"It's quite simple to explain really when you have enough intelligence to comprehend it, so I really shouldn't have to explain it."
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
Vague as usual.
How is it vague for me to ask for you to elaborate and otherwise post sources?
You haven't been specific. You just narrow it down to "my points".
Secondly I was talking to Inq, I mentioned the Joe Biden scandal that I showed him a year ago, with proof. Now you're asking me to post proof along side the false narritive that I'm saying taxes are bad.
As I've said before, 'this Cassandra assumption of yours is being self-inflicted'.
You're on your own.
"It's quite simple to explain really when you have enough intelligence to comprehend it, so I really shouldn't have to explain it."
Sure.
If a University professor had to teach a student grade 1 phoenix, then the student isn't ready to learn at the University level.
I'm not obliged to teach you the basics while there are others who can comprehend, understand, and move forward in a discussion. With you it's always "what does that mean?, prove it, what is that, you think this, your personality, you narcissist"
Like we've been through it many times already. I'm wasting time.
Secondly I was talking to Inq, I mentioned the Joe Biden scandal that I showed him a year ago, with proof. Now you're asking me to post proof along side the false narritive that I'm saying taxes are bad.
Why won't you give us an estimate for what you think a good tax rate for the rich is? That would help us narrow down what you're actually saying here, because so far your vagueness leaves a lot of possibilities open.
You never showed proof of a Joe Biden scandal. You showed Biden say a thing that could just as easily have been in reference to something benign as something corrupt/malicious. It wasn't the smoking gun you wanted it to be.
I will say this topic is more contentious than a lot of people lead on, and I mean it as a scientific topic purely.
Contentious in what way?
The inference one should make from the fact that anthropological climate change is, imo, factually real.
For instance, I suggesting reading into the debate between Dr.Karoly and Dr.Happer, both respected scientists in this realm of study, whom disagree on the effects of climate change. I have found many respectable physicists, chemists, and climatologists in both camps so it's really an interesting debate. Both do not deny the reality of climate change, they merely disagree about the inferences one can make about that reality.
I checked their debate (plus a bunch of other things Happer has said) and I am not sure I'd use the word "merely" lol. He seems to believe more CO2 is almost solely a good thing for humanity because we can never release enough to actually go beyond 2C. That's not a conservative take on established climate consensus, it's basically a denial of it. He also strikes me as disingenuous in how he presents data and highlights "gotchas", like claiming the IPCC purposely hid the Medieval Warm Period from their later reports or that 'Climategate' proves scientists are part of a conspiracy. Here's a list of 'myths' Happer has argued and here's an article of his with commentary from someone who disagrees with him.
It was interesting reading the debate on whether a CO2 increase below 2C would be beneficial though. If not for the feedback loops and the continued greenhouse gas emission buildup we might actually want a slightly higher CO2 level in the atmosphere.
I will say this topic is more contentious than a lot of people lead on, and I mean it as a scientific topic purely.
Contentious in what way?
The inference one should make from the fact that anthropological climate change is, imo, factually real.
For instance, I suggesting reading into the debate between Dr.Karoly and Dr.Happer, both respected scientists in this realm of study, whom disagree on the effects of climate change. I have found many respectable physicists, chemists, and climatologists in both camps so it's really an interesting debate. Both do not deny the reality of climate change, they merely disagree about the inferences one can make about that reality.
I checked their debate (plus a bunch of other things Happer has said) and I am not sure I'd use the word "merely" lol. He seems to believe more CO2 is almost solely a good thing for humanity because we can never release enough to actually go beyond 2C. That's not a conservative take on established climate consensus, it's basically a denial of it. He also strikes me as disingenuous in how he presents data and highlights "gotchas", like claiming the IPCC purposely hid the Medieval Warm Period from their later reports or that 'Climategate' proves scientists are part of a conspiracy. Here's a list of 'myths' Happer has argued and here's an article of his with commentary from someone who disagrees with him.
It was interesting reading the debate on whether a CO2 increase below 2C would be beneficial though. If not for the feedback loops and the continued greenhouse gas emission buildup we might actually want a slightly higher CO2 level in the atmosphere.
After this last display of politically biased Covid-19 "science", all science is suspect as politically biased and needs to be re-evaluated . This includes any "consensus" on climate change. Turns out humans are just too weak and can't help themselves inserting their bias.
The virus came from my ASS!
Secondly I was talking to Inq, I mentioned the Joe Biden scandal that I showed him a year ago, with proof. Now you're asking me to post proof along side the false narritive that I'm saying taxes are bad.
Why won't you give us an estimate for what you think a good tax rate for the rich is?
Because he doesn't know, and would rather not spend the time learning it.
He keeps claiming "it's so simple" as a way to avoid having to explain it, not to get us off of his back, but because that's all he needs to believe it himself. The dissonance being experienced here is between what it takes for him to believe something versus the common man.
You never showed proof of a Joe Biden scandal. You showed Biden say a thing that could just as easily have been in reference to something benign as something corrupt/malicious. It wasn't the smoking gun you wanted it to be.
Spatial doesn't need the things that fit his narrative to be proven to him, it should just be "understood" as "common sense" or else it must be brainwashing.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on
11/3/2020 5:07:02 PM
I will say this topic is more contentious than a lot of people lead on, and I mean it as a scientific topic purely.
Contentious in what way?
The inference one should make from the fact that anthropological climate change is, imo, factually real.
For instance, I suggesting reading into the debate between Dr.Karoly and Dr.Happer, both respected scientists in this realm of study, whom disagree on the effects of climate change. I have found many respectable physicists, chemists, and climatologists in both camps so it's really an interesting debate. Both do not deny the reality of climate change, they merely disagree about the inferences one can make about that reality.
I checked their debate (plus a bunch of other things Happer has said) and I am not sure I'd use the word "merely" lol. He seems to believe more CO2 is almost solely a good thing for humanity because we can never release enough to actually go beyond 2C. That's not a conservative take on established climate consensus, it's basically a denial of it. He also strikes me as disingenuous in how he presents data and highlights "gotchas", like claiming the IPCC purposely hid the Medieval Warm Period from their later reports or that 'Climategate' proves scientists are part of a conspiracy. Here's a list of 'myths' Happer has argued and here's an article of his with commentary from someone who disagrees with him.
It was interesting reading the debate on whether a CO2 increase below 2C would be beneficial though. If not for the feedback loops and the continued greenhouse gas emission buildup we might actually want a slightly higher CO2 level in the atmosphere.
After this last display of politically biased Covid-19 "science", all science is suspect as politically biased and needs to be re-evaluated . This includes any "consensus" on climate change. Turns out humans are just too weak and can't help themselves inserting their bias.
...the flat earth argument?
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
Secondly I was talking to Inq, I mentioned the Joe Biden scandal that I showed him a year ago, with proof. Now you're asking me to post proof along side the false narritive that I'm saying taxes are bad.
Why won't you give us an estimate for what you think a good tax rate for the rich is? That would help us narrow down what you're actually saying here, because so far your vagueness leaves a lot of possibilities open.
Why won't I ? Cause I don't have to. Similar to how TC is responding for you.
You're trying to bait me with questions, so you can give yourself a reason to disagree. I'll pass on that bullshit and stick to what I'm saying.
Keeping $32 for every $100 earned is insane, period. ( << 68% tax )
What's your claim again ? ( ... ..... ...... )
You never showed proof of a Joe Biden scandal. You showed Biden say a thing that could just as easily have been in reference to something benign as something corrupt/malicious. It wasn't the smoking gun you wanted it to be.
Here's the post with evidence from last year...
https://sociopathcommunity.com/Forum/Topic/9975/5/trump-s-impeachment-vote-today
Like I said, you couldn't process it back then, and you can't process it now, that the same Biden scandal is back on the scene.
He's boasting about telling Ukraine to fire an investigator looking into Burisma corruption, ( company where Hunter Biden was making 50 grand a month ) or else he'll withhold 1 billion in aid. That's a real quid pro quo.
It's come to a point where the truth offends you Inq. It's not me who can shed any light on this for you. It'll be CNN or the BBC or one of those. NBC or someone. It'll have to be told to you by The View or Newsweek. Dagens Nyheter.
.
.
.
Trump's 2nd term is game over for the establishment and they know it. They aren't simply furious over petty reasons, they are afraid of getting busted. Biden is going down, in this Republican dominated Supreme Court, which is why packing the Supreme Court is a hot topic among politics these days, it's about years of power and corruption falling on it's knees and paying the price in all fairness, and they don't like it.
You never showed proof of a Joe Biden scandal. You showed Biden say a thing that could just as easily have been in reference to something benign as something corrupt/malicious. It wasn't the smoking gun you wanted it to be.
Here's the post with evidence from last year...
https://sociopathcommunity.com/Forum/Topic/9975/5/trump-s-impeachment-vote-today
Thank you, jeez.
It's like pulling teeth with you.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔