Quote:Reporter Tom Foreman on Friday hyped the threat posed by the government shutdown, citing a pause in some senior nutrition programs, a loss of scientific research, and NASA's asteroid monitoring system. Worse, an asteroid is coming February 4th, he said.

https://news.grabien.com/story-cnn-govt-...oid-strike

But Trump's rhetroic is what's bad. Not this. Don't believe me? Just ask Love and Honor, he'll tell you.

(01-21-2018 12:19 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

Quote:Reporter Tom Foreman on Friday hyped the threat posed by the government shutdown, citing a pause in some senior nutrition programs, a loss of scientific research, and NASA's asteroid monitoring system. Worse, an asteroid is coming February 4th, he said.

https://news.grabien.com/story-cnn-govt-...oid-strike

LOL... if that's the only way to get rid of radical leftists and RINOs then so be it.

Bring it on!

Well, now here is a real reason to give Schumer everything he wants.

It's going to increase Global Warming and Climate Change too.

(01-21-2018 01:24 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  It's going to increase Global Warming and Climate Change too.

"Dogs and cats sleeping together.......mass hysteria!"

(01-21-2018 12:19 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

Quote:Reporter Tom Foreman on Friday hyped the threat posed by the government shutdown, citing a pause in some senior nutrition programs, a loss of scientific research, and NASA's asteroid monitoring system. Worse, an asteroid is coming February 4th, he said.

https://news.grabien.com/story-cnn-govt-...oid-strike

Dear God, the crazies are taking over.

Suppose we had an asteroid strike. WTF would government do to prevent it or mitigate damage?

(01-21-2018 02:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 12:19 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

Quote:Reporter Tom Foreman on Friday hyped the threat posed by the government shutdown, citing a pause in some senior nutrition programs, a loss of scientific research, and NASA's asteroid monitoring system. Worse, an asteroid is coming February 4th, he said.

https://news.grabien.com/story-cnn-govt-...oid-strike

Dear God, the crazies are taking over.

Suppose we had an asteroid strike. WTF would government do to prevent it or mitigate damage?

Send a group of deep sea oil workers to blow it up with a nuclear weapon. Duh!

Didn't you see Armageddon?

(01-21-2018 02:36 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 02:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-21-2018 12:19 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

Quote:Reporter Tom Foreman on Friday hyped the threat posed by the government shutdown, citing a pause in some senior nutrition programs, a loss of scientific research, and NASA's asteroid monitoring system. Worse, an asteroid is coming February 4th, he said.

https://news.grabien.com/story-cnn-govt-...oid-strike

Dear God, the crazies are taking over.

Suppose we had an asteroid strike. WTF would government do to prevent it or mitigate damage?

Send a group of deep sea oil workers to blow it up with a nuclear weapon. Duh!

Didn't you see Armageddon?

Maybe this is what crazy ass Nancy Pelosi meant when she said the tax cuts were Armageddon.

Democrats are an embarrassment. Idiots

squirmy M and crazy J should be a hoot tomorrow.....

Eh, better we're unaware of a coming meteor strike and live our lives normally till they are just snuffed out. What's the point of everyone's final days lived in anguish and fear*.

*but tell me

It's almost as bad as having anti-science Republicans on Congressional science committees.

(01-22-2018 02:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It's almost as bad as having anti-science Republicans on Congressional science committees.

I wonder what anti-science really means.

It appears to be used in the same fashion as racist, homophobe, etc. That is, nothing more than name-calling in hopes that the opponent changes behavior/course of action to "prove" their not what they're being called.

But that's a child's game. Rational adults don't need to play it.

(01-22-2018 02:37 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 02:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It's almost as bad as having anti-science Republicans on Congressional science committees.

I wonder what anti-science really means.

It appears to be used in the same fashion as racist, homophobe, etc. That is, nothing more than name-calling in hopes that the opponent changes behavior/course of action to "prove" their not what they're being called.

But that's a child's game. Rational adults don't need to play it.

one would think such......however....

line 3 --->>>line 1b)--->>>line 4.....

this is the real battle DJT is trying to overcome by using twitter as a preemptive defense mechanism vs. the line in the sand he drew....

after decades of fail and more specifically, the last 8, there wasn't another option left on the table.....

ol' boy changed the game (and most of us cringe at times)....I personally don't care....I've known what he's been doing all along....

#winning by protecting the USD is all that matters vs. the demons o' day.....

(01-22-2018 02:37 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 02:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It's almost as bad as having anti-science Republicans on Congressional science committees.

I wonder what anti-science really means.

It appears to be used in the same fashion as racist, homophobe, etc. That is, nothing more than name-calling in hopes that the opponent changes behavior/course of action to "prove" their not what they're being called.

But that's a child's game. Rational adults don't need to play it.

It's not a compliment, that's for sure. To me, anti-science means you only go along with scientific evidence if it tells you what you want to hear.

(01-22-2018 03:18 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 02:37 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 02:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It's almost as bad as having anti-science Republicans on Congressional science committees.

I wonder what anti-science really means.

It appears to be used in the same fashion as racist, homophobe, etc. That is, nothing more than name-calling in hopes that the opponent changes behavior/course of action to "prove" their not what they're being called.

But that's a child's game. Rational adults don't need to play it.

It's not a compliment, that's for sure. To me, anti-science means you only go along with scientific evidence if it tells you what you want to hear.

Something tells me the bolded doesn't include you. You're on the left, you're infallible.

(01-22-2018 03:18 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 02:37 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 02:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It's almost as bad as having anti-science Republicans on Congressional science committees.

I wonder what anti-science really means.

It appears to be used in the same fashion as racist, homophobe, etc. That is, nothing more than name-calling in hopes that the opponent changes behavior/course of action to "prove" their not what they're being called.

But that's a child's game. Rational adults don't need to play it.

It's not a compliment, that's for sure. To me, anti-science means you only go along with scientific evidence if it tells you what you want to hear.

But can't we say it is silly that some scientist insist on "settled science" when it really isn't settled?

(01-22-2018 03:22 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 03:18 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 02:37 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 02:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It's almost as bad as having anti-science Republicans on Congressional science committees.

I wonder what anti-science really means.

It appears to be used in the same fashion as racist, homophobe, etc. That is, nothing more than name-calling in hopes that the opponent changes behavior/course of action to "prove" their not what they're being called.

But that's a child's game. Rational adults don't need to play it.

It's not a compliment, that's for sure. To me, anti-science means you only go along with scientific evidence if it tells you what you want to hear.

Something tells me the bolded doesn't include you. You're on the left, you're infallible.

Science doesn't care what part of the continuum someone is on.

If science indicates that humans are adversely affecting the atmosphere, and there is mounds of evidence that that is the case, I tend to believe it. Even though I would rather not believe that it's true. The only ones that dispute it - even then, only publicly - are the fossil fuel industry spokespeople.

(01-22-2018 03:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 03:22 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 03:18 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 02:37 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 02:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It's almost as bad as having anti-science Republicans on Congressional science committees.

I wonder what anti-science really means.

It appears to be used in the same fashion as racist, homophobe, etc. That is, nothing more than name-calling in hopes that the opponent changes behavior/course of action to "prove" their not what they're being called.

But that's a child's game. Rational adults don't need to play it.

It's not a compliment, that's for sure. To me, anti-science means you only go along with scientific evidence if it tells you what you want to hear.

Something tells me the bolded doesn't include you. You're on the left, you're infallible.

Science doesn't care what part of the continuum someone is on.

If science indicates that humans are adversely affecting the atmosphere, and there is mounds of evidence that that is the case, I tend to believe it. Even though I would rather not believe that it's true. The only ones that dispute it - even then, only publicly - are the fossil fuel industry spokespeople.

And scientist....

http://www.drroyspencer.com

(01-22-2018 03:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 03:22 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 03:18 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 02:37 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 02:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It's almost as bad as having anti-science Republicans on Congressional science committees.

I wonder what anti-science really means.

It appears to be used in the same fashion as racist, homophobe, etc. That is, nothing more than name-calling in hopes that the opponent changes behavior/course of action to "prove" their not what they're being called.

But that's a child's game. Rational adults don't need to play it.

It's not a compliment, that's for sure. To me, anti-science means you only go along with scientific evidence if it tells you what you want to hear.

Something tells me the bolded doesn't include you. You're on the left, you're infallible.

Science doesn't care what part of the continuum someone is on.

If science indicates that humans are adversely affecting the atmosphere, and there is mounds of evidence that that is the case, I tend to believe it. Even though I would rather not believe that it's true. The only ones that dispute it - even then, only publicly - are the fossil fuel industry spokespeople.

I'm glad you admitted that you only go with the scientific evidence that supports what you want to hear. Since you desperately want to believe that there's global warm, errr......climate change, you'll believe every scientific quack who tells you you're right and we (skeptics) are wrong.

As I said, you're on the left. That means you're infallible.