17 yrs. no warming?

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:33 am

:hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:
Dr. Carlin, your paper 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Carlin: "No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper. I did not explicitly or even implicitly endorse AGW and did quantify my skepticism concerning AGW. Both the paper and the abstract make this clear. The abstract includes the following statement:

"The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor (CSF) is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting."

In brief, I argue that human activity may increase temperatures over what they would otherwise have been without human activity, but the effect is so minor that it is not worth serious consideration.

I would classify my paper in Cook et al's category (7): Explicit rejection with quantification. My paper shows that two critical components of the AGW hypothesis are not supported by the available observational evidence and that a related hypothesis is highly doubtful. I hence conclude that the AGW hypothesis as a whole is not supported and state that hypotheses not supported by evidence should be rejected.

With regard to quantification, I state that the economic benefits of reducing CO2 are about two orders of magnitude less than assumed by pro-AGW economists using the IPCC AR4 report because of problems with the IPCC science. Surely 1/100th of the IPCC AGW estimate is less than half of the very minor global warming that has occurred since humans became a significant source of CO2."
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56117
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana


Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:39 am

:lol3:
Carlin: "If Cook et al's paper is so far off in its classification of my paper, the next question is whether their treatment of my paper is an outlier in the quality of their analysis or is representative. Since I understand that five other skeptic paper authors whose papers were classified by Cook et al. (Idso, Morner, Scaffeta, Soon, and Shaviv) have similar concerns to date, the classification problems in Cook's paper may be more general. Further, in all six cases the effect of the misclassifications is to exaggerate Cook et al's conclusions rather than being apparently random errors due to sloppy analysis. Since their conclusions are at best no better than their data, it appears likely that Cook et al's conclusions are exaggerated as well as being unsupported by the evidence that they offer. I have not done an analysis of each of the papers Cook et al. classified, but I believe that there is sufficient evidence concerning misclassification that Cook et al's paper should be withdrawn by the authors and the data reanalyzed, preferably by less-biased reviewers.

Oops! :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: That's a scientific smackdown BTW.... :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56117
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:42 am

Oh, but it gets better!
One possible explanation for this apparent pattern of misclassification into "more favorable" classifications in terms of supporting the AGW hypothesis is that Cook et al. may have reverse engineered their paper. That is, perhaps the authors started by deciding the "answer" they wanted (97 percent) based on previous alarmist studies on the subject. They certainly had strong motivation to come up with this "answer" given the huge propaganda investment by alarmists in this particular number. So in the end they may have concluded that they needed to reclassify enough skeptic papers into "more favorable" classifications in order to reach this possibly predetermined "answer" and hoped that these misclassifications would go unnoticed by the world's press and governmental officials trumpeting their scientifically irrelevant conclusions. Obviously, whether this was actually done is known only to the authors, but I offer it as a hypothesis that might explain the apparently widespread and one-directional misclassifications of skeptic papers. Mere sloppy analysis should have resulted in a random pattern of misclassifications."


Shall I post the classification methodology for slowshooter to expose the bias? Naw, I think I'll let him google it! :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56117
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby slowshooter » Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:47 am

How about posting scientific proof that will change the minds of the 97%?

That might support your argument just a little. :lol3: :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:52 am

slowshooter wrote:How about posting scientific proof that will change the minds of the 97%?

That might support your argument just a little. :lol3: :lol3:

face the truth slow-the paper was doctored to produce a specific result. I posted the essay that COOK posted on his forum for the reasoning behind why they wanted to produce a 97% consensus. But you didn't read it did you...

The study is crap. Political drivel. You are painted so far into a corner you're gonna fall over from balancing on one toe.

"Hey! SOMEONE THROW SOME FEATHERS THROUGH THE WINDOW!!!" :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56117
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:53 am

...and since you are about to fall over, might as well go back to praying at church right! :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: feathers and all... :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56117
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:04 am

what's the matter slow, to busy picking feather off??? :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56117
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby slowshooter » Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:22 am

Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:How about posting scientific proof that will change the minds of the 97%?

That might support your argument just a little. :lol3: :lol3:

face the truth slow-the paper was doctored to produce a specific result. I posted the essay that COOK posted on his forum for the reasoning behind why they wanted to produce a 97% consensus. But you didn't read it did you...

The study is crap. Political drivel. You are painted so far into a corner you're gonna fall over from balancing on one toe.

"Hey! SOMEONE THROW SOME FEATHERS THROUGH THE WINDOW!!!" :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:


As a matter of fact I did read it.

And it's populated by a host of oil company funded deniers. If you think that's credible then you aren't anywhere near as smart as I thought you were, and should at any moment, collapse into a black hole of sheer stupidity - created by the huge mass of stupid that you have inadvertently created around yourself.

When you wink out of existence you can shout one last time.... "Because I said so!!!"

:lol3: :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Tue Jul 02, 2013 5:16 am

slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:How about posting scientific proof that will change the minds of the 97%?

That might support your argument just a little. :lol3: :lol3:

face the truth slow-the paper was doctored to produce a specific result. I posted the essay that COOK posted on his forum for the reasoning behind why they wanted to produce a 97% consensus. But you didn't read it did you...

The study is crap. Political drivel. You are painted so far into a corner you're gonna fall over from balancing on one toe.

"Hey! SOMEONE THROW SOME FEATHERS THROUGH THE WINDOW!!!" :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:


As a matter of fact I did read it.

And it's populated by a host of oil company funded deniers. If you think that's credible then you aren't anywhere near as smart as I thought you were, and should at any moment, collapse into a black hole of sheer stupidity - created by the huge mass of stupid that you have inadvertently created around yourself.

When you wink out of existence you can shout one last time.... "Because I said so!!!"

:lol3: :lol3:


Slow, did you read spinner's post? :no:

Both "sides" are now sides, populated by people who stand to profit from one conclusion or another.

What you are to dense to gather is that your side is the one that stands to profit exclusively from their conclusion and has gone down this path before... Global cooling...

If you really want scientific proof, I will provided it. Give me a few days while I workout the math and I will give conclusive evidence to support what Inda has been saying. Remember I am not partial and my bais lies on the side which I stand to get paid... Emission reductions.

Let me know if you want the proof.
There are only two types of people in the world, those who love duck hunting and those who never have duck hunted.
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 7874
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Jul 02, 2013 10:24 am

slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:How about posting scientific proof that will change the minds of the 97%?

That might support your argument just a little. :lol3: :lol3:

face the truth slow-the paper was doctored to produce a specific result. I posted the essay that COOK posted on his forum for the reasoning behind why they wanted to produce a 97% consensus. But you didn't read it did you...

The study is crap. Political drivel. You are painted so far into a corner you're gonna fall over from balancing on one toe.

"Hey! SOMEONE THROW SOME FEATHERS THROUGH THE WINDOW!!!" :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:


As a matter of fact I did read it.

And it's populated by a host of oil company funded deniers. If you think that's credible then you aren't anywhere near as smart as I thought you were, and should at any moment, collapse into a black hole of sheer stupidity - created by the huge mass of stupid that you have inadvertently created around yourself.

When you wink out of existence you can shout one last time.... "Because I said so!!!"

:lol3: :lol3:

Oil companies! :lol3: And that in some irrational way makes the Hack consensus you keep referring to legit. :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

PSST....let me clue you in...oil companies are positioned to profit no matter which way the hysteria regulations go. Check the derivatives markets-they are hedged. :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56117
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby dudejcb » Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:57 pm

Very warm out in the northwest these days. Epic warmth in fact. 110 yesterday, 108 today. So hot in fact that the little glaciers in my cocktail glass melted.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5243
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby ScaupHunter » Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:15 pm

I want my dang glaciers back. It would be way easier to kill a Polar bear off the local coast than having to fly all the way to Canada to get to do it! Plus it would push the eiders down too.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6395
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:23 pm

dudejcb wrote:Very warm out in the northwest these days. Epic warmth in fact. 110 yesterday, 108 today. So hot in fact that the little glaciers in my cocktail glass melted.

Well it was in the 50's when I woke up this morning and it never made it into the 70's here. What does it mean? :huh:

General that someone else has our heat :yes:

This is weather and not climate. Atypical weather resulting from an atypical weather pattern holding in place. But we know this atypically "bad" weather patterns will be more frequent because that would be a good argument for the expansion of government power. Case closed for man-made climate change existing and being destructive :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15799
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:26 pm

dudejcb wrote:Very warm out in the northwest these days. Epic warmth in fact. 110 yesterday, 108 today. So hot in fact that the little glaciers in my cocktail glass melted.

While it is 10-15 degrees cooler than the long term average for the EO June and early July in southern Michigan, northern Indiana, northern Ohio, and northern Illinois.

But that is not proof there is no global warming, just that weather changes, just like climate.
There are only two types of people in the world, those who love duck hunting and those who never have duck hunted.
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 7874
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby dudejcb » Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:48 pm

Thanks to both of you (Woody and Spinner) for pointing out the distinction between extreme daily local weather events in my area, not so extreme events in your area, and much longer term "climatological" norms or trends.

So, if I'm tracking ... the ice cubes in my glass would've melted slower where you are, AND, if it cools down around here, then they'll melt slower here too. Thanks for the insight, all this phase change and differing temperatures in different places -- at the same time and at different times -- makes this pretty complicated tough nut to crack.





























THE GLACIERS AND ICE CAPS ARE MELTING!
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5243
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:07 pm

dudejcb wrote:Thanks to both of you (Woody and Spinner) for pointing out the distinction between extreme daily local weather events in my area, not so extreme events in your area, and much longer term "climatological" norms or trends.

So, if I'm tracking ... the ice cubes in my glass would've melted slower where you are, AND, if it cools down around here, then they'll melt slower here too. Thanks for the insight, all this phase change and differing temperatures in different places -- at the same time and at different times -- makes this pretty complicated tough nut to crack.





























THE GLACIERS AND ICE CAPS ARE MELTING!

smh.
Image
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56117
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:13 pm

dudejcb wrote:THE GLACIERS AND ICE CAPS ARE MELTING!

1. Is that natural fluctuation? They have grown and melted before without man having any impact, so does it prove anything different this time around? :huh:

2. If it is man-caused, is this still even a net negative for society?

3. If it is a net negative for society, does the cost and harm of doing what is necessary to stop it exceed the harm of not stopping.

Three things must ALL be true. It is not clear that any of them are true. I believe 1 is in part true, I am pretty sure warmer is better than colder and the harm is exceeded by the benefit overall. And I am all but certain that we will never be able to stop the Chinese, the Indians, the Russians, and all the other nations that wish to develop and the cost of doing what is necessary will far exceed the cost of doing nothing.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15799
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:14 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
dudejcb wrote:THE GLACIERS AND ICE CAPS ARE MELTING!

1. Is that natural fluctuation? They have grown and melted before without man having any impact, so does it prove anything different this time around? :huh:

2. If it is man-caused, is this still even a net negative for society?

3. If it is a net negative for society, does the cost and harm of doing what is necessary to stop it exceed the harm of not stopping.

Three things must ALL be true. It is not clear that any of them are true. I believe 1 is in part true, I am pretty sure warmer is better than colder and the harm is exceeded by the benefit overall. And I am all but certain that we will never be able to stop the Chinese, the Indians, the Russians, and all the other nations that wish to develop and the cost of doing what is necessary will far exceed the cost of doing nothing.

Yep....
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56117
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby dudejcb » Tue Jul 02, 2013 10:20 pm

I said it was a complicated tough nut to crack didn't I? Truth be told what we need is a Goldie Locks Climate; not too hot, not too cold ... just right.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5243
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby High Sierras » Tue Jul 02, 2013 11:24 pm

dudejcb wrote:I said it was a complicated tough nut to crack didn't I? Truth be told what we need is a Goldie Locks Climate; not too hot, not too cold ... just right.


It's just about right up here in the summer... but I would like it about 50 F warmer here in the winter so I can grow papayas and mangoes in my backyard. Got to go drive the old bronco around a few more tankfuls!:thumbsup:
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 654
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby vincentpa » Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:28 am

dudejcb wrote:I said it was a complicated tough nut to crack didn't I? Truth be told what we need is a Goldie Locks Climate; not too hot, not too cold ... just right.




Aruba?
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Jul 03, 2013 6:26 am

dudejcb wrote:I said it was a complicated tough nut to crack didn't I? Truth be told what we need is a Goldie Locks Climate; not too hot, not too cold ... just right.

But we were told that tough nut had been cracked, there was a practically unanimous consensus that it was going to be disastrous if we didn't massively change our ways in short order? :huh:

So you are saying that Al Gore is full of hot air? :huh:

Are you saying the scientist that claim they know it all are just typical know-it-alls? :huh:

Basically, you agree with my primary point. :banana:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15799
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Wed Jul 03, 2013 6:34 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
dudejcb wrote:I said it was a complicated tough nut to crack didn't I? Truth be told what we need is a Goldie Locks Climate; not too hot, not too cold ... just right.

But we were told that tough nut had been cracked, there was a practically unanimous consensus that it was going to be disastrous if we didn't massively change our ways in short order? :huh:

So you are saying that Al Gore is full of hot air? :huh:

Are you saying the scientist that claim they know it all are just typical know-it-alls? :huh:

Basically, you agree with my primary point. :banana:


Not so fast, spinner, the liberals are allways right even when they are wrong. Because they did out of compassion.
There are only two types of people in the world, those who love duck hunting and those who never have duck hunted.
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 7874
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:12 am

WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
dudejcb wrote:I said it was a complicated tough nut to crack didn't I? Truth be told what we need is a Goldie Locks Climate; not too hot, not too cold ... just right.

But we were told that tough nut had been cracked, there was a practically unanimous consensus that it was going to be disastrous if we didn't massively change our ways in short order? :huh:

So you are saying that Al Gore is full of hot air? :huh:

Are you saying the scientist that claim they know it all are just typical know-it-alls? :huh:

Basically, you agree with my primary point. :banana:


Not so fast, spinner, the liberals are allways right even when they are wrong. Because they did out of compassion.

Actually, all past statements no matter how wrong or silly they prove to be are no reflection upon their absolute certainty that this time they are correct and have no doubt of that. And when most likely proven completely wrong again, by then it is old news and time to move on to their latest and greatest theory on how to institute their Utopian vision. Besides, they weren't really wrong before, it was somebody else's fault or other people have been wrong so it doesn't count or ... They never learn from their mistakes because they always have excuses as to why their mistakes were not mistakes or not their fault. Obama is the consummate example of the straight ahead one-way wrecking ball that results from this mindset. The debt commission was ignored. The so-called stimulus failed. Obamacare is a disaster, but he is on to the next thing that catches his fancy and the wake of destruction he leaves behind just grows and goes all the way back to all the destruction in his wake as a community organizer in Chicago. Nothing gets better, problems are never solved just "addressed" and ignored when they are found to be a tougher nut to crack than their limited intellect will allow them to deal with.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15799
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby ScaupHunter » Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:49 am

Come now spinner,

You cannot expect a man who is limited in vision, intelligence, and ability to do anything beyond what his own vision says is right. You don't really expect him to think, listen others, or take the real world consensus into account. You really need to stop being unreasonable and just accept that he knows what is best. :lol3:

How a useless loser who never did anything usefull got elected is beyond me. How anyone but a completely deluded moron can defend the useless loser after his continuing series of blunders, stupidity, and violations of the Constitution is beyond me.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6395
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests