toobfreak
Tungsten/Glass Member
I mind him.
He's a liar and a supporter of the Marxist Democrats.
I guess I've only listened to his views on science.
Same as I only care about Hollywood actors for their views about movies.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I mind him.
He's a liar and a supporter of the Marxist Democrats.
Let's hope that past is prologue....The 4th lowest EC margin since 1828. A popularity, not a majority. I think Trump will get some of what he wants, but maybe not half? If the economy blows up, the GOP is dead in 2026.
Another lie.Only need to point out that gas was $1.80 a gallon because El Orange Kabong blew up the economy with his mismanagement of the pandemic.
I think he is seriously going to hurt the working classes with a mismanaging of deportation, border security, and tariffs.
We were a net exporter of energy, impoverishing Iran and Russia, preventing them from military/terrorist activity, you dunce.Simple Chic does not want you to know we are energy independent under Biden.
![]()
.....any longer.
In a recent OP (If You Have Learned Anything At All.....) I wrote about the editor of Scientific American having to resign after a vulgarity-laced rant about the Rigth.
I used it to point out that the Marxists/Democrats have destroyed any legitimacy the magazine, and, actually, science had (the Covid Scam to shut the economy to thwart Trump)>
Now, Bill Maher had Neil deGrasse Tyson on his show and ripped him a new one, holding him up as an example of what I said about 'science.'
"As my esteemed colleague Chris Queen noted a few days ago, the editor of Scientific American ā formerly a respected, apolitical scientific journal thatās been in publication since 1845 ā resigned in disgrace after launching a vulgar, profanity-laced diatribe against Trump voters. Under her watch, Scientific American magazine, which had NEVER made a presidential endorsement before (because, as a scientific journal, why would they?), made their first two: In 2020 (for Joe Biden) and in 2024 (for Kamala Harris).
But apologists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson donāt think itās a big deal.
Think about that contradiction: Tyson has dedicated himself to educating people about science! Heās not a celebrity because of his academic work; solely on the basis of his academic work, heās not a particularly remarkable scientist. Schoolchildren certainly wonāt be reading biographies about him in 50 years. Instead, itās his work as a āscience popularizerā in media thatās earned him his fame, wealth, and oodles of royalties.
Yet somehow, heās oblivious to the perceptual dangers of Scientific American magazine adopting an anti-Trump partisan stance? Or reappropriating the credibility of āscienceā to promote partisan political views? Or for their editor to accuse half the country of being fascists?!"
Wake the heck up, Democrat voters.......it's a disease and you have been infected.
Looking forward to a longer exposition of your thinking.No, not "science," but science.
You're looking forward to it?Looking forward to a longer exposition of your thinking.
Now, Greg.....There IS science but it's been sidelined by the politisisation and funding of Paradigm maximisers; if it suits the narrative (Anti-US/West) it gets The Government Dollar!!
Karl Popper: Karl Popper (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Greg
Exactly so.You're looking forward to it?![]()
But why me? What is it about me and my thinking that you look forward to?Exactly so.
That is the purpose of the message board.
Don't have the rest of us try to guess what you mean, or are thinking. And don't be afraid of the heat.
Either jump in the pool, or admit the water's too cold for you.But why me? What is it about me and my thinking that you look forward to?
Of course we weren't.Simple Chic does not want you to know we are energy independent under Biden.
![]()
So you'd rather not cease being a fool?So Simple Chic, as usual, does not get the full picture. She does not do nuance.
The concept of energy independence can be a bit nuanced. Under the Biden administration, the U.S. saw record energy production, which includes various sources like oil, natural gas, and renewables. By some definitions, the U.S. was energy independent, meaning it exported more energy than it imported1. However, the U.S. still relied on foreign sources for certain types of energy, particularly crude oil. So, while the U.S. made significant strides in energy production, it wasn't entirely self-sufficient in every aspect2.
Yes, you are the fool. You can argue with facts, but they do not change. You are in a post-truth cult that cannot be critically thinking. You continue to be you.
Let's review and see where truth lies, and how you ignore it:Yes, you are the fool. You can argue with facts, but they do not change. You are in a post-truth cult that cannot be critically thinking. You continue to be you.