Trump Cancels Chicago Rally Due to Violent Protesters

[acrawlingchaos]

I'm starting to wonder whether or not I misjudged you for actually, being open minded and fair......?

Insults me again and then says "lets back off".

Nearly every comment you directed towards me was insulting or condescending. I really don't give a flying f*ck or a faltering fart what you think of me if that is how you chose to engage with me. If you don't want a pissing contest, put your dick away.

[DuracellBunny]

. The simplest metric, global average temperatures, is one that confuses me to no end. I'm not sure exactly what this average means, as in exactly how it was calculated, and there's no assumption about an underlying distribution or distributions of which I am aware for that average to make sense. Anyway, it stands as a matter of fact as far as I'm concerned that humans must influence the environment. The degree to which they do and the proper course of action in response to it are up for debate.

Even average temperatures get fudged. If we look at the big headline from last year, that average temperatures so far that year were 1C higher than pre industrial times, there was an enormous con going on.

The earth is actually hotter when furthest from the sun, as opposed to closest, due to storing up heat etc. The temperature difference between perihelion and aphelion is about 2 1/4C. The earth is closest in early June and furthest in early July. So, if we cut the year in to 4 quarters, 2 closest and 2 furthest from the sun, taking average temps from jan to sep removes one of the colder quarters of the year, automatically making temps higher when compared to previous yearly averages, as it isn't a yearly average.

People have to stop picking facts to suit their model and make the model fit the facts. The various models shows that both arctic and antarctic ice should be shrinking, yet although the arctic is shrinking, the antarctic has been hitting record highs. If some major predictions of a model are wrong, you can't trust any predictions the model makes. Statistically the model will get some things right just by chance, that doesn't mean the model works.

[Brackneyc]

Statistically the model will get some things right just by chance, that doesn't mean the model works.

Sure, drag me into this.

[DuracellBunny]

Sure, drag me into this.

You know you want to play

I'm going to construct two weather models for the UK, one says that it will rain every day and the other says that it will never rain. As it rains 160ish days a year, one model will be nearly as accurate as the other, even though they have completely opposing projections. Since the "it never rains" model was the more accurate of the two, going forward I am going to tell everybody that it never rains and if it does happen to rain I will call it a statistical anomaly and continue to insist that it never rains.

[dbx]

I'm going to construct two weather models for the UK, one says that it will rain every day and the other says that it will never rain. As it rains 160ish days a year, one model will be nearly as accurate as the other, even though they have completely opposing projections. Since the "it never rains" model was the more accurate of the two, going forward I am going to tell everybody that it never rains and if it does happen to rain I will call it a statistical anomaly and continue to insist that it never rains.

I like this ^. One of the best simplifications that Global Warming, now backed-ff to being called Climate Change, is pure BS. The money made by many at the top of the charade when at it's peak (think Al Gore here, for one) is staggering!

[Fishman15]

You know you want to play

I'm going to construct two weather models for the UK, one says that it will rain every day and the other says that it will never rain. As it rains 160ish days a year, one model will be nearly as accurate as the other, even though they have completely opposing projections. Since the "it never rains" model was the more accurate of the two, going forward I am going to tell everybody that it never rains and if it does happen to rain I will call it a statistical anomaly and continue to insist that it never rains.

Hire that man!

[DuracellBunny]

At the end of the day, what is the difference between pandering to racist and being racist yourself? if he's looking to just play the part, he is very convincing.

As a slight aside, weren't a lot of Obama's supporters racist? If the colour of Obama's skin played any role in deciding whether people voted for him, whether for or against, that voter was technically guilty of racial prejudice. Lots of people openly admitted wanting to elect the first black president.

Every candidate will use race, sex or whatever other emotive issue is available to garner votes. Polling will be done, focus groups will be consulted and if the numbers coming back say that them going racial will gain them more votes than it loses them, they will damn well be going racial.

A candidate could be the most puritanical celibate in the world, but if the numbers said that having exhibitionist sex with 3 donkeys and a transgender muslim in a satan costume in front of the capitol building would get them the keys to the whitehouse, they will start looking for some donkeys.

[mslman71]

As a slight aside, weren't a lot of Obama's supporters racist? If the colour of Obama's skin played ...

Arguments of symmetry don't seem to work in politics.

[acrawlingchaos]

As a slight aside, weren't a lot of Obama's supporters racist? If the colour of Obama's skin played any role in deciding whether people voted for him, whether for or against, that voter was technically guilty of racial prejudice. Lots of people openly admitted wanting to elect the first black president.

Every candidate will use race, sex or whatever other emotive issue is available to garner votes. Polling will be done, focus groups will be consulted and if the numbers coming back say that them going racial will gain them more votes than it loses them, they will damn well be going racial.

A candidate could be the most puritanical celibate in the world, but if the numbers said that having exhibitionist sex with 3 donkeys and a transgender muslim in a satan costume in front of the capitol building would get them the keys to the whitehouse, they will start looking for some donkeys.

Are you asking if elevating someone up is the same as pushing them down? I understand your position and can agree that affirmative action is, for all intents and purposes. I do not agree that affirmative action of Obama support it as antagonistic, violent or dangerous as what is currently coming from the right.

Once again to clarify, I never voted Obama and do not support affirmative action on any level.

Arguments of symmetry don't seem to work in politics.

And yet they are made all the time.

[Mark1T]

Are you asking if elevating someone up is the same as pushing them down? I understand your position and can agree that affirmative action is, for all intents and purposes. I do not agree that affirmative action of Obama support it as antagonistic, violent or dangerous as what is currently coming from the right.

It could be interpreted that way, but it could also be interpreted that MoveOn.org promotes violence and has followed through with its rhetoric and organized multiple violent events such as Ferguson, Baltimore and most recently, Chicago to name three. But, since the press is predominately left, not much is reported about MoveOn and other left organizations, including Soros for one who pours millions in for support.

[mslman71]

And yet they are made all the time.

Yes, if they weren't made it wouldn't be worth pointing out that they don't seem to work.

[DuracellBunny]

Are you asking if elevating someone up is the same as pushing them down? I understand your position and can agree that affirmative action is, for all intents and purposes. I do not agree that affirmative action of Obama support it as antagonistic, violent or dangerous as what is currently coming from the right.

Once again to clarify, I never voted Obama and do not support affirmative action on any level.

The point is that both left and right will use race as an issue if it helps them get elected and it is done as cynically and with as much cold calculation on both sides. Berating one side for what both sides do is unjust.

I'm not following the Hillary campaign, but I am guessing that they are doing the "vote for her because she is a woman" bit, which is the same principle.

[acrawlingchaos]

It could be interpreted that way, but it could also be interpreted that MoveOn.org promotes violence and has followed through with its rhetoric and organized multiple violent events such as Ferguson, Baltimore and most recently, Chicago to name three. But, since the press is predominately left, not much is reported about MoveOn and other left organizations, including Soros for one who pours millions in for support.

Move on is reactionary, and I'm pretty sure I think I disagree with their methods.

The point is that both left and right will use race as an issue if it helps them get elected and it is done as cynically and with as much cold calculation on both sides. Berating one side for what both sides do is unjust.

I don't see anyone in here starting threads supporting violent leftist. I'm certainly not. If you want to start a thread defending moveon or any other violent leftist movement I will be willing to disagree with you.

You are somehow assuming I support one form of racism over another, I do not.

I'm not following the Hillary campaign, but I am guessing that they are doing the "vote for her because she is a woman" bit, which is the same principle.

I'm guessing she is too. I think it's just as ridiculous for supporting Obama because he is black. Again, I don't support either Obama or Clinton. However I can say that neither sough out to incite violence.

Yes, if they weren't made it wouldn't be worth pointing out that they don't seem to work.

It always seems like a way to excuse a candidates behavior, usually indefensible behavior.

[dbx]

Move on is reactionary, and I'm pretty sure I think I disagree with their methods.

Strong stance here!

I think it's just as ridiculous for supporting Obama because he is black. Again, I don't support either Obama or Clinton. However I can say that neither sough out to incite violence.

Another strong statement, coming from someone who could not possibly, actually know. Not saying I don't agree with your premise, but you really didn't give a premise. You stated your premise.... as fact. And that is as flawed as it gets.

[DuracellBunny]

I don't see anyone in here starting threads supporting violent leftist. I'm certainly not. If you want to start a thread defending moveon or any other violent leftist movement I will be willing to disagree with you.

You are somehow assuming I support one form of racism over another, I do not.

I'm not assuming anything, I was setting the stage for my next point.

The Obama campaign brought racial issues to the fore in a way that they hadn't been for a while. From what I am given to understand, racial tensions in the US have become worse ever since (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't live in the US).

This election cycle, race is again being used as an election strategy (successfully it seems). The strange thing is, that if "positive racism" hadn't been used so largely last time and racial tensions increased so much since, "negative racism" wouldn't be as successful this time, because it wouldn't resonate so much in the newly fertile ground.

Racism begets racism. That's my point about berating only one side. The left created the environment in which the right is able to do this. If they hadn't laid the groundwork for them, the right wouldn't use the tactic, as it wouldn't be successful.

[Mark1T]

Move on is reactionary, and I'm pretty sure I think I disagree with their methods.

Fair enough, but I am sure you got my point that it is not fair to at least allude that the rhetoric is exclusive to any side. Not that you were. Just making my point.

[Fishman15]

I'm not following the Hillary campaign, but I am guessing that they are doing the "vote for her because she is a woman" bit, which is the same principle.

I think you could safely say that is probably true...

[mslman71]

It always seems like a way to excuse a candidates behavior, usually indefensible behavior.

I couldn't care less about any of these candidates, frankly. I've listened to very little from them.

It's just an observation on political and policy rhetoric in general.

[acrawlingchaos]

Strong stance here!

Funny, had I stated "I'm pretty F*CKING sure I think I disagree with their methods." there would have been absolutely no confusion as to my sentiment. So let me reiterate, I'm pretty f*cking sure I think I disagree with their methods. Seems you can't understand me unless I give a f*ck.

Another strong statement, coming from someone who could not possibly, actually know. Not saying I don't agree with your premise, but you really didn't give a premise. You stated your premise.... as fact. And that is as flawed as it gets.

Its my opinion based on what I see. If you have something to state to the contrary, if you think either candidate has done so, speak up. If either candidate has, I'm sure it would have been all over the news.

I'm not assuming anything, I was setting the stage for my next point.

The Obama campaign brought racial issues to the fore in a way that they hadn't been for a while. From what I am given to understand, racial tensions in the US have become worse ever since (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't live in the US).

This election cycle, race is again being used as an election strategy (successfully it seems). The strange thing is, that if "positive racism" hadn't been used so largely last time and racial tensions increased so much since, "negative racism" wouldn't be as successful this time, because it wouldn't resonate so much in the newly fertile ground.

Racism begets racism. That's my point about berating only one side. The left created the environment in which the right is able to do this. If they hadn't laid the groundwork for them, the right wouldn't use the tactic, as it wouldn't be successful.

There seems to be this crazy assumption that prejudice and racism in the US was all but extinct before Obama. I have no idea where anyone got that notion from. My guess is from a lot of white people... in fact, those are the only ones that seem to keep making this claim.

But once again, I agree that affirmative action does no justice for minorities.

[Oceanside]

I couldn't care less about any of these candidates, frankly. I've listened to very little from them.

it's like we're watching some bizarre Quinton Tarantino or Spielberg movie ...

tv networks and what they put out are gonna decide who gets in

[dbx]

Funny, had I stated "I'm pretty F*CKING sure I think I disagree with their methods." there would have been absolutely no confusion as to my sentiment. So let me reiterate, I'm pretty f*cking sure I think I disagree with their methods. Seems you can't understand me unless I give a f*ck.

Its my opinion based on what I see. If you have something to state to the contrary, if you think either candidate has done so, speak up. If either candidate has, I'm sure it would have been all over the news.

Please, stop yelling!? Your being upset and raising your voice is hurting my ears. It's expected, when you're called on BS. Geez, it's almost as if....you've had a free run here and have finally realized that that train stopped over a week ago . Get used to it, sonny.

[dbx]

it's like we're watching some bizarre Quinton Tarantino or Spielberg movie ...

tv networks and what they put out are gonna decide who gets in

C'mon! What could be better?

[Oceanside]

C'mon! What could be better?

I agree...

I just hope Travolta gets jacked up on herion and kills someone within Trumps first term

[acrawlingchaos]

Please, stop yelling!? Your being upset and raising your voice is hurting my ears. It's expected, when you're called on BS. Geez, it's almost as if....you've had a free run here and have finally realized that that train stopped over a week ago . Get used to it, sonny.

You're acting like an egotistical tool who thinks he somehow puts me to shame; I mean really? And you think I should care why? I'm quite sure you impress yourself. Go bore someone else.

[dbx]

I agree...

I just hope Travolta gets jacked up on herion and kills someone within Trumps first term

I think you're on to something!

You're acting like an egotistical tool who thinks he somehow puts me to shame; I mean really? And you think I should care why? I'm quite sure you impress yourself. Go bore someone else.

I got your attention pretty quick, eh? LOFl, you're a boring, predictable and egotistical tool here. I'm surprised it took you 20 mins to respond. You're a very insecure dude, bruh.

[acrawlingchaos]

I got your attention pretty quick, eh? LOFl, you're a boring, predictable and egotistical tool here. I'm surprised it took you 20 mins to respond. You're a very insecure dude, bruh.

It took you 8 minutes to respond. I get that's just as telling; eh?

LMFAROLFADFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll assume it's because we are both up at 1 in the morning. Me because I just finished work, you for your own reasons.

[dbx]

It took you 8 minutes to respond. I get that's just as telling; eh?


LMFAROLFADFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111one

LOL, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I win!!

[acrawlingchaos]

LOL, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I win!!

Are you drunk? Just curious.

[dbx]

Are you drunk? Just curious.

And now he goes for the bottom card.....


Um...no. Unfortunately, I ran out of beer about 8pm

[acrawlingchaos]

And now he goes for the bottom card.....


Um...no. Unfortunately, I ran out of beer about 8pm

I just wanted to make sure for future reference. I like to get to know my detractors on at least some level.


And my condolences on your shortages.