The GOP has reached the point of no return on Climate Change

[LoneLaugher]

1) Teddy Roosevelt
2) Woodrow Wilson
3) FDR
4) Jimmy Carter
5) Th current Boi King
6) Hillary

Nice job, Gramps. We can argue some...but it doesn't matter.

Now....which one of those has emulated any of the fascists that your pal mentioned?

Do you see why his post was retarded?

BTW...why do you have difficulty calling Mr. Obama by his name and/ or title? Mental block?

Nope, but it is just as stupid when your side when your side starts in with Repubs as Nazi's.

I have a special distaste for the current occupant of the White House, I find him to a distasteful piece of shit liar like Bush 1,Bush 2 and Bill Clinton....but THIS man is a special case unto himself and easily the worst of my lifetime.

Don't give me the "your side" shit. I have never done that. You are talking to me....not the "your side" that flows from your imagination.

And....what is so special about president Obama? Come on......just spit it out.

 

[westwall]

Based on the data we have currently, the spike we are experiencing in global temperature is unique in the last few thousand years atleast. I'd also like to point out that the "hockey stick" is a visual representation of real temperature, NOT CO2 levels. It is our temperature, not just our CO2 levels, which is outside the normal variance.

And the data is so overwhelming on this that it is irresponsible not to legislate to ameliorate further climate change

See my response to Zeke above.. There are no GLOBAL proxy studies that have the resolution to detect 100 year events. That INCLUDES the Mann Hockey and all the other "hockey sticks" out there. You've got to remember that we are all panicking (most of you) over 0.6degC in your lifetimes. And all those graphs are scaled that way. And looking at just historical study -- say Brazil using lake mud cores -- will show similiar events in recent geological history. But when you try to combine say 200 of those studies to cover the entire GLOBE and make a comparison -- you really don't get enough coverage of the globe and the time resolution sucks. It's like trying to digitize an audio signal at rates BELOW the speed of the sound waves.

So it is irresponsible NOW to making comparisons about the GLOBE and how our brief modern instrumentation observation compare with trees.

Someone coined a phrase -- "I think that I shall never see --- A thermometer as bad as a tree".. And THAT is a more rational view of our ability to look back into temperature on the planet..

But this is conflating uncertainty over how much for uncertainty over if at all. I don't argue that our time resolutions leave uncertainty, however, we are definitely seeing a sharp rise in our global temperature that is above the variance in our current models, is definitely man-made, and shows no sign of abating. A rise of 0.6 degrees, which we both agree has happened, is already having severe effects.

Also, though I feel you were targeting only one aspect of climate science, mentioning only 200 studies is somewhat misleading. In 2013 alone there were 10,885 studies on climate change, and all but two accept man-made global warming.

So here's what I don't get. We both accept that the global temperature is rising. We both accept, unless I've misread you, that this increase is caused by human beings. Yet you keep stopping short of accepting that this man-made change is creating serious obstacles to our survivability on this planet and requires preventative action. Why do I feel like I'm the only one concluding that the fire is hot?

If it's "already having severe effects" why can't you quantify them? There is nothing happening today that hasn't happened before. Nothing. That's a fact. So that means your assertion is false.

 

[Fishlore]

Marco Rubio tells Florida Republicans that global warming is a hoax. Future generations of Floridians will erect a statue to this weather profit for his courageous stand. Alas, the statue will have to be made from cork as huge strips of the Sunshine State, including most of its cities, will under water by 2050. Ya gotta love it!

 

[Antares]

Nice job, Gramps. We can argue some...but it doesn't matter.

Now....which one of those has emulated any of the fascists that your pal mentioned?

Do you see why his post was retarded?

BTW...why do you have difficulty calling Mr. Obama by his name and/ or title? Mental block?

Nope, but it is just as stupid when your side when your side starts in with Repubs as Nazi's.

I have a special distaste for the current occupant of the White House, I find him to a distasteful piece of shit liar like Bush 1,Bush 2 and Bill Clinton....but THIS man is a special case unto himself and easily the worst of my lifetime.

Don't give me the "your side" shit. I have never done that. You are talking to me....not the "your side" that flows from your imagination.

And....what is so special about president Obama? Come on......just spit it out.

You are a Lefty, so yes, your side.

I have a special distaste for the current occupant of the White House, I find him to a distasteful piece of shit liar like Bush 1,Bush 2 and Bill Clinton....but THIS man is a special case unto himself and easily the worst of my lifetime.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nope, but it is just as stupid when your side when your side starts in with Repubs as Nazi's.

I have a special distaste for the current occupant of the White House, I find him to a distasteful piece of shit liar like Bush 1,Bush 2 and Bill Clinton....but THIS man is a special case unto himself and easily the worst of my lifetime.

Don't give me the "your side" shit. I have never done that. You are talking to me....not the "your side" that flows from your imagination.

And....what is so special about president Obama? Come on......just spit it out.

You are a Lefty, so yes, your side.

I have a special distaste for the current occupant of the White House, I find him to a distasteful piece of shit liar like Bush 1,Bush 2 and Bill Clinton....but THIS man is a special case unto himself and easily the worst of my lifetime.

No.....what makes him special. You know.....some details.

 

[Antares]

Don't give me the "your side" shit. I have never done that. You are talking to me....not the "your side" that flows from your imagination.

And....what is so special about president Obama? Come on......just spit it out.

You are a Lefty, so yes, your side.

I have a special distaste for the current occupant of the White House, I find him to a distasteful piece of shit liar like Bush 1,Bush 2 and Bill Clinton....but THIS man is a special case unto himself and easily the worst of my lifetime.

No.....what makes him special. You know.....some details.

He thinks his shit doesn't stink.
He TRULY thinks his shit doesn't stink.

He has NO trouble lying, in fact lying is fine IF it gets him what he wants.
He is racist to his core.
He does NOT like this Nation as founded...He TRULY wants to and has engaged in "fundamentally" transforming this Nation into something it was never intended to be.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You are a Lefty, so yes, your side.

I have a special distaste for the current occupant of the White House, I find him to a distasteful piece of shit liar like Bush 1,Bush 2 and Bill Clinton....but THIS man is a special case unto himself and easily the worst of my lifetime.

No.....what makes him special. You know.....some details.

He thinks his shit doesn't stink.
He TRULY thinks his shit doesn't stink.

He has NO trouble lying, in fact lying is fine IF it gets him what he wants.
He is racist to his core.
He does NOT like this Nation as founded...He TRULY wants to and has engaged in "fundamentally" transforming this Nation into something it was never intended to be.

Ooooooh! You sound just like a Brian Kilmeade fart there.

The guy is humble enough....for a POTUS. Hard to be contrite when you hold that office. Not special.

Look at you. You are an insurance agent. You think your shit don't stink. Right?

Again with the lying whine. You have got to admit that every POTUS has told a few.....and are fine with it. Not special in the least.

Racist? That is a funny one. You can't prove that. Period. By the way....are you racist?

He doesn't like this nation as founded? That is a real odd one. You can't prove that either.

Are you feeling silly yet? You sure are looking silly.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Folks get all worked up, egg each other on, and before you know it they think that "most Americans" agree with them, and that it's up to them to save the country.

That cocoon gets pretty tight and it cuts off the ability to maintain critical thinking skills.

This country is in real need of people who aren't into that cocoon thing.

.

 

[bripat9643]

Isn't is cute the way nutters like to call all those horrible people "progressives".

Do me a favor, dummy. Name the five leading American progressives of the 20th century.

Thanks.

1) Teddy Roosevelt
2) Woodrow Wilson
3) FDR
4) Jimmy Carter
5) Th current Boi King
6) Hillary

Nice job, Gramps. We can argue some...but it doesn't matter.

Now....which one of those has emulated any of the fascists that your pal mentioned?

Do you see why his post was retarded?

BTW...why do you have difficulty calling Mr. Obama by his name and/ or title? Mental block?

They don't emulate the fascists. They are fascists.

 

[Antares]

No.....what makes him special. You know.....some details.

He thinks his shit doesn't stink.
He TRULY thinks his shit doesn't stink.

He has NO trouble lying, in fact lying is fine IF it gets him what he wants.
He is racist to his core.
He does NOT like this Nation as founded...He TRULY wants to and has engaged in "fundamentally" transforming this Nation into something it was never intended to be.

Ooooooh! You sound just like a Brian Kilmeade fart there.

The guy is humble enough....for a POTUS. Hard to be contrite when you hold that office. Not special.

Look at you. You are an insurance agent. You think your shit don't stink. Right?

Again with the lying whine. You have got to admit that every POTUS has told a few.....and are fine with it. Not special in the least.

Racist? That is a funny one. You can't prove that. Period. By the way....are you racist?

He doesn't like this nation as founded? That is a real odd one. You can't prove that either.

Are you feeling silly yet? You sure are looking silly.

Why would I feel silly?
Because some kid barely wet behind the ears thinks I should?
No,you you don't mean anything to me.

He called his grandmother a"typical white person".
He called his grand father a "House ******".

His book is titled Dreams of My Father".
His Father's dream was social justice in the form of Socialism.

He is on record as saying that the Warren Court was not radical because it did not venture into "redistributive justice".

See kid, every time you engage me I slap you every which way but loose.

 

[LoneLaugher]

1) Teddy Roosevelt
2) Woodrow Wilson
3) FDR
4) Jimmy Carter
5) Th current Boi King
6) Hillary

Nice job, Gramps. We can argue some...but it doesn't matter.

Now....which one of those has emulated any of the fascists that your pal mentioned?

Do you see why his post was retarded?

BTW...why do you have difficulty calling Mr. Obama by his name and/ or title? Mental block?

They don't emulate the fascists. They are fascists.

Yeah. Duly elected....and often reelected.....fascists.

You are a special kind of stupid.

 

[mamooth]

They don't emulate the fascists. They are fascists.

It's more correct to compare deniers to Stalinists than fascists, given the way they try to emulate Stalinist policies. For example, most deniers on this board demand that any scientist who dissents from the official policy of DerParteiRepublikkan must be imprisoned. They're not shy at all about letting their Stalinist freak flag fly. And, exactly like the Stalinists, they also declare it's justified because those dissenting scientists are guilty of numerous CrimesAgainstTheState. If the deniers here were in power, they'd fill up a lot of gulags with their perceived enemies.

 

[Paperman299]

See my response to Zeke above.. There are no GLOBAL proxy studies that have the resolution to detect 100 year events. That INCLUDES the Mann Hockey and all the other "hockey sticks" out there. You've got to remember that we are all panicking (most of you) over 0.6degC in your lifetimes. And all those graphs are scaled that way. And looking at just historical study -- say Brazil using lake mud cores -- will show similiar events in recent geological history. But when you try to combine say 200 of those studies to cover the entire GLOBE and make a comparison -- you really don't get enough coverage of the globe and the time resolution sucks. It's like trying to digitize an audio signal at rates BELOW the speed of the sound waves.

So it is irresponsible NOW to making comparisons about the GLOBE and how our brief modern instrumentation observation compare with trees.

Someone coined a phrase -- "I think that I shall never see --- A thermometer as bad as a tree".. And THAT is a more rational view of our ability to look back into temperature on the planet..

But this is conflating uncertainty over how much for uncertainty over if at all. I don't argue that our time resolutions leave uncertainty, however, we are definitely seeing a sharp rise in our global temperature that is above the variance in our current models, is definitely man-made, and shows no sign of abating. A rise of 0.6 degrees, which we both agree has happened, is already having severe effects.

Also, though I feel you were targeting only one aspect of climate science, mentioning only 200 studies is somewhat misleading. In 2013 alone there were 10,885 studies on climate change, and all but two accept man-made global warming.

So here's what I don't get. We both accept that the global temperature is rising. We both accept, unless I've misread you, that this increase is caused by human beings. Yet you keep stopping short of accepting that this man-made change is creating serious obstacles to our survivability on this planet and requires preventative action. Why do I feel like I'm the only one concluding that the fire is hot?

If it's "already having severe effects" why can't you quantify them? There is nothing happening today that hasn't happened before. Nothing. That's a fact. So that means your assertion is false.

Quantified (15 times).

 

[Antares]

No.....what makes him special. You know.....some details.

He thinks his shit doesn't stink.
He TRULY thinks his shit doesn't stink.

He has NO trouble lying, in fact lying is fine IF it gets him what he wants.
He is racist to his core.
He does NOT like this Nation as founded...He TRULY wants to and has engaged in "fundamentally" transforming this Nation into something it was never intended to be.

Ooooooh! You sound just like a Brian Kilmeade fart there.

The guy is humble enough....for a POTUS. Hard to be contrite when you hold that office. Not special.

Look at you. You are an insurance agent. You think your shit don't stink. Right?

Again with the lying whine. You have got to admit that every POTUS has told a few.....and are fine with it. Not special in the least.

Racist? That is a funny one. You can't prove that. Period. By the way....are you racist?

He doesn't like this nation as founded? That is a real odd one. You can't prove that either.

Are you feeling silly yet? You sure are looking silly.

Why would I feel silly?
Because some kid barely wet behind the ears thinks I should?
No,you you don't mean anything to me.

He called his grandmother a"typical white person".
He called his grand father a "House ******".

His book is titled Dreams of My Father".
His Father's dream was social justice in the form of Socialism.

He is on record as saying that the Warren Court was not radical because it did not venture into "redistributive justice".

See kid, every time you engage me I slap you every which way but loose.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives always need a scapegoat; Hitler had the Jews, Stalin the Kulaks, Mao the Capitalists and American Progs have the Koch Brothers

Isn't is cute the way nutters like to call all those horrible people "progressives".

Do me a favor, dummy. Name the five leading American progressives of the 20th century.

Thanks.

They called themselves "Progressives"

They are your forefathers, you act just like them

 

[flacaltenn]

You sound really scientific, so let me ask you a question.

Fortunately our climate has left enough of a history that it has allowed man to study the climate conditions in some detail for a long time period.

Every one agrees that the climate is always changing.

Presently changes have been observed that are outside the norm of observed change.

The one variable that is present since the changes began is the burning of large amounts of coal and oil.

Why would you not think that the burning of oil and coal is the reason for the changes being observed? That is the one thing that has not been done before. Ever. Therefore there is no history of this being done to study. We don't know what the results will be. But trends indicate the changes won't be for the better.

Hey.. You were rolling along just swell there until you got to the "outside of the norm" comment on historical observations. These "proxy studies" based on tree rings, and mud bugs and ice cores can only tell us so much. In one survey of Climate scientists, their biggest beef with their field was some of the leaps to conclusions about HOW accurate and COMPLETE those studies are. An individual study like say, Ocean bottom off of Fiji using ONE Proxy can be quite revealing. But when you try to compare the ENTIRE SURFACE of the earth a 1000 or 10,000 yrs ago to our MODERN satellite derived temperature anomalies, you have to use ALL available proxies and trouble ensues.

To make a long story shorter -- the TIME RESOLUTIONS of those GLOBAL proxy studies are in 100s of years. Our little 70 or 100 yr spike would hardly show. So the point is -- NOBODY should claiming anything about GLOBAL rates of change or absolute temperatures. We can write a GENERAL story about historical Global temperature, but finding 0.5degC over the ENTIRE globe for 6900BC is sketchy territory..

So you want this to be as simple as blaming oil?? OK -- you sequester the crap out of CO2 emissions and you STILL have pollution dontcha? Mans total yearly emissions are 1/20 of the natural CO2 cycle.. And 1/3 of the emissions charged to man comes from farming and land use.

It really is a matter of agreeing that CO2 probably is PART of observed warming, but the Climate System is still largely unexplored and needs to shed some of the agenda driven hype. If you don't like fossil fuels -- let's work on that WITHOUT twisting the science into spin and propaganda for public consumption...

Hey you were doing so good till you decided to denigrate the methods used to study climate. You know, ice core, tree rings, direct observations etc. And you even had one survey (link?) where the methods are in question as to the accuracy.

What method of studying past climate do you find is accurate enough for your conclusions?

I'll do better then give a random cite of evidence. I'll give you the words of Marcott, the lead author on one of these "hockey stick" studies..

RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.

Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?

A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.

I was being generous. It is NOT scientifically SUPPORTABLE to compare those GLOBAL proxy studies to the 100 yr experience we have measured with modern methods. Marcott was being more conservative than I was.. And as you will find if you study this furor, INDIVIDUAL studies of ONE TYPE of proxy, at ONE place on the Globe gives us our best hints about the past.

Secondly, where do you get the idea the we have only been burning oil and coal for the past 70 to 100 years? And the problem you don't address is the exponential increase in the amount of oil and coal that is being burnt.

Couple that with the absolute fact that man has never done this before (burnt this much oil and coal) and you have no idea what the final outcome will be.

It's only in the past 100 years that CO2 concentrations have RISEN to a level to even AFFECT the surface temperatures. Not nearly enough man-made emissions BEFORE then to have any troubling effect..

Then you don't address the elimination of massive forests that acted as scrubbers for the atmosphere. Every day thousands of acres of rain forest are cut down. The massive forests of north america and Europe are already gone.

Common eco misconception.. The OLD GROWTH forests of N. America have dwindled, but forest cover is relatively stable and not dissipated. LARGER ISSUE is S. America and Asia where overall forest cover is IMMENSELY reduced. I'll work with you today on preserving forest cover. That's an easy problem in N. America. NOT so easy in Brazil and Madagascar and elsewhere.

So in your opinion, the burning of massive amounts of oil and coal and the removal of the forests that removed excess carbon from the air, those two events are actions that are not responsible for the increase in temperatures?

And we shouldn't worry to much because hey, there is a study that says this interpretation of climate data and events is wrong.

Burning stored carbon and putting it back into the atmosphere is OK. Why would you think that?

CO2 is a player in increasing the GHouse effect, but instead of the sole and ONLY driver of the climate, there are many unknowns in the climate system. Total Solar Insolation (TSI) has INCREASED since the 1700 Maunder Minimum by 1.1 W/m2 at the top of atmos. It PAUSED at a relative MAXIMUM about the late 70s or early 80s. But the NEW KNOWLEDGE of the climate system allows for much longer delays to thermal equilibrium than were postulated before and within the past 2 to 3 years, greater discussion about the role of heat storage in the oceans has emerged. We are only now understanding the complexities of how that heat gets transfered and stored.

 

[flacaltenn]

Based on the data we have currently, the spike we are experiencing in global temperature is unique in the last few thousand years atleast. I'd also like to point out that the "hockey stick" is a visual representation of real temperature, NOT CO2 levels. It is our temperature, not just our CO2 levels, which is outside the normal variance.

And the data is so overwhelming on this that it is irresponsible not to legislate to ameliorate further climate change

See my response to Zeke above.. There are no GLOBAL proxy studies that have the resolution to detect 100 year events. That INCLUDES the Mann Hockey and all the other "hockey sticks" out there. You've got to remember that we are all panicking (most of you) over 0.6degC in your lifetimes. And all those graphs are scaled that way. And looking at just historical study -- say Brazil using lake mud cores -- will show similiar events in recent geological history. But when you try to combine say 200 of those studies to cover the entire GLOBE and make a comparison -- you really don't get enough coverage of the globe and the time resolution sucks. It's like trying to digitize an audio signal at rates BELOW the speed of the sound waves.

So it is irresponsible NOW to making comparisons about the GLOBE and how our brief modern instrumentation observation compare with trees.

Someone coined a phrase -- "I think that I shall never see --- A thermometer as bad as a tree".. And THAT is a more rational view of our ability to look back into temperature on the planet..

But this is conflating uncertainty over how much for uncertainty over if at all. I don't argue that our time resolutions leave uncertainty, however, we are definitely seeing a sharp rise in our global temperature that is above the variance in our current models, is definitely man-made, and shows no sign of abating. A rise of 0.6 degrees, which we both agree has happened, is already having severe effects.

Also, though I feel you were targeting only one aspect of climate science, mentioning only 200 studies is somewhat misleading. In 2013 alone there were 10,885 studies on climate change, and all but two accept man-made global warming.

So here's what I don't get. We both accept that the global temperature is rising. We both accept, unless I've misread you, that this increase is caused by human beings. Yet you keep stopping short of accepting that this man-made change is creating serious obstacles to our survivability on this planet and requires preventative action. Why do I feel like I'm the only one concluding that the fire is hot?

Right now and for the past 15 years or so -- the fire is just smoldering. No significant rise in surface temperature. Now -- I'm not gonna tell you that there might be some global warming trend BURIED under whatever causes explain that pause in temp. rise -- but I AM gonna tell you that the "models" were not worth a shit in PREDICTING IT... A reasonable person with appreciation for math and science would deduce that whatever SUPERPOWERS CO2 is said to have -- SOME OTHER effects are in play and are NOT accounted for. So my position is -- Climate science has jumped the shark with the CO2 fallacy for politcal/economical reasons and is only lately paying attention to some fundamental science of how the Earth distributes, dissapates and stores heat.

And I don't want to derail this thread with a science discussion because it's been allowed to remain in Politics because the discussion was about policy. But there are HUNDREDS of threads in the Enviro forum about each one of these issues in detail. And I'd welcome you to join us there to discuss the "nutters" and "enviro-nuts" and why the science is ANYTHING but settled.

 

[flacaltenn]

Marco Rubio tells Florida Republicans that global warming is a hoax. Future generations of Floridians will erect a statue to this weather profit for his courageous stand. Alas, the statue will have to be made from cork as huge strips of the Sunshine State, including most of its cities, will under water by 2050. Ya gotta love it!

Ya know Nixon was told that D.C. and NYC would be under water by 2000.. So where does this 2050 date come from? What's the latest record of EXTREME hurricanes and weather events for Florida?

 

[flacaltenn]

But this is conflating uncertainty over how much for uncertainty over if at all. I don't argue that our time resolutions leave uncertainty, however, we are definitely seeing a sharp rise in our global temperature that is above the variance in our current models, is definitely man-made, and shows no sign of abating. A rise of 0.6 degrees, which we both agree has happened, is already having severe effects.

Also, though I feel you were targeting only one aspect of climate science, mentioning only 200 studies is somewhat misleading. In 2013 alone there were 10,885 studies on climate change, and all but two accept man-made global warming.

So here's what I don't get. We both accept that the global temperature is rising. We both accept, unless I've misread you, that this increase is caused by human beings. Yet you keep stopping short of accepting that this man-made change is creating serious obstacles to our survivability on this planet and requires preventative action. Why do I feel like I'm the only one concluding that the fire is hot?

If it's "already having severe effects" why can't you quantify them? There is nothing happening today that hasn't happened before. Nothing. That's a fact. So that means your assertion is false.

Quantified (15 times).

So much scientific horseshit and statistical lying in the Public Relations bomb that Hercules couldn't clean out that stable.

Any moron that expects the GIGANTIC ball of stuff that the Earth is to respond to a change in SOLAR induced temperature in a year or two has NO appreciation for thermodynamics or heat transfer. AND these clowns love to disguise the fact that the sun has gotten HOTTER by 1.1 W/m2 since the 1700s.. Climate change is measured in CENTURIES, not years.

And that rainfall stat? Ponder what is "Relative occurrence of 2 day extreme events normalized to a 20th century average. The 20th century average is say 20 events/year. So 40% relative to the average would be 28 events. Now what percentage of yearly rainfall occurs in one of those 2 day events? Probably less than 10%.. It's a FOUND statistic that just LOOKS scary. GUARANDAMTEED -- if you look at the bigger picture and NOT some cherry-picked lying stat --- you'd sleep a lot better..

 

[bripat9643]

Nice job, Gramps. We can argue some...but it doesn't matter.

Now....which one of those has emulated any of the fascists that your pal mentioned?

Do you see why his post was retarded?

BTW...why do you have difficulty calling Mr. Obama by his name and/ or title? Mental block?

They don't emulate the fascists. They are fascists.

Yeah. Duly elected....and often reelected.....fascists.

You are a special kind of stupid.

The fascists in Germany were elected and reelected as well. And, hey, guess what? They also used the government to persecute their political opponents, just like Obama, Harry Reid and company use the IRS!

Libturds are all despicable sleazy Nazi thugs.