[johnforbes]

LATEST LIZ WARREN LIE

amilies can also disagree on the details of a shared life. According to a family friend, David has disagreed with the way Warren calls herself the daughter of a janitor as she describes the work he found after losing a job as a salesman after his heart attack.
“When she called her dad a janitor during the early stages of this, David was furious,” said Pamela Winblood, 78, a longtime friend of David who had fallen out with him and supports Warren’s presidential bid. “He said, ‘My Dad was never a janitor.’ I said, ‘Well, he was a maintenance man.’ ” (In an interview, Warren said she had no idea why that characterization would bother her brother; she has referred to their father as a “maintenance man” in her 2014 autobiography but often as a “janitor” on the campaign trail.)”
Perhaps the difference between a “maintenance man” and a “janitor” is in the eye of the beholder, and janitors do perform maintenance tasks.
But as Warren herself pointed out to The Globe, it’s a difference she seemed to recognize in her book, which makes no reference to her father being a janitor, but several references to him as a maintenance man. She also referred to her father as a “maintenance man” in a 2012 Senate campaign ad, and in a 2007 interview said that “maintenance man in an apartment house was his last job .”

[Clownkicker]

I love how Trump supporters couldn't care less about Trump's non-ending stream of lies--thousands of them in the past three years-- but desperately try to find anything at all they can call a lie from Democrats. Now they are reduced to desperately parsing semantics to find anything at all to characterize as a "lie". That's how honest Democrats are relative to Republicans.

It's like when I say RealTool is a little shit and he claims he's not a shit, he's a lump of feces. Okay, you're right, ya got me on a technicality.

I think we could use a good "sanitary engineer" to wipe up this greasy turd of a thread.

[johnforbes]

I always put on old jeans and a paint-stained sweatshirt when attempting to clean up Clownslacker's postings.

Plus my new Timberland waterproof work boots, which I recommend for winter given their 400 g insulation which is ideal for our present snowy conditions.

[sillydaddy]

The media had a melt down when it was reported the temp in Antarctica was 65 degrees...Blaming climate change...

they didn't bother to report ..It"s summer down there..!!

[johnforbes]

Antartica is great for sunbathing and summer sports in general.

Think about it, nobody has ever known anybody who went there, so the reports about it being cold near the South Pole were probably always wrong.

[Clownkicker]

"The media had a melt down when it was reported the temp in Antarctica was 65 degrees...Blaming climate change...
they didn't bother to report ..It"s summer down there..!!"-TrulyStupidDummy

Dimwit, it doesn't matter if it's summer, you imbecile. The warmest temperature on record is warmer than it's ever been, even in summer, dummy.

What is it about superlatives that are so difficult for your typical conservative? They just don't understand the meaning of a record unless it concerns football or baseball.

It's climate change, you buffoon. Ridiculing scientists and media is one thing. Ridiculing hard facts just makes you look incredibly stupid.

[Clownkicker]

I think we should all take up a collection to send johnforbes to the South Pole so he can see for himself how cold it is before he freezes to death out of his gross ignorance of all things scientific.

[johnforbes]

Let's get real, there have been about 200 or 300 people who have ever been down there.

Most of them probably holed up in a hotel in Miami, and merely took photos of some frozen lake in Minnesota to help them pretend they went.

As to science, we have less than 100 yrs of reasonably reliable data, and in truth probably more like 70.

You could add up the degrees in science held by Obama, Clinton, Bootygood, Fauxcahontas, Biden, et al. and still be at zero.

[Clownkicker]

Of course, johnfibs neglects to tell us that you could also add up the degrees in science held by Trump, McConnell, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Rush Limbaugh, and johnflubs himself and still be at zero.

Yet johnforbes listens to and stands by their opinions on climate change but ridicules the equally inforned opinions of those he listed.

How does one explain such partisan hypocrisy? johnforbes' dishonesty and willful ignorance is staggering.

[johnforbes]

That is true about the other side, but there is an important distinction:

They are merely being skeptical of politicians saying "Give me money for an unproven theory."

That is my position.

[Clownkicker]

But they AREN'T "merely being skeptical", johnny, and you know it.

They are merely playing politics with the future of everyone on the planet for personal political gain.

Skepticism is one thing. All scientists are skeptical, by definition. Conservatives are not being skeptical of the science. They are IGNORING it.

The actual important difference here is that there is a broad scientific consensus about climate change and to ignore that (not "be skeptical of that" you dishonest weasel) is not just stupid, it's immoral in the face of the nightmare that clowns like you are bringing down on humanity by ignoring the facts. But you can do so because you are all old white men who aren't going to live long enough to have to face the consequences of you immorality and intellectual dishonesty. What the fuck do you care as long as you got yours today?

[johnforbes]

We can agree, perhaps, on one thing -- that science is easily corrupted by politics.

That happened even in Galileo's time, very famously.

But, if you visited Russia in the year 1900, you would have found that Lysenko's genetics ruled.

Whether climate change is anthropogenic is open to debate, and it is NOT helpful when politicians seeking money like Al Gore say that only one position is credible.

Like any real scientist, I remain skeptical of what politicians seeking money have to say.

[Clownkicker]

No, you aren't being skeptical. You are simply refusing to take any steps whatsoever to mitigate the effects of climate change based on the best science we have at the moment. That's partisan politics and nothing more.

That's almost as smart as taking a step off a cliff just because there is some minuscule, extremely remote chance that Newton is wrong and the law of gravity will not apply in that precise moment you take the step.

Hell, ANYTHING is possible, johnny, but only an imbecile will ignore our best science of the moment and take that step in a vain (conservative) attempt to prove science doesn't know everything.

[johnforbes]

No, it is the best partisanship we have at the moment.

We all know that grant-giving by federal, or federally linked, organizations has a vastly corrupting influence.

Nobody can study anything but the theory of man-caused global warming for fear of not getting federally linked bucks.

Remember Galileo confronting the accepted scientific wisdom of his day, which was completely wrong?

Remember why Copernicus only dared to publish his true thoughts on hid deathbed?

[Clownkicker]

You keep bringing up that red herring about Galileo bucking the science of his day. He didn't.
First of all, there was very little science in his day. It was all mixed up with alchemy and astrology. The scientific method hadn't been codified yet.

What Galileo was bucking was the Catholic Church, not scientific consensus.

Religion does that. That is the unavoidable corrupting danger of religion.
The Catholic Church already knew Galileo was correct when they tried to get him to recant his science. Read that agaion, johnny. THEY ALREADY KNEW HE WAS CORRECT. Most of the books and educated people of the time were inside the Church. They looked at his science and agreed with him. The sole reason the Church didn't want the truth out was that it feared the uneducated masses of people would start to question their faith in the infallibility of the Church which had been teaching them something else for centuries. (They had been teaching the4 equivalent of Republican "alternative facts") That means the power of the Church would be diminished. And that was unacceptable.

That makes it all politics, just as your position today is all politics, not science. You know the truth yet you don't want anything to redistribute political power to a broader humanity.

[johnforbes]

In large measure, true, but it was scientific consensus too.

Nobody could depart from that, and that is the risk with the modern doctrine (it really is) of anthropogenic global warming.

Political dogma -- which is what man-caused warming now is -- is dangerous too.

As a non-scientist, I remain skeptical of most dogma, and that is a defensible position.

[Clownkicker]

johnny, go ask your mother to explain the phrase "cut off your nose to spite your face."

Then try to understand that what you are calling "skepticism" is really just haughtiness leading you to nothing but inaction and disaster.

Science tells you what is happening. Politics lets the human race do something about what is happening. Science doesn't produce policy. Politics is the only choice we have, johnny. Doing nothing political in the name of "skepticism" is not a choice for intelligent people. You pretend to include yourself in that lot, so stop standing there like a deer in the headlights wearing a ridiculous mortar board.

You've let your education paralyze you.

[johnforbes]

Sure, human nature has -- and needs -- politics.

However, being against doing something dumb (e.g., giving eco money to Al Gore) is in fact doing something.

The grant money is ONLY given out to people who believe, or pretend to, in man-caused global warming, and thus this is very much like the scientific consensus Galileo faced.

And, for Democrats, their politics very closely resemble religion, and their hatred for non-believers is much akin to the hatred of various religions for heretics.

[Clownkicker]

Unfortunately, for Republicans, their politics are their religion, and their hatred for non-Republicans is exactly akin to the hatred of various religions for heretics because that's what their politics it entirely based upon.

[elklindo69]

There is no direct observable proof that humanity causes global warming nor is there direct observable proof that smoking causes lung cancer.

The mechanism that causes cells to mutate from normal to cancerous is unknown. Yet nobody questions the link between smoking and cancer.

Now if anybody could have come up with data and evidence which can scientifically prove that humans are not the source of global warming....then they would have done so already.

[johnforbes]

Sure, but the truth of one doesn't confirm the link for the other.

Now, and this is the zillionth time I've said this, anthropogenic global warming may well turn out to be true. It certainly could be.

But -- here comes the rational skepticism -- when a politician comes to the public seeking money and sending out virtue signals, a rational person remains skeptical.

In almost every area of life, from investing to fighting in a war, a few moments of prudent thought rather than reacting on emotion, can save you.

[elklindo69]

The society has nothing to lose by building out infrastructure which reduces the amount of carbon emissions and there is nothing to gain by continuing to burn fossil fuels. The combustion of fossil fuels generates CO2 which is a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming. That is a scientific fact.

Is it known with 100 percent certainty that smoking causes cancer? No.....but there is sure more than enough evidence to suggest so. Therefore doctors tell their patients to not smoke. And how many trillions of dollars were saved in healthcare costs over the decades?

Conservatives were more than willing to spend trillions of dollars and thousands of lives on the Iraq war on which there was no evidence to substantiate any terrorist activity or the presence of WMDs.

Yet there is an overwhelming amount of evidence which suggests that certain human activities are the cause of global warming.....and conservatives still are more skeptical than ever.

[johnforbes]

Nothing to lose by making extremely expensive infrastructure changes pursuant to a theory?

For starters, society would lose billions.

[Clownkicker]

johnny, the bulk of it creates hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs and increases GDP.

Wow, that really sucks, doesn't it...

[elklindo69]

There is only a finite amount of fossil fuels which can be extracted from the planet. However the amount of energy which can be extracted from solar and wind is infinite.

[johnforbes]

Elkin, I certainly agree with that and, moreover, did long ago.

My younger brother is currently the president of a company which makes cars which are mostly electric. Naturally, I won't say which one, but their cars are beautiful albeit not now affordable for middle class buyers.

The baffling thing to me, looking at roof solar panels 30 yrs ago, is that costs have never come down to where they make sense for the typical homeowner.

[sillydaddy]

I recall reading some reports saying solar panels were not saving home owners as advertised....
The same thing was said about nuclear power, not paying for itself...!

[Clownkicker]

"Now, and this is the zillionth time I've said this, anthropogenic global warming may well turn out to be true. It certainly could be."-johnfoibles

And for the zillionth time, by the time there is sufficient absolute PROOF that anthropogenic global warming is a fact, you will be dead of old age and thanks to your personal hatred of Al Gore, 8 billion people will be facing planetwide famines, drought, fires, floods, mass migrations, wars, and disease because you were too much of a partisan hack to allow your taxes to be spent preventing it. You are so frightened by the possibility that Al Gore might make some money off humanity saving itself that you would rather the entire ecosystem supporting humans crashes and burns (litterally) before some transient politician scrapes a few bucks off the top for himself.

But for all your righteous indignation over Al Gore possibly making money off climate change mitigation, you have no problem at all with the reality of Trump and oil companies and Republicans getting filthy rich off the status quo while stopping humanity from saving itself.

What do you know... another gross example of johnforbes' partisan hypocrisy.

Who saw that coming?

[johnforbes]

Capitalism has helped far, far, far more people than socialism.

Spending billions in taxpayer money on a theory is what greedy people like Al Gore wanted.

I don't hate Gore -- at least he showed up in Vietnam with a bodyguard.

[elklindo69]

Trump is using socialism in the form of billions of dollars to subsidize farmers becuase of his idiotic trade policies. If Obama pulled off some stupid stunt like that Hannity would have been shitting white hot tire irons and Limbaugh would have shot into outer space at warp 15 and tore a hole through the space-time fabric.

It never ceases to amaze me how millions of stupid fucks think this guy is the answer to their problems.

[johnforbes]

Elkin, come on.

You are doubtless eating well off largely American agribusiness.

Surely you don't want American farmers and ranchers to suffer?

You should come out to the ranch some day and have some real ranchers explain the facts of economic life to you.

[elklindo69]

Elkin, come on.

You are doubtless eating well off largely American agribusiness.

Surely you don't want American farmers and ranchers to suffer?

You should come out to the ranch some day and have some real ranchers explain the facts of economic life to you.

Your comment should be directed at Trump. Trump was the one who started the ill conceived trade war with the Chinese.

[johnforbes]

Sure, it is difficult to win versus the long game of China.

But Trump had the guts to try, and effete Barry sure didn't.