or not, or properly recorded or not) or his conclusions. Then, I'd be happy to listen, because I "prefer" evidence to your partisan interpretation.

    1buckfaninmich

  • 1buckfaninmich said...

    No, all it really shows is that you are product of a failed educational system and/or you failed or rejected what someone attempted to teach you during your formative (I use that word euphemistically) years. To say Plato or Aristotle are irrelevant today just demonstrates again your own ignorance. It even took you quite awhile to google Pythagoras and Anaximander--congratulations on your name dropping, however. Here's my advice (free of charge, and I'd bet it's better than any you gave the people you "helped")--avoid philosophy, politics, economics and other subjects in which you have demonstrated no competence (as shown by your posts) --you'll be happier and subject yourself to less (deserved) derision.

    Another piece of free advice--tone down the self-laudatory statements about your alleged intellectual capacities and accomplishments. No one is the least bit interested--and only a narcissist or someone suffering from acute insecurity would trumpet such nonsense to everyone on here (and no, we don't need even one degree in psychology to make such an accurate assessment).

    Since you refuse to listen to "dead old men," at least heed the advice of the living. If you won't listen to your elders, at least listen to your betters. BTW, dead old men have a lot to teach all of us--it's one of the reasons we study history and the history of philosophy, among other things. But, then again, I can see why you and your ilk much prefer a "cool" guy like Obama--another person that has shown no grasp of the ideas of dead old men, and thereby stumbles around in his own ignorance. I think the company you choose to keep is perfect for you, however--you know, "birds of a feather. . ."

    More useless pratter from someone who knows nothing. How many billions of people in the world get along fine without any knowledge of Plato? What percent of Americans do you think can speak intelligently of the difference between the pre-Socratic philosophers and Plato and Aristotle? Do you think anyone else on Bucknuts can? And guess what - nobody gives a flying fig.

    You have already shown yourself as a partisan hack by blaming the Dems for every problem in America. I always love it when one like you tells other people to stop telling people how smart they are after a paragraph in which you bloviate about your superior intelligence and how you are not only smarter than me but better than me.

    Guess your exhaustive study of ancient philosophers failed to teach you about hypocrisy, no it is not a he and the he was not a pre-Socratic Greek.

    Since your attempt at pop psychology is not even close to the mark, you once again prove yourself to be a buffoon of uncommon fatuousness. Maybe you can redeem yourself by sticking to what you know. Perhaps you would like to explain to all the Plato fans how he holds the key to our economic recovery. Or perhaps how Aristotle was anti-choice and started the conservative movement. Or better yet, show your real range of knowledge and explain what all the great philosophers can tell us about earwax in your naval.

    Though often asked, God does not take sides in politics or college football.

    TimMcM

  • 1buckfaninmich said...

    Show me where the "majority of scientists" either disagree with grccoins data (and tell us what you mean by that inasmuch as one does not "disagree" with data--data is either true or not, or properly recorded or not) or his conclusions. Then, I'd be happy to listen, because I "prefer" evidence to your partisan interpretation.

    Sorry but I am not here to educate you. The stupidity of your question shows that engaging in discourse on this subject with you would be a total waste of time. I suggest you try and educate yourself on at least the basics of the of the scientific proof of global warming/climate change. You might want to start with the findings on this subject by 1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2. the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 3. the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). When you have completed those, hopefully you will have gained some understanding about global warming that you will be able to answer you own question.

    Michigan, you are trying way to hard. You want to correct semantics on a football site? Thanks for proving once again what an insufferable, pretentious prig you are.

    I disagree with your disagreement of my use of the word disagree. Here is the sentence: "The majority of scientists either disagreed with the data grccoins presented or disagreed with the conclusions made from the data because it is either refuted by other data or there is overwhelming data that leads to a different conclusion."

    Not only do I see nothing wrong with it because it communicates exactly what I meant it to but the use of the word "disagree" is appropriate in this context, especially given the explanation as part as a compound sentence.

    Here is the definition of "disagree." I belief my use is similar to #2. Don't really care if you agree or not.

    disagree |ˌdisəˈgrē|
    verb ( -agrees , -agreed , -agreeing ) [ intrans. ]
    1 have or express a different opinion : no one was willing to disagree with him | historians often disagree.
    • ( disagree with) disapprove of : she disagreed with the system of apartheid.
    2 (of statements or accounts) be inconsistent or fail to correspond : results that disagree with the findings reported so far.
    • ( disagree with) (of food, climate, or an experience) have an adverse effect on (someone) : the North Sea crossing seemed to have disagreed with her.

    If I was going to be a goof like you I might point out that usually data is consider to be accurate or inaccurate, saying data is true or that data is not true seems very awkward at best. Wonder what Nietzsche would say about it.

    Though often asked, God does not take sides in politics or college football.

    TimMcM

  • Green ‘drivel’ expose
    The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria
    BY LORRIE GOLDSTEIN ,TORONTO SUN

    Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change.

    The implications were extraordinary.

    Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory.

    Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic.

    His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other scientific organizations.

    Lovelock’s invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern environmental movement.

    Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.

    Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.

    He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances.

    Among his observations to the Guardian:

    (1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.

    As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)

    (2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.

    “It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”

    (3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.

    As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”

    (4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”

    sryan2

  • TimMcM said...

    Sorry but I am not here to educate you. The stupidity of your question shows that engaging in discourse on this subject with you would be a total waste of time. I suggest you try and educate yourself on at least the basics of the of the scientific proof of global warming/climate change. You might want to start with the findings on this subject by 1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2. the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 3. the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). When you have completed those, hopefully you will have gained some understanding about global warming that you will be able to answer you own question.

    Michigan, you are trying way to hard. You want to correct semantics on a football site? Thanks for proving once again what an insufferable, pretentious prig you are.

    I disagree with your disagreement of my use of the word disagree. Here is the sentence: "The majority of scientists either disagreed with the data grccoins presented or disagreed with the conclusions made from the data because it is either refuted by other data or there is overwhelming data that leads to a different conclusion."

    Not only do I see nothing wrong with it because it communicates exactly what I meant it to but the use of the word "disagree" is appropriate in this context, especially given the explanation as part as a compound sentence.

    Here is the definition of "disagree." I belief my use is similar to #2. Don't really care if you agree or not.

    disagree |ˌdisəˈgrē| verb ( -agrees , -agreed , -agreeing ) [ intrans. ] 1 have or express a different opinion : no one was willing to disagree with him | historians often disagree. • ( disagree with) disapprove of : she disagreed with the system of apartheid. 2 (of statements or accounts) be inconsistent or fail to correspond : results that disagree with the findings reported so far. • ( disagree with) (of food, climate, or an experience) have an adverse effect on (someone) : the North Sea crossing seemed to have disagreed with her.

    If I was going to be a goof like you I might point out that usually data is consider to be accurate or inaccurate, saying data is true or that data is not true seems very awkward at best. Wonder what Nietzsche would say about it.

    Tim,

    Since you are so smart.
    What caused the earth to warm up and melt the ice during the Ice Age
    some 15,000 years ago. Was it man made global warming caused by the
    Industrial Revolution? What is the exact temperature the earth is
    supposed to be? Does the sun and solar flares have anything to do
    with the temperature of the earth? If cow farts cause global warming then
    did dinasour farts cause global warming?

    hammerhead

  • TimMcM said...

    Sorry but I am not here to educate you. The stupidity of your question shows that engaging in discourse on this subject with you would be a total waste of time. I suggest you try and educate yourself on at least the basics of the of the scientific proof of global warming/climate change. You might want to start with the findings on this subject by 1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2. the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 3. the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). When you have completed those, hopefully you will have gained some understanding about global warming that you will be able to answer you own question.

    Michigan, you are trying way to hard. You want to correct semantics on a football site? Thanks for proving once again what an insufferable, pretentious prig you are.

    I disagree with your disagreement of my use of the word disagree. Here is the sentence: "The majority of scientists either disagreed with the data grccoins presented or disagreed with the conclusions made from the data because it is either refuted by other data or there is overwhelming data that leads to a different conclusion."

    Not only do I see nothing wrong with it because it communicates exactly what I meant it to but the use of the word "disagree" is appropriate in this context, especially given the explanation as part as a compound sentence.

    Here is the definition of "disagree." I belief my use is similar to #2. Don't really care if you agree or not.

    disagree |ˌdisəˈgrē| verb ( -agrees , -agreed , -agreeing ) [ intrans. ] 1 have or express a different opinion : no one was willing to disagree with him | historians often disagree. • ( disagree with) disapprove of : she disagreed with the system of apartheid. 2 (of statements or accounts) be inconsistent or fail to correspond : results that disagree with the findings reported so far. • ( disagree with) (of food, climate, or an experience) have an adverse effect on (someone) : the North Sea crossing seemed to have disagreed with her.

    If I was going to be a goof like you I might point out that usually data is consider to be accurate or inaccurate, saying data is true or that data is not true seems very awkward at best. Wonder what Nietzsche would say about it.

    No need to educate me--I'm fine on that--but you need to prove your point, which you always fail to do. Throwing around the names of various organizations is not evidence--and just as in every other area in which I have challenged you (e.g. constitutionality of Obamacare), you can fashion no argument yourself--but you sure are a good name dropper. Must take you at least an hour for each post to google the subject matter, however. Heed my previous advice, you'll feel much better about life and yourself.

    You could also work on your insults--all you are capable of is name calling, which is certainly not flattering to a person of such gigantic intellect and acquired erudition. Now go google another subject and argue with someone else--I've already told you before that I really don't wish to engage you on any topic--you don't meet the substance of the points others raise, and merely prattle on about the "majority this" and the "majority that" and then attempt (poorly and often in a low and vile manner, I might add) to insult your interlocutor. As I've told you before, these ingrained traits make you a bore and a boor--and since you know my opinion of you, why are constantly trying to convince me otherwise? If you note, I haven't bothered to respond to other (foolish) posts that you are constantly making on this board (it appears to now be your life's "work"), and only responded on this thread because you directly addressed me. It really is tedious and boring (among other things) to engage you, so why do you insist on directly addressing me? I could care less what you think about anything, which should be plain. Perhaps you could analyze yourself andcome to grips with why you have a psychological need to start up with me? But, keep the information to yourself--it would bore me, and almost all others, to death.

    1buckfaninmich

  • hammerhead said...

    Tim,

    Since you are so smart. What caused the earth to warm up and melt the ice during the Ice Age some 15,000 years ago. Was it man made global warming caused by the Industrial Revolution? What is the exact temperature the earth is supposed to be? Does the sun and solar flares have anything to do with the temperature of the earth? If cow farts cause global warming then did dinasour farts cause global warming?

    Don't bother him with questions that actually make him respond with reason to facts--all he can tell you is to consult leftist NGOs or other organizations that toe the leftist line. But, since he is constantly referencing scatology in his posts, he may like the part about dinosaur farts--his comrades certainly found cow farts fascinating.

    This post was edited by 1buckfaninmich on 6/25/2012 at 10:46 AM

    1buckfaninmich

  • sryan2 said...

    Green ‘drivel’ expose The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria BY LORRIE GOLDSTEIN ,TORONTO SUN

    Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change.

    The implications were extraordinary.

    Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory.

    Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic.

    His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other scientific organizations.

    Lovelock’s invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern environmental movement.

    Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.

    Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.

    He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances.

    Among his observations to the Guardian:

    (1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.

    As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)

    (2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.

    “It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”

    (3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.

    As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”

    (4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”

    Do you realize that no one responded to you? The left wing nut-balls on here can really say nothing intelligent in response, and ignore anything that doesn't reinforce their mindless ideology. These left-wing kooks hate anyone who exposes their religious beliefs, and now someone who is not beholden to the government--left wing academia--left wing media complex, tells it like it is--just like the late Michael Chricton who, while no friend of traditional Christianity, exposed the stupidity and tendentiousness of this fringe group's secular religious commitments.

    1buckfaninmich

  • Hmm, I am assuming the revolutionist founders of this nation were ignoramouses?? Wow.

    I assume we Conservatives today are not of the same cloth- college degree, highschool degree or not?? Self educated genius?? Our nation is replete with the latter I believe?
    These elitist liberals want you to believe that what you believe in is inferior to what THEY believe in. This is the card they play to that end. Trump it.

    They have faith in nothing. We have faith in what America was and is meant to be.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Tyriffic1

  • 1buckfaninmich said...

    Do you realize that no one responded to you? The left wing nut-balls on here can really say nothing intelligent in response, and ignore anything that doesn't reinforce their mindless ideology. These left-wing kooks hate anyone who exposes their religious beliefs, and now someone who is not beholden to the government--left wing academia--left wing media complex, tells it like it is--just like the late Michael Chricton who, while no friend of traditional Christianity, exposed the stupidity and tendentiousness of this fringe group's secular religious commitments.

    I love that word. Not sad to have more opps to use it though. Mendacity comes easier for an explanation of progs ways.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Tyriffic1

  • 1buckfaninmich said...

    Do you realize that no one responded to you? The left wing nut-balls on here can really say nothing intelligent in response, and ignore anything that doesn't reinforce their mindless ideology. These left-wing kooks hate anyone who exposes their religious beliefs, and now someone who is not beholden to the government--left wing academia--left wing media complex, tells it like it is--just like the late Michael Chricton who, while no friend of traditional Christianity, exposed the stupidity and tendentiousness of this fringe group's secular religious commitments.

    We don't respond to you.

    We mock you.

    Your simplistic world views, inattention to anything that doesn't fit into your one size fits all box, and absurdist leaps of faith leave us no other choice.

    Besides, it's kinda fun watching the last neanderthals on earth strive for black and white breath, as the rest of the world gets more colorful.

    How's life in Bat Shit Crazyville?

    Unit_D

  • Unit_D said...

    "you have said nothing of substance"

    Ah, but I sit at the feet of the master.....

    Remember, cupcake, that substance is only returned if the other participant showshe/she is capable of understanding same.

    Despite your let's pretend pseudo-intellectual ramblings (a hallmark of such lunatics as Glenn Beck, BTW) your asinine ramblings on all things "liberal" show you to be just another resident of Goofyville.

    One with really serious "creds" amongst the other residents, however.

    So you got that goin' for ya.

    You betcha.

    np

    This post was edited by Tyriffic1 on 6/25/2012 at 7:46 PM

    signature image signature image signature image

    Tyriffic1

  • Unit_D said...

    We don't respond to you.

    We mock you.

    Your simplistic world views, inattention to anything that doesn't fit into your one size fits all box, and absurdist leaps of faith leave us no other choice.

    Besides, it's kinda fun watching the last neanderthals on earth strive for black and white breath, as the rest of the world gets more colorful.

    How's life in Bat Shit Crazyville?

    How dose it feel to beleive that the GOD that created you is dead????

    signature image signature image signature image

    Tyriffic1

  • Unit_D said...

    We don't respond to you.

    We mock you.

    Your simplistic world views, inattention to anything that doesn't fit into your one size fits all box, and absurdist leaps of faith leave us no other choice.

    Besides, it's kinda fun watching the last neanderthals on earth strive for black and white breath, as the rest of the world gets more colorful.

    How's life in Bat Shit Crazyville?

    Since you obviously possess a transcendent brilliance many of the rest of us are incapable of attaining, why don't you educate us subordinates on the virtues of your Marxist views (after all, "Karl Marx had it right" according to you)? Instead of just "mocking" us "neanderthals", why not try preventing the apocalypse and save yourself the trouble of building your underground shelter in the forrest? While you're at it, could you explain how it is that you were such a successful "corporate executive" and "retired at 50" and how that fits into your political ideology. I mean if you do have all this accumulated wealth due to your self-ascribed genius, doesn't that conflict with Marx's views on the proletariat? Perhaps that only applies to others so we can continue to be graced by your nuggets of wisdom in between construction of the next piece of furniture.

    I'd avoid meaningful discussion and debate too if I were you because "Bat Shit Crazyville" is a couple of towns closer to reality than the limbo in which you reside. "We don't respond to you"... Translation = I have no interest in competing with people against whom I cannot win the debate.

    sryan2

  • TimMcM said...

    Very interesting post. Goes from a nice Pseudointellectual rant to an asinine attack contending Dems are devils who caused everything that is bad in America.

    Tries to impress with concepts like geocentrism, citing Hume, calling Aristotelian logic antiquated, etc. but then can't tell the difference between a child and a fetus.

    He was reading his thesaurus in the bathroom!

    dave1954 ●

  • 1buckfaninmich said...

    In making my judgments about ethics and politics, I stand with the best minds and moral characters produced by over 2,000 years of Western civilization. You and your nutty buddies, however, stand with those of the 1960s (then called the "New Left") that decided that they were the wise ones and that everyone who came before them were fools or worse. Society is now reaping (through the ills I referenced in my previous posts) the results of the implementation of these "wise" and "liberating" ideas. I like the company I keep, and the comparison I just made shows who the true resident of "Goofyville" (can't you come up with something witty for a change?) is.

    Are you a Bible Thumper up there in SCUM Land, or possibly a member of the Michigan Militia?

    dave1954 ●

  • dave1954 said...

    Are you a Bible Thumper up there in SCUM Land, or possibly a member of the Michigan Militia?

    LOL!LOL!

    GO PACK GO!!!!! Go Brew Crew!!!!

    Seattlebuckfan ●

  • Tyriffic1 said...

    Hmm, I am assuming the revolutionist founders of this nation were ignoramouses?? Wow.

    I assume we Conservatives today are not of the same cloth- college degree, highschool degree or not?? Self educated genius?? Our nation is replete with the latter I believe?
    These elitist liberals want you to believe that what you believe in is inferior to what THEY believe in. This is the card they play to that end. Trump it.

    They have faith in nothing. We have faith in what America was and is meant to be.

    We're the writers of the Constitution more intelligent than today's people? If you answered yes you haven't a clue about anything. Just because they wrote it 230 years ago doesn't mean all of its words are good today. So many things have happened in this world that these Revolutionists would never keep up. They wrote slavery into the C, does that make slavery fair and legal. Enough of hiding behind the "C".

    dave1954 ●

  • dave1954 said...

    Are you a Bible Thumper up there in SCUM Land, or possibly a member of the Michigan Militia?

    So you and the overweight, geriatric cheerleader from the Pacific Northwest ("LOL!LOL!") are now referring to all Christians as "Bible Thumpers"... Interesting. I thought you guys were all about tolerance, inclusion, and respect for people's own beliefs? I guess that only applies to those who agree with you (or who are willing to write you checks to finance whatever lifestyles you do support). Could you possibly be a greater example of the personification of hypocrisy (that's rhetorical in case you get confused)... Now please expound again on how anyone who doesn't support this president must be a racist.

    sryan2

  • dave1954 said...

    He was reading his thesaurus in the bathroom!

    Can you read--or do you have one of your leftist friends do it for you?

    1buckfaninmich

  • dave1954 said...

    Are you a Bible Thumper up there in SCUM Land, or possibly a member of the Michigan Militia?

    Are you really as ignorant as you sound, or only half so, as in half-wit?

    This post was edited by 1buckfaninmich on 6/26/2012 at 9:26 AM

    1buckfaninmich

  • Unit_D said...

    We don't respond to you.

    We mock you.

    Your simplistic world views, inattention to anything that doesn't fit into your one size fits all box, and absurdist leaps of faith leave us no other choice.

    Besides, it's kinda fun watching the last neanderthals on earth strive for black and white breath, as the rest of the world gets more colorful.

    How's life in Bat Shit Crazyville?

    Your incoherence is equalled only by your ignorance and your vitriol--I find it amusing that you would mock what you know nothing about--but that pretty much says it all about folks of your ilk, Know Nothing Unut.

    1buckfaninmich

  • hammerhead said...

    Tim,

    Since you are so smart. 1.What caused the earth to warm up and melt the ice during the Ice Age some 15,000 years ago.2. Was it man made global warming caused by the Industrial Revolution? What is the exact temperature the earth is supposed to be? Does the sun and solar flares have anything to do with the temperature of the earth? If cow farts cause global warming then did dinasour farts cause global warming?

    1. heat
    2. no
    3. trick question, different parts of the earth have different temperature.
    4. yes
    5. question presupposes that cow farts caused global warming. Besides dino farts, cow farts, my farts, your breath who can tell the difference?

    If you have read my posts on here you might have noticed that I made it clear that I have no real position or arguments for or against global warming. If pushed I have said that I would go with the consensus of the scientific community - which is: there is global warming/climate change and human activities has contributed to it.

    Though often asked, God does not take sides in politics or college football.

    TimMcM

  • 1buckfaninmich said...

    No need to educate me--I'm fine on that--but you need to prove your point, which you always fail to do. Throwing around the names of various organizations is not evidence--and just as in every other area in which I have challenged you (e.g. constitutionality of Obamacare), you can fashion no argument yourself--but you sure are a good name dropper. Must take you at least an hour for each post to google the subject matter, however. Heed my previous advice, you'll feel much better about life and yourself.

    You could also work on your insults--all you are capable of is name calling, which is certainly not flattering to a person of such gigantic intellect and acquired erudition. Now go google another subject and argue with someone else--I've already told you before that I really don't wish to engage you on any topic--you don't meet the substance of the points others raise, and merely prattle on about the "majority this" and the "majority that" and then attempt (poorly and often in a low and vile manner, I might add) to insult your interlocutor. As I've told you before, these ingrained traits make you a bore and a boor--and since you know my opinion of you, why are constantly trying to convince me otherwise? If you note, I haven't bothered to respond to other (foolish) posts that you are constantly making on this board (it appears to now be your life's "work"), and only responded on this thread because you directly addressed me. It really is tedious and boring (among other things) to engage you, so why do you insist on directly addressing me? I could care less what you think about anything, which should be plain. Perhaps you could analyze yourself andcome to grips with why you have a psychological need to start up with me? But, keep the information to yourself--it would bore me, and almost all others, to death.

    yyyyaaaaawwwwnnnnnnnn

    Though often asked, God does not take sides in politics or college football.

    TimMcM

  • 1buckfaninmich said...

    Don't bother him with questions that actually make him respond with reason to facts--all he can tell you is to consult leftist NGOs or other organizations that toe the leftist line. But, since he is constantly referencing scatology in his posts, he may like the part about dinosaur farts--his comrades certainly found cow farts fascinating.

    Michigan, I thought you called it quits and asked me to not directly address you. But it is okay for you to jump in on a post to me to explain why the poster shouldn't address me. You are entitled to your opinions but like most of the egotistically elevated you mistakenly think that your opinions are facts. So why don't explain how I engage in juvenile, boring name-calling but when you refer to all liberals as left-wing nut-balls and kooks you are displaying an intellectual disparagement which is the eminence of witticism.

    That you know little to nothing about science is evident. Your data "is true or not true" while trying to give me a grammar lesson gave you away. No scientist would ever say data is true or not true. Data can be accurate or valid or reliable or even legitimate or authentic or any of their opposites . On the other hand, scientists often talk about data disagreeing with other data or that they disagree with someone else's data.

    Of course as with most self-absorbed Michiganders who think they are god, you can't engage in rational discussions without letting the world see what a narcissistic hypocrite you are.

    I ask you an honest question, you mock me and suggest I study the Old Testament, Plato, etc.

    You challenge me and I mock you and suggest you read what various scientific organizations say about global warming, etc.

    So showing your complete lack of higher level reasoning, you use your thesaurus enhanced vocabulary to whine about how I cite leftist sources and blah, blah, blah ...

    It is obvious that your definition of leftist is anything which disagrees with your opinion.

    Though often asked, God does not take sides in politics or college football.

    TimMcM

Ohio State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports