Remember me
▼ Content

If Putin goes nuclear



Page 2 of 3<123>
01-03-2022 01:08
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3979)
GasGuzzler wrote:
This would have never happened if the Sates of America didn't severely diminish our oil production.

Obama sure was great for Oil Production.

Swan wrote:...I voted for Trump so get over it.
Trump certainly would have helped end this current conflict swiftly, with a knife in Ukraine's back.

Remember what his 2nd impeachment trial was about? Yes, illegally withholding funding for Ukraine's military.

Because he is Putin's best boy.
Edited on 01-03-2022 01:09
01-03-2022 01:52
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5696)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
This would have never happened if the Sates of America didn't severely diminish our oil production.

Obama sure was great for Oil Production.

Swan wrote:...I voted for Trump so get over it.
Trump certainly would have helped end this current conflict swiftly, with a knife in Ukraine's back.

Remember what his 2nd impeachment trial was about? Yes, illegally withholding funding for Ukraine's military.

Because he is Putin's best boy.


And in reality which will always elude people with your conditions, Biden financed this war with Russian oil sales to the USA as he put American workers out of work.

Yawn, do you ever get tired of the big yellow shoes?
01-03-2022 02:22
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2932)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
This would have never happened if the Sates of America didn't severely diminish our oil production.

Obama sure was great for Oil Production.

I see you're still a dishonest fuk. Is there some reason you plucked a chart from your ass showing only to 2018?

Is is possible you don't want anyone to know that Trump took oil to net exporter status and Biden immediately CUT production by nearly a million barrels a day so we could buy from Russia?


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
01-03-2022 02:47
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3979)
GasGuzzler wrote:
I see you're still a dishonest...

It's amazing people can BOTH totally fabricate false facts and then be convinced someone is dishonest when they simply point out publicly available information.

"The current level of U.S. crude oil production as of February 2022 is 11,600.00 thousand barrels per day." https://www.macrotrends.net/2562/us-crude-oil-production-historical-chart#:~:text=Interactive%20historical%20chart%20showing%20the,11%2C600.00%20thousand%20barrels%20per%20day.

So the fact is that Oil production dramatically increased under Obama and we still have higher oil production today than before he took office.

I believe you were imagining some scenario in which Russia was using our Biden era gas money to build a military which is pretty silly (military projects often take decades).

Reminds me of this:
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So Gas Guzzler. Maybe you're willing to parse...
______
You called it a ban on Muslims That would actually be offensive.
link

You remember when I was so dishonest when I put words in Trump's mouth and dared claim he said "BAN ON MUSLIMS" and despite the existence of this commercial screen shotted above you all still live in denial that happened?
Edited on 01-03-2022 02:50
01-03-2022 03:01
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5696)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
I see you're still a dishonest...

It's amazing people can BOTH totally fabricate false facts and then be convinced someone is dishonest when they simply point out publicly available information.

"The current level of U.S. crude oil production as of February 2022 is 11,600.00 thousand barrels per day." https://www.macrotrends.net/2562/us-crude-oil-production-historical-chart#:~:text=Interactive%20historical%20chart%20showing%20the,11%2C600.00%20thousand%20barrels%20per%20day.

So the fact is that Oil production dramatically increased under Obama and we still have higher oil production today than before he took office.

I believe you were imagining some scenario in which Russia was using our Biden era gas money to build a military which is pretty silly (military projects often take decades).

Reminds me of this:
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So Gas Guzzler. Maybe you're willing to parse...
______
You called it a ban on Muslims That would actually be offensive.
link

You remember when I was so dishonest when I put words in Trump's mouth and dared claim he said "BAN ON MUSLIMS" and despite the existence of this commercial screen shotted above you all still live in denial that happened?


And in reality Biden cancelled the keystone pipeline from Canadian shale grounds in order to create the need for Russian oil imports to the USA. Not that a delusional person can ever know

CIAO
01-03-2022 03:20
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3979)
Swan wrote:...Biden cancelled the keystone pipeline...for Russian oil


And don't forget the critical role Cookie Monster played in all of this.



because non existent pipelines don't actual effect oil imports at all, Cookie Monster masterminded the chaos in Venezuela for Biden, so that he could...

well you know, the REASON Biden wanted to do that. RQAA on that bit. And Biden and the dems use time machines, so don't mind those are Trump years with Russian oil imports increasing.

Just keep making crap up guys. You get to enjoy knowing things few people do that way.
Edited on 01-03-2022 03:21
01-03-2022 03:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14377)
tmiddles wrote:It's amazing people can BOTH totally fabricate false facts and then be convinced someone is dishonest when they simply point out publicly available information.

It's amazing that totally dishonest schytts can take publicly available information and apply a false narrative that fails on many levels, and still wonder why nobody is fooled.

tmiddles wrote:Reminds me of this [ongoing dishonesty whereby I simply refuse to acknowledge the temporary nature of the travel ban, and I would pretend that Trump's sentence did not include the words "... until we find out what is going on" ... so as to present a totally false narrative of bigotry that never existed. It's exactly like my need to deny the daytime side of the moon and refuse to answer any questions about it ... so I can continue propagating my false narrative ... because I am a totally dishonest fugger].

So now that we nailed that coffin shut, let's talk about the daytime side of the moon. Let's bring GasGuzzler in on this as well.

Hey GasGuzzler, is the moon more or less the same distance from the sun as the earth? Do both the earth and the moon have "daytime" sides, i.e. sides that are facing the sun? I was discussing this topic with tmiddles and he assured me that an atmosphere only makes things hotter, not cooler. tmiddles' participation in the discussion dropped off a cliff and hasn't been heard from since once we focused on the "daytime" sides of the earth and moon. The moon has no atmosphere (of any significance) whereas the earth has a substantive atmosphere of which I like to breathe in occasionally. The daytime side of the moon reaches temperatures that would boil water instantly. You might have noticed, as tmiddles and I both have, that the earth's atmosphere keeps the earth's oceans between cool to freezing cold (ocean water never gets hot on its own). Does it seem to you like the earth's atmosphere provides a powerful refrigeration effect that surpasses any existing industrial refrigeration capability?

Anyway, this is the outstanding question that tmiddles has not yet answered:

10) Why do you claim that an atmosphere only makes a planet's or moon's solid surface hotter since you are fully aware that no place at the bottom of earth's atmosphere ever reaches anywhere close to the daytime temperatures of the moon's atmosphereless solid surface? [Status: Unanswered]

I'm reasonably certain that tmiddles probably just hasn't seen this question yet otherwise I'm sure he would have answered it, so GasGuzzler, if you find a convenient opportunity to put this question in front of him, that would help him out tremendously.
01-03-2022 04:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3979)
IBdaMann wrote: [tmiddles]pretend[s] that Trump's sentence did not include the words "... until we find out what is going on" ... so as to present a totally false narrative of bigotry that never existed.


Here is exactly what I posted:
tmiddles wrote:
OK as it's only a 30 sec spot I'm going to give the whole transcript:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UoQff8MMVM
"I'm Donald Trump and I approve this message.

The politicians can pretend it's something else but Donald Trump calls it radical islamic terrorism.

That's why he's calling for a temporary shut down of Muslim's entering the United States until we can figure out what's going on.

He'll quickly cut the heads off ISIS and take their oil.

And he'll stop illegal imigration by building a wall on our southern border that Mexico will pay for.

We will make america great again."


That's everything exactly as it's said in the 30 second spot.

So I'm ready! Lay it on me. What do you see there that somehow changes the message "Ban on Muslims" ??


And you said:
IBdaMann wrote:...you are a LIAR for intentionally distorting Trump's message...
and ITN, Harvey, I think all you Trumpers called ma LIAR!

It's that ability to suspend reality that is really amazing.
Edited on 01-03-2022 04:01
01-03-2022 05:53
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5195)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: [tmiddles]pretend[s] that Trump's sentence did not include the words "... until we find out what is going on" ... so as to present a totally false narrative of bigotry that never existed.


Here is exactly what I posted:
tmiddles wrote:
OK as it's only a 30 sec spot I'm going to give the whole transcript:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UoQff8MMVM
"I'm Donald Trump and I approve this message.

The politicians can pretend it's something else but Donald Trump calls it radical islamic terrorism.

That's why he's calling for a temporary shut down of Muslim's entering the United States until we can figure out what's going on.

He'll quickly cut the heads off ISIS and take their oil.

And he'll stop illegal imigration by building a wall on our southern border that Mexico will pay for.

We will make america great again."


That's everything exactly as it's said in the 30 second spot.

So I'm ready! Lay it on me. What do you see there that somehow changes the message "Ban on Muslims" ??


And you said:
IBdaMann wrote:...you are a LIAR for intentionally distorting Trump's message...
and ITN, Harvey, I think all you Trumpers called ma LIAR!

It's that ability to suspend reality that is really amazing.


'Liar', is being polite. You are dishonest.
01-03-2022 06:36
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2932)
IBdaMann wrote:
Hey GasGuzzler, is the moon more or less the same distance from the sun as the earth?

Yup. Last I checked roughly 92.5 million miles away.

IBdaMann wrote:
Do both the earth and the moon have "daytime" sides, i.e. sides that are facing the sun?

Yup. Last I checked the moon didn't have batteries so I have to assume the sun was lighting it up.

IBdaMann wrote:
I was discussing this topic with tmiddles and he assured me that an atmosphere only makes things hotter, not cooler.

Whaaaat??? Is there some sort of energy source in that atmosphere?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles' participation in the discussion dropped off a cliff and hasn't been heard from since once we focused on the "daytime" sides of the earth and moon.

Sounds about right.

IBdaMann wrote:
The moon has no atmosphere (of any significance) whereas the earth has a substantive atmosphere of which I like to breathe in occasionally. The daytime side of the moon reaches temperatures that would boil water instantly.

I was breathing some of that just today as I was noticing that the snow melt puddles were actually NOT boiling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIq8jLj5TzU

IBdaMann wrote:
You might have noticed, as tmiddles and I both have, that the earth's atmosphere keeps the earth's oceans between cool to freezing cold (ocean water never gets hot on its own).

What the hell warms the oceans then, huh?

IBdaMann wrote:
Does it seem to you like the earth's atmosphere provides a powerful refrigeration effect that surpasses any existing industrial refrigeration capability?

Like I said, there was absolutely no water boiling out there today.

IBdaMann wrote:
Anyway, this is the outstanding question that tmiddles has not yet answered:

10) Why do you claim that an atmosphere only makes a planet's or moon's solid surface hotter since you are fully aware that no place at the bottom of earth's atmosphere ever reaches anywhere close to the daytime temperatures of the moon's atmosphereless solid surface? [Status: Unanswered]
I'm reasonably certain that tmiddles probably just hasn't seen this question yet otherwise I'm sure he would have answered it, so GasGuzzler, if you find a convenient opportunity to put this question in front of him, that would help him out tremendously.


tmiddles,

How is that Venus is so hot due to it's atmosphere, yet the moon's surface is much hotter than Earth's surface while remaining basically the same distance from the sun?


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
Edited on 01-03-2022 06:42
01-03-2022 06:43
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3979)
GasGuzzler wrote:
... Venus ?
Did you want to actually return to this topic? You guys had given up
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710.php I'd be delighted but you'll need to stay on topic.

Nor returning to the ability to believe nonsense:

Want to double down as Harvey and IBD have and say Im a LIAR for posting the complete, verbatim audio from Trumps first campaign commercial?

You ability to deny reality is amazing.
01-03-2022 06:56
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2932)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
... Venus ?
Did you want to actually return to this topic? You guys had given up
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710.php I'd be delighted but you'll need to stay on topic.

Nor returning to the ability to believe nonsense:

Want to double down as Harvey and IBD have and say Im a LIAR for posting the complete, verbatim audio from Trumps first campaign commercial?

You ability to deny reality is amazing.


We could go back to that topic, but I really want you to tell me why you were so offended by the temporary travel ban, yet it's crickets for Joe's racist and illegal nomination requirements for the Supreme Court.

Oh, and quick side note....I gotta run....

Under no other president has the States of America purchased more barrels of oil per day from Russia than under Joe Biden.

US oil production was at it's peak during Trump's presidency, which drove prices down and hurt Russian oil markets. So which president was more friendly to Putin?


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
Edited on 01-03-2022 06:57
01-03-2022 07:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14377)
tmiddles wrote:Want to double down as Harvey and IBD have ..

You are the one doubling down.

Others had to fight with you for weeks to get you to acknowledge what Trump really said. When you finally did, you posted a correct transcript of the ad and then said "See?" ... except that the correct transcript didn't support your phony narrative. You immediately thereafter reverted back to removing the "until we find out what's going on" from Trump's sentence, claiming that you posted the full transcript ... while having reverted to your dishonest and unsupported narrative.

So yes, you are a liar. This is self evident by your refusal to answer any questions that would settle the issue immediately.
Attached image:

01-03-2022 11:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3979)
GasGuzzler wrote:...We could go back to that topic, but I really want you to tell me...
Constantly jumping around from topic to topic, never answering a question but asking a bunch (just to try to bog down and frustrate people) is classic trolling.

I am happy to answer questions and discuss things. Too bad you're not.

GasGuzzler wrote:...why you were so offended by the temporary travel ban,...
Be accurate. Trumps commercial had the audio "a temporary shut down of Muslim's entering the United States" with the text on screen saying "Ban". Are you actually asking me why I find banning everyone one who is part of a particular religion from entering the United States offensive? You yourself said:
GasGuzzler wrote:... ban on Muslims That would actually be offensive....
Yes it is. Trump's commercial announced to the world the spirit and purpose of his later policy.

GasGuzzler wrote:Joe's racist and illegal nomination requirements
What are you talking about? You say that like I should know what YOU Mean when you say that. You'll need to be specific.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Under no other president has the States of America purchased more barrels of oil per day from Russia than under Joe Biden.
Did you have a point? Like "...under Joe Biden because _________."?

GasGuzzler wrote:
US oil production was at it's peak during Trump's presidency, ...
It was also at it's peak during the Obama presidency. And guess what! After Trumps first year in office it was only 8,915,000 barrels, while after Biden's first year it's 11,600,000 ! And that's up from 10,900,000 when Trump left office.

What's it all mean? That you've pointed out nothing of significance at all.

"The current level of U.S. crude oil production as of February 2022 is 11,600.00 thousand barrels per day." https://www.macrotrends.net/2562/us-crude-oil-production-historical-chart#:~:text=Interactive%20historical%20chart%20showing%20the,11%2C600.00%20thousand%20barrels%20per%20day.

You are simply making things up.

IBdaMann wrote:...You immediately thereafter reverted back to removing the "until we find out what's going on" from Trump's sentence,...


So let me get this straight? (ready to not answer a question again?):
You find that with the image below on the screen:

And the text:
"That's why he's calling for a temporary shut down of Muslim's entering the United States until we can figure out what's going on."

To be somehow different than:
"he's calling for a temporary shut down of Muslim's entering the United States "

Really?

Try these out and let me know how acceptable they are:

"That's why he's calling for a temporary shut down of black people entering the United States until we can figure out what's going on."

"That's why he's calling for a temporary shut down of jews entering the United States until we can figure out what's going on."

"That's why he's calling for a temporary shut down of liberals entering the United States until we can figure out what's going on."


It's always important to remind the world that people like you are among us who don't see how awful this is and choose to support it.
Edited on 01-03-2022 11:18
01-03-2022 17:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14377)
tmiddles wrote:I am happy to answer questions and discuss things.

Nope. You won't answer any questions and you won't discuss anything honestly.

tmiddles wrote: Are you actually asking me why I find banning everyone one who is part of a particular religion from entering the United States offensive?

Nope, that is not what he asked. You are pretending to answer a question that was not asked so you can avoid answering the question that was asked.

He was reiterating one of the many questions you EVADE out of your total dishonesty. He was asking question #20 of this list:

1) What are the unambiguous definitions of Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect that neither violate nor deny physics? [Status: Unanswered]
2) Why should any rational adult believe in either Global Warming, Climate Change or Greenhouse Effect? [Status: Unanswered]
3) How can I unambiguously demonstrate to my children thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer? [Status: Unanswered]
4) How can I know the temperature of a large, unspecified volume, e.g. Denver, to within, say, 10degF with only one temperature measurement, e.g. the Denver airport? [Status: Unanswered]
5) What are the unambiguous definitions of "race," "negro," "black people," "white people," "brown people," "white supremacy," "white nationalsim," "white nationalist," "white supremacist," "black supremacist" and "racist"? [Status: Unanswered]
6) Is there an official list of races? [Status: Unanswered]
- 6a) How do I determine my own race or that of my children? [Status: Unanswered]
7) Why should any rational adult believe that there is a problem of racism in the United States? [Status: Unanswered]
8) Why should law abiding citizens be rendered defenseless before rampant violent crime? [Status: Unanswered]
9) Where in the 1st Amendment is "hate" prohibited such that, if shown, a prosecutor can throw someone in jail for having had that emotion/thought? [Status: Unanswered]
10) Why do you claim that an atmosphere only makes a planet's or moon's solid surface hotter since you are fully aware that no place at the bottom of earth's atmosphere ever reaches anywhere close to the daytime temperatures of the moon's atmosphereless solid surface? [Status: Unanswered]
11) If we were to discover that Lisa Gherardini was actually a shitty person, would that justify Black Lives Matter storming the Louvre to destroy the Mona Lisa? [Status: Unanswered]
12) Why should we destroy artifacts and relics pertaining to history that we never want to forget or repeat? [Status: Unanswered]
13) The Aztecs committed genocide of many other tribes and practiced human sacrifice; should their artwork and artifacts be destroyed? [Status: Unanswered]
14) Why would you or anyone pretend to be a judge of what history is to be revised or destroyed? [Status: Unanswered]
15) In what substantive/meaningful way do the platforms of Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA, The National Organization of Women, the DNC, Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA ... differ? [Status: Unanswered]
16) Which type of wood are you claiming melts (assuming the proper temperature and pressure) ... and what is that specific temperature and pressure? [Status: Unanswered]
17) Why should any rational adult believe that the earth's emissivity is somehow changing to any perceptible extent? [Status: Unanswered]
18) What evidence do you have that the hockey stick slashers you presented were neither BLM or ANTIFA? [Status: Unanswered]
19) What evidence do you have that any of the hockey stick slashers you presented were arrested and are now in prison? [Status: Unanswered]
20) Why do you oppose Trump's entry restrictions (into the USA) as being racist on members of a particular religion from six particular countries (while he investigates certain problems) and yet you support Biden's black racial requirement for the Supreme Court (which is clearly illegal per the Civil Rights Act of 1964? [Status: Unanswered]
21) Why do you scream red-faced at the mere rumor of violence by Trump supporters yet you go to the mat in defense of BLM and ANTIFA violence documented in video and photographs? [Status: Unanswered]
22) So how was Ashli Babbit, a peaceful, unarmed occupier of a government building, treasonous? [Status: Unanswered]

I would note that every single question on the list was the direct topic of conversation when you first EVADED it. Your ongoing excuse is that once you have EVADED a question it is no longer supposed to be asked.

I have thoroughly answered every single question you have asked on Climate-Debate, and more often than not you have simply ignored my responses with the intention of repeating the same already-answered questions as though they were never answered. You, on the other hand, simply refuse to answer questions. Let's just keep the record straight.

tmiddles wrote: Trump's commercial announced to the world the spirit and purpose of his later policy.

... and it was your phony narrative that totally misrepresented Trump's spirit and purpose. One of the questions you have thus far EVADED (that should be placed on the list above) is "Trump was elected. Once the campaign ad in question became totally moot, what policy did Trump eventually put into effect about which you are bitching?"

tmiddles wrote: You say that like I should know what YOU Mean when you say that.

... because you do. You have been asked this question many times and now you are just buying time for this question to hopefully go away.

tmiddles wrote: Did you have a point?

Once again you are playing dumb. GasGuzzler made his point with crystal clarity and appetent alacrity. You, however, intentionally butchered his point in your abridgment of his quote so you can make it appear that he was somehow unclear, so that you can buy more time in the hope that the question might simply go away.

Once again, his question is #20 in the list. Joe Biden openly and flagrantly violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act by discriminating on gender and racial grounds in his Supreme Court nomination ... and you have not criticized this with the same vehemence that you have been bitching that the world is coming to an end over a moot campaign ad that you simply misrepresented.

Where is your outrage over Joe Biden's offensive and overt racism and sexism?

tmiddles wrote:What's it all mean?

Playing dumb is your go-to convenience.

tmiddles wrote:Try these out and let me know how acceptable they are:

"I will only consider a white, male Supreme Court nomination."

"I will keep my commitment to make the next Supreme Court Justice white."

"The Court needs a man."


[silence] - tmiddles.
01-03-2022 17:36
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3314)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:...We could go back to that topic, but I really want you to tell me...
Constantly jumping around from topic to topic, never answering a question but asking a bunch (just to try to bog down and frustrate people) is classic trolling.

I am happy to answer questions and discuss things. Too bad you're not.

Projection.

tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:...why you were so offended by the temporary travel ban,...
Be accurate. Trumps commercial had the audio "a temporary shut down of Muslim's entering the United States" with the text on screen saying "Ban". Are you actually asking me why I find banning everyone one who is part of a particular religion from entering the United States offensive? You yourself said:
GasGuzzler wrote:... ban on Muslims That would actually be offensive....
Yes it is. Trump's commercial announced to the world the spirit and purpose of his later policy.

Repetition (already addressed).

tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:Joe's racist and illegal nomination requirements
What are you talking about? You say that like I should know what YOU Mean when you say that. You'll need to be specific.

RQAA.

tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Under no other president has the States of America purchased more barrels of oil per day from Russia than under Joe Biden.
Did you have a point? Like "...under Joe Biden because _________."?

You dishonestly and purposely left out his point, and now you are pretending not to know things, as any good liberal does... His point in this side discussion is when he asks you the question "So which president was more friendly to Putin?" You IGNORED his question, per usual. --- I also nominate this question to be added to the list of questions that tmiddles refuses to answer.

Oil production peaked during the Trump-era and continuously increased during the Trump -era (until the covid tyranny nonsense). Your numbers about production are cherry picked and ignore other factors that had a significant effect on them.

With this side discussion, you also are diverting away from the REAL point at hand here, which is your refusal to answer question #20 on the list:

20) Why do you oppose Trump's entry restrictions (into the USA) as being racist on members of a particular religion from six particular countries (while he investigates certain problems) and yet you support Biden's black racial requirement for the Supreme Court (which is clearly illegal per the Civil Rights Act of 1964? [Status: Unanswered]


You are a dishonest ****.
Edited on 01-03-2022 17:42
01-03-2022 18:47
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2932)
gfm7175 wrote:
You are a dishonest ****.


The guy that jumps all over, waving his hands and crying out about the fair and honest "election" is the exact same gut that constantly displays habitually blatant dishonesty.

He's quite the tool.


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
Edited on 01-03-2022 18:49
01-03-2022 23:54
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3979)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Trump's commercial announced to the world the spirit and purpose of his later policy.

... and it was your phony narrative...the campaign ad in question became totally moot, ...
You are welcome to think that what someone says is "just boys talk" or any other excuse you might have for why statements don't count. They do.

You have yet to explain how I misrepresented a commercial by providing a complete transcript of it.

GasGuzzler wrote:"So which president was more friendly to Putin?" You IGNORED his question,
First of all you ignore almost all of my question with a BS RQAA

As you are well aware I, along with most of the world, don't doubt that Trump is Putin's best boy.

I subscribe whole heartedly to this consensus view as written here:
https://www.thesunchronicle.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/trump-gave-putin-what-he-wanted-those-are-the-facts/article_0bbc0b97-f63c-5a88-a321-eb05cffcdfb8.html

gfm7175 wrote:
...Why do you oppose Trump's entry restrictions (into the USA) as being racist on members of a particular religion...
Because a ban on muslims, temporary or not, until we figure out what is going on or not, is an abomination that contradicts everything this country stands for. That was his announced intent and the policy he put in place was the most the law would allow.
I just answered you. How about your respond to that and not shift away.

gfm7175 wrote:
Biden's black racial requirement for the Supreme Court (which is clearly illegal per the Civil Rights Act of 1964? [Status: Unanswered]
First time you've asked. You are essentially saying that it is illegal to consider race in hiring or appointing someone to a job? Is that correct?
Let's drill down on exactly what you are saying so I know what I'm addressing.

I don't see anything "illegal" or even unwise in Biden's SCOTUS appointment. I think it's wonderful.

GasGuzzler wrote:
The guy that jumps all over,
The guy that skips the debate

run along Tucker
Edited on 02-03-2022 00:18
02-03-2022 00:01
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5696)
tmiddles wrote:
Swan wrote:...Biden cancelled the keystone pipeline...for Russian oil


And don't forget the critical role Cookie Monster played in all of this.



because non existent pipelines don't actual effect oil imports at all, Cookie Monster masterminded the chaos in Venezuela for Biden, so that he could...

well you know, the REASON Biden wanted to do that. RQAA on that bit. And Biden and the dems use time machines, so don't mind those are Trump years with Russian oil imports increasing.

Just keep making crap up guys. You get to enjoy knowing things few people do that way.


Elmo Big Bird and The Cookie Monster all have an IQ edge on you
02-03-2022 00:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3979)
Swan wrote:
Elmo Big Bird and The Cookie Monster all have an IQ edge on you


IBD has the empty ad hominem attacks covered.

How about a real argument.
02-03-2022 00:32
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2932)
Joe Biden said:
While I've been studying candidates' backgrounds and writings, I have made no decision except one. The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity. And that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court.



Here ya go tmiddles. This is at least the 4th time you've been asked about this, but I'll go one more time.

How is it legal for Joe to discriminate against 93% of the population because of race or gender?

I literally had no chance at that job because of my skin color. (I am identifying as a female today)


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
Edited on 02-03-2022 00:33
02-03-2022 01:19
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3979)
GasGuzzler wrote:
I literally had no chance at that job because of my skin color. (I am identifying as a female today)


So your issue would be with any consideration of someone's gender, race, origin ect. right? So this is an OLD issue most explored with affirmative action.

I see two issues:
1- It's legal as the courts have determined. To run around saying it's illegal has to mean you have your own personal take on the law (which sadly is irrelevant to the law).

2- Is it unethical/detrimental to society/ pointless ect.?

My perspective on why it's smart, constructive and important to consider race, gender, origin and other involuntary attributes of a person (they had no choice in the matter, you cannot yourself choose to be that):
It is important for SOME jobs and SCUSTUS in particular this reason:

SCOTUS is critical for it's roll in representing the interest of the people as the legislative branch of government. It is VERY important that they be citizens of the country themselves, be human beings with feelings, and be ethical and honest.

Just as it's important that they be in the country and living the lives of American's it's important that they can relate to the country as a whole. They rule on abortion for example which is exclusively restricting the rights of one gender. To not have women on the court would betray the purpose of the court in those rulings.

I will never be able to be a black woman and so if a job is specifically ear marked for a black woman it's true that I won't have the opportunity to get the job.

But I will also never be a black woman and understand what life in America is for black women.

And I'll never get pregnant or even have to worry I might get pregnant.

Here's one final example:
Imagine a citizens commission on healing from the civil conflicts was being formed in Ireland and they decided that 1/2 the reps should be protestant and 1/2 catholic.

What if the entire commission was protestant because they all scored highest on the test?

Now you let me know what you think. Not just a bunch of questions and cheap shots.

I laid out my reasoning and it's your turn.
02-03-2022 02:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14377)
tmiddles wrote:So your issue would be with any consideration of someone's gender, race, origin ect. right?

Nope. The issue is your hypocrisy as illustrated by your silence on Biden's violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Please stay on subject.

tmiddles wrote:1- It's legal as the courts have determined.

This answers why you are allowed to be hypocritical, not why you choose to be. Please answer the question asked.

tmiddles wrote: My perspective on why it's smart, constructive and important to consider race, gender, origin and other involuntary attributes of a person (they had no choice in the matter, you cannot yourself choose to be that): It is important for SOME jobs

Did you just give yourself "special pleading" authority to declare breaking laws to be perfectly fine for those situations that you decide are "important enough"?

This too answers why you are apparently allowed to be hypocritical, not why you choose to be. Please answer the question asked.

tmiddles wrote:SCOTUS is critical for it's roll in representing the interest of the people as the legislative branch of government.

This requires someone of integrity, not someone of a particular skin color. Your claim that a particular skin color or gender is required to represent someone is false. It also doesn't answer the question at hand.

I am going to assume that the President's job is exceedingly important and therefore is certainly important enough to violate any and all laws in your opinion (based on your stated requirements) so ... why are you running your yap over the President performing his critical job and protecting Americans ... when it's Trump ... and totally silent over the President flagrantly violating laws when it's Biden? The question involves you and your dichotomy.

tmiddles wrote: It is VERY important that they be citizens of the country themselves, be human beings with feelings, and be ethical and honest.
Just as it's important that they be in the country and living the lives of American's it's important that they can relate to the country as a whole.

absolutely none of this justifies your special pleading for skin color.

tmiddles wrote: They rule on abortion for example which is exclusively restricting the rights of one gender.

Apparently you were never taught that children come in both genders. Parents as well. Abortion by pregnant women robs the male parents of their children. Abortion by pregnant women robs the killed children of their lives, liberty and happiness, regardless of their gender.

I'll assume that you brain-farted and misspoke.

tmiddles wrote: To not have women on the court would betray the purpose of the court in those rulings.

Nope. To not have people of integrity would betray the purpose of the court, not the gender or skin color of any person ruling.

tmiddles wrote:I will never be able to be a black woman and so if a job is specifically ear marked for a black woman it's true that I won't have the opportunity to get the job.

Until you sue under the 1964 Civil Rights Act and threaten to put people in prison.

tmiddles wrote:But I will also never be a black woman and understand what life in America is for black women.

You will never understand it only because you are stupid. I understand it very well because I am not stupid.

tmiddles wrote:And I'll never get pregnant or even have to worry I might get pregnant.

Big deal. Future pregnancy potential is not required to decide whether one should be allowed to kill other living humans who have committed no crime and who have not expressed any desire to die.

tmiddles wrote:Now you let me know what you think. Not just a bunch of questions and cheap shots.

Whoa, easy there tiger. Back up a step. You still need to answer the question.

Why do you bitch and moan and complain and rag and gripe and cry and wail and generally go apoplectic over a moot campaign ad, and yet remain silent when Biden exercises overt racism and sexism in practice right in front of you?

You are at the center of the question, i.e. you and your extreme special-pleading-induced double standard.

The floor is yours ...
02-03-2022 03:11
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3979)
IBdaMann wrote:
... Your claim that a particular skin color or gender is required to represent someone is false. ..

So you see not difference in 9 men ruling on what women can do with their bodies and 4 women and 5 men making that ruling?

You actually CANNOT put yourself in someone else's shoes. You need to be dealing with something personally, in order to be dealing with something personally.

When it's suggested or described "Try putting yourself in their shoes" it's acknowledged that you can't really do it.

IBdaMann wrote: flagrantly violating laws . ..
If that were true (it's not) you could sue in court and you'd win.

Some new laws have been passed to interfere with the ability of governments to consider race and so in those cases things like affermative action have been stopped to some degree.

But the "It's illegal!" when you are talking about an entirely public, in broad daylight exercise of our own government begs the question: then why isn't the person saying so taking it to court?

Again you're just making things up.

So what of it IBD?:
Here's one final example:
Imagine a citizens commission on healing from the civil conflicts was being formed in Ireland and they decided that 1/2 the reps should be protestant and 1/2 catholic.

What if the entire commission was protestant because they all scored highest on the test?
02-03-2022 03:21
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2932)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So your issue would be with any consideration of someone's gender, race, origin ect. right?

Nope. The issue is your hypocrisy as illustrated by your silence on Biden's violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Please stay on subject.

tmiddles wrote:1- It's legal as the courts have determined.

This answers why you are allowed to be hypocritical, not why you choose to be. Please answer the question asked.

tmiddles wrote: My perspective on why it's smart, constructive and important to consider race, gender, origin and other involuntary attributes of a person (they had no choice in the matter, you cannot yourself choose to be that): It is important for SOME jobs

Did you just give yourself "special pleading" authority to declare breaking laws to be perfectly fine for those situations that you decide are "important enough"?

This too answers why you are apparently allowed to be hypocritical, not why you choose to be. Please answer the question asked.

tmiddles wrote:SCOTUS is critical for it's roll in representing the interest of the people as the legislative branch of government.

This requires someone of integrity, not someone of a particular skin color. Your claim that a particular skin color or gender is required to represent someone is false. It also doesn't answer the question at hand.

I am going to assume that the President's job is exceedingly important and therefore is certainly important enough to violate any and all laws in your opinion (based on your stated requirements) so ... why are you running your yap over the President performing his critical job and protecting Americans ... when it's Trump ... and totally silent over the President flagrantly violating laws when it's Biden? The question involves you and your dichotomy.

tmiddles wrote: It is VERY important that they be citizens of the country themselves, be human beings with feelings, and be ethical and honest.
Just as it's important that they be in the country and living the lives of American's it's important that they can relate to the country as a whole.

absolutely none of this justifies your special pleading for skin color.

tmiddles wrote: They rule on abortion for example which is exclusively restricting the rights of one gender.

Apparently you were never taught that children come in both genders. Parents as well. Abortion by pregnant women robs the male parents of their children. Abortion by pregnant women robs the killed children of their lives, liberty and happiness, regardless of their gender.

I'll assume that you brain-farted and misspoke.

tmiddles wrote: To not have women on the court would betray the purpose of the court in those rulings.

Nope. To not have people of integrity would betray the purpose of the court, not the gender or skin color of any person ruling.

tmiddles wrote:I will never be able to be a black woman and so if a job is specifically ear marked for a black woman it's true that I won't have the opportunity to get the job.

Until you sue under the 1964 Civil Rights Act and threaten to put people in prison.

tmiddles wrote:But I will also never be a black woman and understand what life in America is for black women.

You will never understand it only because you are stupid. I understand it very well because I am not stupid.

tmiddles wrote:And I'll never get pregnant or even have to worry I might get pregnant.

Big deal. Future pregnancy potential is not required to decide whether one should be allowed to kill other living humans who have committed no crime and who have not expressed any desire to die.

tmiddles wrote:Now you let me know what you think. Not just a bunch of questions and cheap shots.

Whoa, easy there tiger. Back up a step. You still need to answer the question.

Why do you bitch and moan and complain and rag and gripe and cry and wail and generally go apoplectic over a moot campaign ad, and yet remain silent when Biden exercises overt racism and sexism in practice right in front of you?

You are at the center of the question, i.e. you and your extreme special-pleading-induced double standard.

The floor is yours ...


I'm late to the party again, but IBDaMann absolutely smacked it out of the park for me. I don't disagree with a single word and have nothing to add.

The well worded question remains unanswered...

IBdaMann wrote:
Why do you bitch and moan and complain and rag and gripe and cry and wail and generally go apoplectic over a moot campaign ad, and yet remain silent when Biden exercises overt racism and sexism in practice right in front of you?



Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
Edited on 02-03-2022 03:22
02-03-2022 03:27
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2932)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
... Your claim that a particular skin color or gender is required to represent someone is false. ..

So you see not difference in 9 men ruling on what women can do with their bodies and 4 women and 5 men making that ruling?

You actually CANNOT put yourself in someone else's shoes. You need to be dealing with something personally, in order to be dealing with something personally.

When it's suggested or described "Try putting yourself in their shoes" it's acknowledged that you can't really do it.


Not the job of a Supreme Court justice. The job of a justice is to interpret the law in accordance with the Constitution. Period.

Since when is a justice suppose to consider one's feelings to determine innocence or guilt?!


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
Edited on 02-03-2022 03:50
02-03-2022 03:50
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3979)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Not the job of a Supreme Court justice. Their job in to interpret the law in accordance with the Constitution. Period.


And how do you think a justice should be selected?

And you ignored almost everything and failed to respond. AGAIN

IBD did not respond either so I don't see what you could agree with.
02-03-2022 04:43
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2932)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Not the job of a Supreme Court justice. Their job in to interpret the law in accordance with the Constitution. Period.


And how do you think a justice should be selected?

And you ignored almost everything and failed to respond. AGAIN



I'm sorry, when you stated that feelings must be considered when interpreting constitutional law, well, my eyes glazed over a bit and you pretty much lost me.


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
02-03-2022 05:22
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3979)
GasGuzzler wrote:...you pretty much lost me.


I know, it's hard to actually support a position but hang in there.

Let me revise that question:

And how should a SCOTUS justice be selected?

Your or my personal preferences aside.
02-03-2022 05:47
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2932)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:...you pretty much lost me.


I know, it's hard to actually support a position but hang in there.

Let me revise that question:

And how should a SCOTUS justice be selected?

Your or my personal preferences aside.


I will give you my position on the subject when you decide to be honest quit chopping quotes.


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
02-03-2022 06:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3979)
GasGuzzler wrote:
I ...give...my....chopping...
If you had anything you'd have opened with it.
02-03-2022 06:12
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2932)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
I ...give...my....chopping...


I know I am a dishonest fuk. If you had anything you'd have opened with it.


If you had a shred of integrity you wouldn't cut quotes in your favor. Full quote me and get my opinion. Try me.

Are you by chance a telemarketer for automobile extended warranties?


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
Edited on 02-03-2022 07:08
02-03-2022 08:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Not the job of a Supreme Court justice. Their job in to interpret the law in accordance with the Constitution. Period.


And how do you think a justice should be selected?

And you ignored almost everything and failed to respond. AGAIN

IBD did not respond either so I don't see what you could agree with.

RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-03-2022 08:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14377)
tmiddles wrote:So you see not difference in 9 men ruling on what women can do with their bodies

There is no gender involved in ruling on the killing of living humans (of either gender) who have committed no crime and who have not expressed any desire to die.

How do you imagine gender having any role in that?

tmiddles wrote:You actually CANNOT put yourself in someone else's shoes.

I certainly can. You are not omnipotent and you do not get to declare what I can and cannot do. You only get to express what you cannot do and declare what you will not do. If you are too stupid to represent other humans then fine; don't represent others.

I also have no problem representing living humans who have committed no crime and who have not expressed any desire to die, regardless of their genders or skin colors. If you are too evil to care about the lives of other living humans then I, for one, am very glad that you won't be representing anyone.

tmiddles wrote:Here's one final example:
Imagine a citizens commission on healing from the civil conflicts was being formed in Ireland and they decided that 1/2 the reps should be protestant and 1/2 catholic.

Either you are being dishonest or you are very stupid.

We are supposed to be discussing the ability of a person with integrity to represent others, irrespective of his immutable physical characteristics. However, you have decided to build a "GOTCHA!" question around packing fora with the proper amount of political activists.

Change your example to read "Imagine a citizens commission on healing from the civil conflicts was being formed in Ireland and they decided that the lone requirement to sit on the commission was personal integrity. What if the entire commission was of German ancestry because they all scored highest on the test?

So, how about it?
02-03-2022 13:11
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5195)
A judge just plays the role of a referee, simply makes a ruling, based on the established laws. Both sides provide their arguments, as to why they are right. The judge needs to figure out which side correctly uses the law. A Supreme Court Justice, should be pick by their record. How many of their rulings were overturned by a higher court, and how many upheld. Both, the number of cases that were challenged, and the number upheld are significant indicators of how well a judge can do the job.
02-03-2022 16:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14377)
HarveyH55 wrote:A Supreme Court Justice, should be pick by their record.

Yes. I agree with you here. A nominee should be someone whose record resonates with We the People. What really puts a burr in my craw is the attempt to claim that one person is somehow "more qualified" than any other.

Both Republicans and Democrats try to push their agendas by playing politics full bore with nominations, packaging their preferred picks in wrappers of their "qualifications" ... basically giving a sales pitch about a fellow politician to We the People instead of We the People deciding which one of us we want trying our cases. We the People want and need We the People sitting on the court, not politicians that are making the Supreme Court a wholly owned subsidiary of the Deep State.

I have learned to recognize Deep State activity by listening for attention being shifted to "qualifications" ... which always means "this person is beholden to the government, not to the people."

HarveyH55 wrote:How many of their rulings were overturned by a higher court, and how many upheld. Both, the number of cases that were challenged, and the number upheld are significant indicators of how well a judge can do the job.

I have a different take. Often the higher court is the problem. The Democrats love to come into full ownership of appellate courts and Federal courts, using the system I described above, and thwart the will of We the People with impunity there. I say find the judge who has had the most cases overturned by Democrat-controlled courts and you'll have a prime candidate for the highest court.
02-03-2022 17:13
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3314)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
... Your claim that a particular skin color or gender is required to represent someone is false. ..

So you see not difference in 9 men ruling on what women can do with their bodies

I realize that you have major issues with properly identifying differing objects, such as the "Earth A <-> Emissivity A and Earth B <-> Emissivity B" discussion that we had a bit ago, but wow... Let's try this again:

Object A IS NOT Object B... In this case, Human A (the mother) IS NOT Human B (the child).

tmiddles wrote:
and 4 women and 5 men making that ruling?

Rulings are to be made UNDER the Constitution. The skin color and/or gender of the person making the ruling UNDER the Constitution is irrelevant. It is the Constitution that is relevant here.

tmiddles wrote:
You actually CANNOT put yourself in someone else's shoes.

Are you now going to tell a person in a wheelchair that they cannot walk ever again?

tmiddles wrote:
You need to be dealing with something personally, in order to be dealing with something personally.

A = A. Good job!!! Now try applying that to your faulty claims about Earth's "changing emissivity" and "women's own bodies".
Edited on 02-03-2022 17:24
02-03-2022 17:19
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3314)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Not the job of a Supreme Court justice. Their job in to interpret the law in accordance with the Constitution. Period.


And how do you think a justice should be selected?

And you ignored almost everything and failed to respond. AGAIN

IBD did not respond either so I don't see what you could agree with.

A justice should be selected according to their proven record of making rulings UNDER a Constitution. A justice who does a very good job of that should be put into consideration. A justice who has a proven record of ignoring the rule of law and instead legislating from the bench should be discarded from consideration.
02-03-2022 18:32
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5696)
tmiddles wrote:
Swan wrote:
Elmo Big Bird and The Cookie Monster all have an IQ edge on you


IBD has the empty ad hominem attacks covered.

How about a real argument.


LOL you reference the Cookie Monster then ask to be taken seriously.

Is this another FBI quiz?

Find Hoffa and do not worry about the 100,000 Americans dying from Fentanyl every year because everything will be fine once Hoffa is found.

You may now resume wanking
Edited on 02-03-2022 18:47
02-03-2022 18:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14377)
Swan wrote:LOL you reference the Cookie Monster then ask to be taken seriously.

Is this another FBI quiz?

I give you a hard time every now and then but it is good to have you back.
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate If Putin goes nuclear:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
AI banned from nuclear launch decisions, after Google creates self-aware computer program129-04-2023 20:43
USA Nuclear codes found in Bidens garage as yet more documents found324-01-2023 16:43
Great news, Putin is destroying everything that Hunter Biden owns423-03-2022 01:22
Putin821-02-2022 00:59
This is How the European Commission Classifies Nuclear Energy and Gas to Be 'Green'205-02-2022 04:07
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact