Wanna-B-Fanboy

What is going to be awesome, and expected, is when trump seizes upon the anonymous person as PROOF! about the deep state- completely ignoring his recent past in lambasting anonymous sources... classic trump.

Holy ****.... when the enormity of these kinds of bombshells hit me, I am always awestruck at how ******* crazy these times are.... then I wait for the expect blow up... and it's there, but gets swept away in the next news cycle's crazy bombshell... I think I am desensitized...

YEAH! **** THE ALOUETTES!!!

Perhaps it was your hyperbole that obfuscated your argument?

Didn't you just berate jcon for making sweeping assumptions about you and your comments and how they were inaccurate.... yet here you are doing the same thing that you berated him for? 17to85's comment is pretty accurate, you have a history of doing that... I fail to see that 17to85 say anything like " 'proof' that we have always been on the right track with MOS and Nichols and how it means we are now destined for a Grey Cup appearance." . ANyhoo, GO BOMBERS! DON'T SUCK TONIGHT!!!

Aaaand... you just reinforced his point... Aaaaand..... I just underscored it.... 😂

Aaaaand there we go. Everything is as it should be- manbaby defending sexual assault.

Where? WHo? who told you?

IT'S GAME DAY!!!! Bring on the Johnny Manziels !!!!! GAME 13 | MONTREAL ALOUETTES (3-9) at WINNIPEG BLUE BOMBERS (5-7) THE 4-1-1 Kickoff: 7:30 p.m., Friday; Investors Group Field, Winnipeg TV: TSN, RDS, ESPN+ Radio: CJOB The forecast: Sunny with a high of 14C, periods of rain overnight with a low of 5C. Vegas line: The Bombers are favoured by 10.5 points. Streaks: Montreal: 1L; Winnipeg: 4L Home/Road: Montreal is 2-4 on the road; the Bombers are 3-3 at home. Series: The Alouettes lead the all-time series (since 1961) 48-45-2. Recent history: The Bombers crushed the Alouettes 56-10 in Montreal during a Week 2 matchup back on June 22nd. Winnipeg has won four straight against the Als, dating back to dropping their 2016 season opener to Montreal and is 11-4 in its last 15 meetings against the Larks. (Thanks to Ed Tait)

"Well, I do think there's blame -- yes, I think there's blame on both sides. You look at -- you look at both sides. I think there's blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it, and you don't have any doubt about it either. ... But you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides"

Whuk? You are feeling weepy because we aren't wearing pants? Damn, your ignorance for all things scientific seems to be systemic- even your insults don't make sense.

dafuq is wrong with you guys?

You obnoxiously demand answers to you questions (which are provided), yet you refuse to answer questions asked of you. Not the way to have a civil discourse. You cling to %1 of data that taken out of context "supports" your "argument" and Ignore the 99% of the data that is inconvenient to your "argument" and then insult people who don't accept your flat-earth rationale.... ridiculous. Until you come to the table with a basic understanding of science, your arguments should be treated as those of a flat-earther.

I think that is a great idea.

Where in that paper does it draw this conclusion? I may have missed it, could you point it out to me please.

What empirical evidence?

I checked out the links- I would suggest you do a thorough read through of the links you provided as, you still don't seem to understand those principles based on you original hurricane comment.

What really boogles the mind is that Mark Judge refuses to testify and the republicans are like... ok- we don't need your testimony under oath- we have a letter from you..." Where is the subpoena?

I asked you for a definition- you haven't given one. Science denier? no, not at all. I agree with the scientific method....

What is the definition of fact and that of theory?

So then, what is the difference? Please explain, cuz I don't think you understand how science works.

I don't think you know how model projections work...

So.... what bullshit are you referring to? They show that an increase in hurricanes is due to better monitoring... huzzah! Is it correct? Peer reviewed? Why does this sole data point nullify the avalanche of data supporting anthropogenic climate change and make it bullshit? That is insane.