Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wake me when you're mentally out of Kindegarten.

[quote=rmorrison1116]I don't believe it's the US'S ignorance, just that of one egocentric man and his minority following, after all, he didn't even win the popular v**e. Do away with the e*******l college, it no longer serves a purpose, hasn't for many, many years...[/quote

Your ignorance of America's politics and the historic need for the e*******l college is vast and borders on stupid. The meanng of "Popular" in "Popular v**e" must be defined

Years ago our e*****rs rightly decided that every eligible v**er's v**e counted no matter where the v**er lived, whether on a farm in South Dakota or in the environs of New York City. Areas of America have historically ranged from deeply conservative to wildly liberal. East Coasters, West Coasters, Southerners and Mid-Westerners differed politically.The East Coast, South and West Coast were heavily populated, while the Midwest was not.

With such vastly different populations and political and social stances, there can be no such thing as a meaningful, workable "popular" v**e.

Why shouldn't the conservative v**ers of limited-population South Dakota have as much say in national e******ns as v**ers in over-populated and liberal New York?

Therefor, the e*******l college was created to give SD v**ers the same political power in national P**********l e******ns as those of NY.

So, to mention anything about a "popular" v**e is to talk about a non-entity, a non-existing v**e.

Hillary lost the p**********l e******n by a legal e*******l landslide! So, buy some more Kleenex and shut up already!

Carson, in his private life, was said to be very shy and troubled...quite the opposite of his persona portrayed on his show.

Dirty Harry

I hope she suffers the same demise the giraffe did!

BillG

"I have decided to purchase a Class c 30' RV and travel the US with a car in tow on a trailer."

With that big an RV, then, additionally, towing a car on a trailer, please make sure the transmission on the RV can handle the greater load. I lost the transmission on my Ford 150 towing a too-big 5th wheel. For what a new transmission cost me, I could have bought a Ford 250 and avoided the inconvenience of a breakdown while on the road.

From a WWII and Korea Vet

A perfect example of someone deservedly reaping what she's sown!

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wake me when it's over.

IMHO, the photo in color lends emotional depth to the picture.

I was in Ketchikan in the 50s, part of a Federal Court judiciary group on assignment to hear the overload of cases of sub-contractors against contractors hired to build the new small boat harbor there.

dirtpusher

This incident has nothing to do with morals, but has everything to do with beliefs. If his restaurant owner is so hypersensitive she cannot tolerate would-be diners who disagree with her, then she's gonna reap what she's sowed: prospective loss of lots of customers. As a business serving the public, she badly needs some therapy that'll instruct|teach her to isolate her silly social sensitivities from those needed to run a successful business.

Twardlow

Obama's administration started this idea of separating i*****l a***n parents from children. Basically, the parents are at fault for being i******s and d**gging their children with them.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/thirty-years-on-how-well-do-global-warming-predictions-stand-up-1529623442

Thirty Years On, How Well Do G****l W*****g Predictions Stand Up?
James Hansen issued dire warnings in the summer of 1988. Today earth is only modestly warmer.

By Pat Michaels and
Ryan Maue
June 21, 2018 7:24 p.m. ET
328 COMMENTS

James E. Hansen wiped sweat from his brow. Outside it was a record-high 98 degrees on June 23, 1988, as the NASA scientist testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources during a prolonged heat wave, which he decided to cast as a climate event of cosmic significance. He expressed to the senators his “high degree of confidence” in “a cause-and-effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming.”

With that testimony and an accompanying paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Mr. Hansen lit the bonfire of the greenhouse vanities, igniting a world-wide debate that continues today about the energy structure of the entire planet. President Obama’s environmental policies were predicated on similar models of rapid, high-cost warming. But the 30th anniversary of Mr. Hansen’s predictions affords an opportunity to see how well his forecasts have done—and to reconsider environmental policy accordingly.

Mr. Hansen’s testimony described three possible scenarios for the future of carbon dioxide emissions. He called Scenario A “business as usual,” as it maintained the accelerating emissions growth typical of the 1970s and ’80s. This scenario predicted the earth would warm 1 degree Celsius by 2018. Scenario B set emissions lower, rising at the same rate today as in 1988. Mr. Hansen called this outcome the “most plausible,” and predicted it would lead to about 0.7 degree of warming by this year. He added a final projection, Scenario C, which he deemed highly unlikely: constant emissions beginning in 2000. In that forecast, temperatures would rise a few tenths of a degree before flatlining after 2000.

Thirty years of data have been collected since Mr. Hansen outlined his scenarios—enough to determine which was closest to reality. And the winner is Scenario C. Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16. Assessed by Mr. Hansen’s model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect. But we didn’t. And it isn’t just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong. Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on C*****e C****e have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago.


What about Mr. Hansen’s other claims? Outside the warming models, his only explicit claim in the testimony was that the late ’80s and ’90s would see “greater than average warming in the southeast U.S. and the Midwest.” No such spike has been measured in these regions.

As observed temperatures diverged over the years from his predictions, Mr. Hansen doubled down. In a 2007 case on auto emissions, he stated in his deposition that most of Greenland’s ice would soon melt, raising sea levels 23 feet over the course of 100 years. Subsequent research published in Nature magazine on the history of Greenland’s ice cap demonstrated this to be impossible. Much of Greenland’s surface melts every summer, meaning rapid melting might reasonably be expected to occur in a dramatically warming world. But not in the one we live in. The Nature study found only modest ice loss after 6,000 years of much warmer temperatures than human activity could ever sustain.

Several more of Mr. Hansen’s predictions can now be judged by history. Have hurricanes gotten stronger, as Mr. Hansen predicted in a 2016 study? No. Satellite data from 1970 onward shows no evidence of this in relation to global surface temperature. Have storms caused increasing amounts of damage in the U.S.? Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show no such increase in damage, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product. How about stronger tornadoes? The opposite may be true, as NOAA data offers some evidence of a decline. The list of what didn’t happen is long and tedious.

The problem with Mr. Hansen’s models—and the U.N.’s—is that they don’t consider more-precise measures of how aerosol emissions counter warming caused by greenhouse gases. Several newer climate models account for this trend and routinely project about half the warming predicted by U.N. models, placing their numbers much closer to observed temperatures. The most recent of these was published in April by Nic Lewis and Judith Curry in the Journal of Climate, a reliably mainstream journal.

These corrected climate predictions raise a crucial question: Why should people world-wide pay drastic costs to cut emissions when the global temperature is acting as if those cuts have already been made?

On the 30th anniversary of Mr. Hansen’s galvanizing testimony, it’s time to acknowledge that the rapid warming he predicted isn’t happening. Climate researchers and policy makers should adopt the more modest forecasts that are consistent with observed temperatures.

That would be a lukewarm policy, consistent with a lukewarming planet.

Mr. Michaels is director and Mr. Maue an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science.

Appeared in the June 22, 2018, print edition as 'A Hot Summer on Capitol Hill.'

Years ago German restaurants just automatically added tip money to the bill, so no worker in the restaurant went without a tip

rmalarz

"I should certainly think someone will be having a bit of a chat with him about that expressed sentiment.
--Bob"

Either common sense, or legal advice from others, has finally led Fonda to make an apology. He committed a borderline, possibly-deadly threat against the P**********l family, which could have reaped a lot of well-deserved Federal jail time for him.

DavidPhares

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! Both Bush and Obama started the detention of illegal kids.