Here were my top seven favorite cartoons for the week. Be sure to vote for your fav in the poll at the bottom of this post!
by Mike Luckovich at GoComics.com…
by Glenn McCoy at Townhall.com…
by Robert Ariail at Townhall.com…
by Lisa Benson at Townhall.com…
by Henry Payne at Townhall.com…
by Gary McCoy at Townhall.com…
by Jerry Holbert at Townhall.com…
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Vote # 4
Only one life-related cartoon this week? :-(
Unlike our fearless leader who hides behind a woman’s skirt, Christie is at least man enough to take the rap. I’ll give him that, and only that.
Like our fearless leader, Christie knows enough to surround himself with flunkies who know what is expected and will do as expected without a word or written order.
As for the MSNBC apology, please. I’ve long maintained those tampon earrings were the cotton stuffing falling out of Melissa Harris-Perry’s head.
Mary lol at the end of your post.
Where are all the Christie jokes – major story of the week. Swing and a miss weekly cartoons!
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons/ig/Political-Cartoons/
Let’s just say Christie gets information on what his flunkies are doing the same way the Glorious Leader gets his: by watching the nightly news.
I’m voting for #7.
I thought Christie was the one guy that might be able to be the guy everyone got behind early. I know that plenty on the hard right didn’t like him – but if the GOP is going to win in 2016, I think it is going to mean picking a candidate earlier.
I think that’s gone out the window with this – I think the primaries are going to be another three ring circus.
Well, Christie’s giving a big hug and kiss to Obama after Hurricane Sandy sure didn’t pay off.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/29/real_estate/sandy-survivors/
Mary
It’s actually funny you posted that – not ‘ha ha’ funny, but a little ironic.
So two of the cartoons this week, and a lot of rhetoric lately has been regarding the ‘hoax’ of global warming. We have a few days of super cold weather, so now a lot of people think that is somehow evidence that we don’t have global warming.
Back to New Jersey – the article you posted had a lot of talk of insurance companies and flooding in New Jersey – the flood insurance. The sea level has gone up so much around New Jersey already that it is causing flooding issues – and there’s more to come – and these aren’t crazy leftists sources -
http://articles.philly.com/2014-01-08/news/45958874_1_sea-level-rise-sea-level-research-laboratory-coastal-sciences
http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/13/10/27/analysis-maps-out-flood-risks-in-nj-as-ocean-levels-rise/
So I know you’re making a joke about Christie – but I just thought it was an interesting tie between what you posted, and those scoffing at global warming compared to what the reality is.
EGV,
If we are in fact having global warming, you’ve obviously suckered for that hoax, so what? It would sure beat these arctic temperatures. You gotta admit EGV, old Mom Nature has got a great sense of humor. Just ask those clowns that got stuck in that arctic ice, much to the amusement of the local penguins.
My article also mentioned FEMA. Insurance or not, why do you suppose Christie was schmoozing Obama? To better influence the insurance companies?
Didn’t the Glorious Leader promise the sea levels would stop rising once he assumed office?
Like you EGV, I became disillusioned when he didn’t part the Gulf of Mexico to better access the BP oil spill.
Mary -
Excellent – you are an environmental scientists! I’ve got questions then.
What explains the rising sea levels. It is a known fact that sea level rates are moving faster than what they did historically. What explains it?
EGV,
I knew I was getting fat but to refer to me in the plural!?
Anyway, I’m not about to argue this colossal nonsense.
For starters:
http://www.independent.org/store/book.asp?id=42&s=ga
Also google: global warming hoax and rising sea levels
Ex-GOP, you sniff every time we reference a conservative site. I hate to break it to you, but I’ve been reading the Philadelphia Inquirer for almost fifty years, and it is definitely “a crazy left-wing source”. And the study being from Rutgers doesn’t impress me either.
There are floods at seaside and riverside? No kidding. The planet is in constant change. There is ebb and flow everywhere, whether it be ice cover or volcanic activity. (We are only recently getting a glimpse of how mich land is being added on the ocean floor – and of course that must add a little displacement, like another rubber ducky in the bathtub.)
And as Mary said, our King Canute II is slacking off in his promise to roll back the waves. But why should that surprise us?
Thanks for the laughs Mary. You need your own column!
Hans -
Mary posted a book from 1999. If you’d like to talk about how reputable the book is and the source of the book is, we can. Singer, for instance, has a history of saying 2nd hand smoke isn’t an issue.
Regardless – she posted a book.
Now that you’ve jumped in though, it begs the question – what sort of information would be sufficient for you? Any scientist, you’re going to say has an agenda. Any University, you are going to say is liberal.
Do you hold your own sources to the same scrutiny? Of course not. It’s rather silly quite frankly.
So my direct question to you is this – what sort of evidence would you want regarding something global warming?
EGV,
So what if its from 1999? This “global warming” nonsense is nothing new. Also, I advised you to check out google which has any number of sources. The man says second hand smoke isn’t an issue. So what?? Global warming guru Al Gore’s credentials are…..what?
Mainly I posted a review of the book and the information it contains. I said it was for starters, not the end all be all.
A few hundred years of steadily climbing temperatures and oceans rising might be a start. Otherwise it’s just weather to me, which means constant change up and down.
I agree with you probably I that don’t like it when conservatives dismiss second-hand smoke and liquor as being problematic, when they obviously are.
You mention a book from 1999. Ironically, now many say global cooling started around then, as if Mother Nature anticipated Al Gore beginning to spout his environmental jeremiads just then.
As for global warming or cooling, this is speculative science. It’s like standing a few inches from of a pointilist painting and saying, “Hey! I see a few dots here!”
We have to step back to see the whole picture. And unfortunately, we’re too impatient to wait for hundreds of years of statistics to come in so thar we can make an educated guess at climate trends.
Hi Prax,
Thank you. I try very hard to live by my grandmother’s motto.
“If we didn’t laugh we’d cry”.
BTW EGV
Al Gore published “Earth in the Balance” in 1992. The documentary ”An Inconvenient Truth” came out in 2006. Seems like Singer fits right in there just about right.
Smart Grandmother.
Hi Hans,
Remember when scorching summers and subzero winters were just…well… the season? We just called them heat waves and cold snaps.
Now it signals impending doom.
I can remember in 1969 that we had an odd early summer. Cloudy, not much sun, rather unusual. Some of my senior relatives speculated it had to do with our sending rockets into space and doing who knows what to the atmosphere.
Considering the earth has endured millions of years of perpetually erupting volcanoes, asteroids, forest fires, and billions of years of gaseous emissions from both ends of every living creature, rockets would amount to little more than a baby sneezing into the ocean.
Mary/Hans -
I thinking it’s part sad, part ironic to see your reasoning fall so in line with pro-choicers on this one.
I think the evidence is clear on two things – long, long before a baby is born, it is a human being. I also think that it is massively clear that the earth is warming, and humans have something to do with it. In both cases, the science is there to back it up.
Pro-choicers scoff at the evidence and put their own political feelings above evidence and consensus.
Anti-climate changers scott at the evidence and put their own political feelings above evidence and consensus.
So next time a pro-choicer isn’t buying your argument – remember this conversation – note that 95% of climate scientists agree – yet your political ideology doesn’t match the data, so you reject. Same thing as pro-choicers.
I’m sure random books from the nineties are much more reliable than 97% of papers published in the relevant fields. ;)
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange
Mary it’s not about some bad weather in a certain areas, it’s about overall increasing temperatures over time. Increased temps put more precipitation in the climate, that increases extreme weather events, not to mention raising the sea levels.
I don’t understand the political divide on climate change, the science is pretty crystal clear to people actually study this stuff.
Hi Jack,
Why would a book published in 1999 be less reliable? Also, check out “global warming hoax” on google. Facts don’t necessarily change with time.
We can bat sources back and forth Jack and all this “proves” is that this is definitely not settled science and we have to decide for ourselves what sources to believe.
The climate has changed time and again since the dawn of creation. The human race can no more influence the climate than it can stop earthquakes, tsunamis, or volcanoes. The climate is influenced by forces of nature completely beyond our control.
Because 1999 was over a decade ago, I generally try to get scientific sources that are current and relevant.
I believe people who study this for a living (97% of them agree that human-contributed global warming is the issue). I’m not going to debate it as if either of us actually know what we’re talking about.
When 97% of sources say one thing and 3% say another, I consider that conspiracy theorist territory to believe the 3%, when it comes to scientific evidence. No offense, because I think you’re a smart lady. I just think it doesn’t make sense to be like, “nah, conservative pundits got this covered, I’m ignoring the massive amounts of evidence supporting the other side”. Lol.
Wait a minute EGV,
Its climate change now isn’t it? Not global warming.
Maybe climate change makes more sense when we’re freezing.
Mary
You dodge the issues better than just about anybody else on this site. Time to start that “I need to go to bed” stuff soon I’m guessing.
Again, the scientific consensus is there. And just because there isn’t 100% consensus doesn’t mean jack – you still have people who deny the holocaust, 9/11, and the moon landing. Crazy people do exist – just have to decide which side of crazy you want to fall on.
I really don’t understand the idea that “all sources are equal”.
Hi Jack,
Maybe this is why it went from “global warming” to “climate change”. Hope this is up to date enough to satisfy everyone.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
Mary – that’s hilarious – it isn’t scientists – it’s a survey of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists,and Geophyicists of Alberta. Head to their site – and most of them are employed by the petroleum industry!
You can’t make this stuff up.
Seriously – scroll down to the comments – it details it all out.
So your proof is now an article that surveys some professionals in Alberta, who work for the petroleum industry.
Breaking news from Mary – new study shows abortion doesn’t hurt babies – study brought to you by Planned Parenthood…
I’m trying to be funny. Sorry. That article is awesome though.
EGV,
You were saying something about dodging issues?
BTW, any theories as to why “global warming” is now “climate change”?
No theory – maybe it looked better on a business card.
Well Mary, like Ex pointed out, that’s a very carefully picked study. And, besides the fact that it’s very dubious, it’s ONE study. The vast, vast, vast majority of scientists in the relevant fields disagree with those people. I posted a link that showed that they surveyed all peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011, and 97% supported the theory of human caused climate change. It’s just not a debate in the scientific community, no matter if you can find a couple oil company employees who say otherwise.
Ok Ok
My bad, I stand corrected.
Looks better on a business card? Sure. Why not just stick to global warming if the evidence is so overwhelming? Climate change is ongoing so they can’t go wrong on that one.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/16/PLS-HOLD-FOR-TUESDAY-9-17-AFTER-11AM-ET-Climate-Study-Evidence-Leans-Against-Human-Caused-Global-Warming
I’m hoping this link comes through, I kept getting virus alerts.
They’re all rather shallow and flimsy.
Christie is at least man enough to take the rap – what, “it wasn’t me, I didn’t know, I’ve sacked ’em”? And wasn’t one a woman?
I think the primaries are going to be another three ring circus. – with the clowns as the feature attraction.
Anti-climate changers scoff at the evidence and put their own political feelings – and short-term profits – above evidence and consensus.
Mary -
Before I shred another report, do you want to withdraw from consideration your source?
Google ‘The Heartland Institute” before you answer – you can research a bit of their work with Phillip Morris – or their funding ties to the oil industry.
Let me know if you really want to submit that as your support.
Mary
Are you seriously thinking there is a conspiracy behind the wording? Here’s an article on it – from a little group called NASA. Is that an okay source for you, or are they a bunch of dirty liberals as well?
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html
Settled science?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought–computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html
EGV,
Before you knock the oil industry, remember they are keeping you warm through this global warming crisis we are now experiencing.
Also, their ties to Phillip Morris or the oil industry does not prove them wrong.
So now the evidence is a British tabloid?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail
Okay Mary – three strikes your out.
Here is what I’m running with. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Issue with the source?
Issue with the facts?
Or just an issue because the science doesn’t fit into your worldview (see Pro-Choicers…)
Believe me Reality,
I didn’t mean to sound like I’m any fan of Christie’s. He took the rap, but as you can see I remain totally unconvinced.
Mary
I’m saying that if you are looking for an impartial, scientific source, citing an organization that is funded by, or employed by an industry is typically a terrible, terrible place to start.
EGV,
Please, counter sources to prove what I have posted is incorrect.
Remember, the fact you don’t like a source doesn’t prove it wrong.
As for the Daily Mail, they are often better informed, or at least more willing to inform, than our own MSM.
Mary –
I’ll critique the article if you send a critique of the last source I posted – deal? Once you have your submitted – then I’ll let you know what I feel about the article you posted.
I think you’ve had about five postings to my one or two – so it seems fair.
Here you go:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
EGV,
My goodness, my “tabloid source” quotes the head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta who says the leaked document showed “the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux”.
He took the rap – LOL.
Mary – I’ve made my offer.
EGV,
Would you kindly point out the date of your post?
All my posts have been made today Mary – January 12th, 2014.
EGV,
You dispute my source. So offer a counter source to what I posted.
EGV,
Don’t be a comedian. What is the date that post was published?
Reality,
Point taken.
The cite I posted is up to date – includes references in 2013. It is a consensus page.
EGV
The few 2013 sources are from The American Medical Association? First I heard they were into climate science.
The other 2013 source just thanks everyone for a great meeting.
The other sources go back 4-10 years. Hey, you’re the one who brought up dates EGV.
The global warming hoax is as phony as the Tea Party is racist hoax or the pro-life war on women hoax.
Mary -
These are when the organizations put out their official declarations. If you can find any of these organizations that have backed off their statement, then it would be noteworthy. The reason your book date was noteworthy is because it was implying there wasn’t consensus – but it was judging that years ago – even before any of these organizations made their stance.
So are you saying no deal?
EGV,
The only thing I read in the book review is how the author makes his case against global presenting scientific evidence. I don’t read anything about consensus. Since you were the one to bring up dates, then it works two ways. The fact they haven’t backed off their statements proves what?
EGV, I said if you have an issue with one of my sources, then present a counter source that proves my source wrong. That’s how it works.
Ted Cruz said obamacare causes climate change. Do you believe in it now Mary? ;-)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/16654-major-international-climate-report-challenges-un-alarmism
Reality,
Now THAT I believe :) (facetious alert)
I believe you Mary :-)
Mary –
Your last post was that same study by the NIPCC – my 5:41 pm post addresses the credibility of that organization.
Furthermore, the NIPCC was setup by none other than Singer – who was your book source…which means in all your posts, three of them have pointed to the exact same guy. At least one you’ve withdrawn – another you left behind at the mere mention of some of their associations.
I mean, could you find maybe ONE credible person in this debate? Just one that appears to be more of a scientist than a lobbyist? Could we start with that please? One.
Ex-GOP,
That’s cute comparing global warming sketptics to human life-deniers like the pro-choice. Since the AMA hasn’t condemned abortion and there aren’t tens of thousands of doctors and nurses at the March For Life, I guess we should all just give up and bow to the “consensus”
I’m saying that if you are looking for an impartial, scientific source, citing an organization that is funded by, or employed by an industry is typically a terrible, terrible place to start.
And those peer-reviewed papers that make Jack starry-eyed aren’t impartial? They know where the funding money comes from, too. This hysteria is more popular than saying, “it has ever been thus”.
And what petroleum companies bankrolled the Ice Age scare of the ’70s?
I’m skeptical of these alarmists, and even more so of many doctors who no longer recommend smoking like they did in the ’40s, but have now forgotten everything they learned from medical school textbooks regarding early human life.
Hans -
My comparison is how people seem to put science aside if it flies in the face of their own ideology. You believe a certain number of things, and have stated quite directly that unless you live about another 100 years, there is no way that enough evidence will have accumulated for you to make a decision.
I’ll throw out the same challenge to you that I just threw out to Mary – find ONE credible person in this debate and we’ll look at that – Just one person that appears to be more of a scientist than a lobbyist. Let’s start there.
EGV,
I can attack the credibility of your sources all I want. The fact I don’t like your source proves nothing. I have to offer a counter source that proves what your source says is wrong. It would be nice if everyone on this blog could just say ”I don’t like your source”. Not how it works.
Now since it is you challenging my sources and what they say, you should have no problem producing counter sources proving what mine say is wrong.
This conversation is making me repeatedly *headdesk*.
Can you point out where the AMA or pro-choice doctors have claimed that a gestating fetus is not of the human species Hans?
The climate change debate is very much like the smoking debate. The vast body of scientists identify a link while a small percentage who are bankrolled by those who seek to gain state otherwise. And receive media access and attention way beyond what their numbers justify.
Mary – I’ve provided plenty of counter information to your sources.
Sure – feel free to attack the credibility of sources I post.
NASA and AAAS – there’s two you can go after.
Look – there is nobody standing in your way of believing whatever you want. Believe in unicorns, deny Russia exists – do whatever. Just don’t post things like “If we are in fact having global warming, you’ve obviously suckered for that hoax, so what?” and expect to go unchallenged. To say something like “I’m not 100% sure on this” is one thing – but to blindly post of a hoax, and then bring out as evidence a bunch of massively flawed groups and studies? Come on – you can do better.
I rather enjoy the guys at Powerline. The second archive piece refers to the problem in gettin rock-solid temperature stats.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/category/climate
EGV,
You criticize my sources. Fine.
Show me the source and what it says that you dispute, and post sources to support your argument. We do it all the time on this blog.
And yes, I remain convinced global warming is a colossal hoax. Its why we now hear about “climate change”. I mean the climate has been changing since creation, right?
BTW, stay warm.
Hi Hans,
When I was in graduate school my California born classmate had never been through a Midwestern winter. Anyway in mid February we had a mild warming trend. Back then this wasn’t considered a warning of impending doom, winter had warming trends. So what?
My classmate asked me if winter was coming to an end! I laughed and assured her winter was only catching its breath. The worst was yet to come. It did, a few days later.
Why do you think cold weather in winter = no overall increasing temps? Scientists predicted extreme weather caused by more precipitation, among other things, a while back. Colder colds, hotter hots, and more extreme weather events. The permafrost in northern areas is also shrinking bit by bit. Do you think the indigenous people being displaced because of rising sea levels/shrinking permafrost are lying or something? Part of the hoax? Don’t get your argument, and it doesn’t seem supported with facts.
Mary –
I posted a list of organizations that say that the Climate is changing BECAUSE of human factors (guess you didn’t read the NASA post).
Anyway – I’ve counteracted the sources you’ve posted. After all of that, I’ve offered you the chance to post another – somebody you stand behind. You’ve failed to do that.
Again – I’ve posted a nice, concise site with data specifying the 97%, and linking out to statements of those various organizations. It is general scientific consensus though – if you want evidence and articles from credible sources, just look around – again, it is the standard.
EGV,
Yes I saw you post. I believe I had to point out a couple of questionable sources in it. Anyway, it doesn’t dispute my post or prove it wrong. On the contrary, I think mine proves you wrong.
Your most up to date source in that post, The American Medical Association whose credentials as climate scientists, as compared to Professor Judith Curry, head of climate studies at Georgia Institute of Technology who has said “the science is clearly not settled”, are clearly left wanting.
Jack,
http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/16/global-warming-satellite-data-shows-arctic-sea-ice-coverage-up-50-percent/
…from the aritcle ”
However, scientists have cautioned that while Arctic sea ice coverage expanded this year, one year is not enough to say the global warming has stopped.
“Although the recovery of Arctic sea ice is certainly welcome news, it has to be considered against the backdrop of changes that have occurred over the last few decades,” Andy Shepherd of University College in London told BBC News.
“It’s estimated that there were around 20,000 cu km of Arctic sea ice each October in the early 1980s, and so today’s minimum still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years,” Shepard added.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/16/global-warming-satellite-data-shows-arctic-sea-ice-coverage-up-50-percent/#ixzz2qFC9gYMg
More information on the Arctic Sea to read as you continue to look for a source you want to stand behind…
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
EGV,
Don’t be so selective.
This is good news for the arctic, but presents somewhat of a tough problem for environmentalists and some climate scientists who have been pummeled with evidence this contradicting the theory of manmade global warming.
Scientists have been struggling to explain away the 15 year pause in rising global temperatures. Some have turned to solar activity or natural climate cycles to explain the hiatus in warming.
Solar activity and natural climate cycles. What novel concepts!
EGV,
Did you read your source?
Arctic sea ice expanded by 714,000 square miles, slightly less than average.
The 4th lowest extent in the 36 year data satellite data record.
So the arctic has only existed for 36 years? Do we know what patterns have existed for centuries?
This just in:
Climate researchers have identified the source of global warming.
the goddess gaia is in the throes of menopause. mother earth is experiencing hot flashes.
The recent ‘Polar Vortex’ is the result of the heavenly body lowering the set point on the earths thermostat to compensate for the wild fluctuations in gaia’s internal thermometer.
[Please ignore the recent increase in solar flares and the reversing of the suns magnetic poles.]
Yes Mary – the Arctic has been around for just 36 years.
In a related story chicken little and henny penny are sure the sky is falling.
So, no more new life on planet earth kentheburper. Pity.
EGV,
I was being sarcastic which I’m sure you are aware of.
BTW, what has been the pattern in the arctic for thousands of years?
Hi Jack,
You should find this article interesting.
Sorry Jack will be in the next post. I got a virus alert again.
404 not found, links broken Mary.
Jack,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130724103003.htm
Again sorry about that. I got another alert so I hope this goes through.
Mary what antivirus do you use? You always seem to be having issues. You should use AVG (you can either use the free version which is good or the paid version which is more comprehensive), or you should use Avast (which is my preference). Stuff like Norton and McAffee was too spendy and I think the free ones work better imo.
Uh, Mary, that link supports what Ex and I have been saying.
When climatologists measure gaia’s temperature do they do it orally, rectally or do they put the thermometer under one of her hairy arm pits?
Why do you always have to be so vulgar Ken? You’ve got, like, forty years on me and you act a decade younger.
She doesn’t have hairy armpits anymore kentheburper.
All that deforestation conducted by the greedy.
Hi Jack,
No, it is suggested that changes in weather patterns and radiation from the sun may be causing the melting, nothing about global warming.
In Garwood Valley, ice melted despite cooled then sustained temperatures.
About my virus protection. I will get occasional alerts and I can’t get rid of them unless I shut down. I think the “offer” to clean up the virus is an attempt to infect my computer. Last time that happened I did “clean” it and wound up needing the geeks. As soon as I see that I just shut down ASAP and it usually disappears. Thank you for the advice.
Ken,
Please. Jack is right. There is no need for vulgarity.
Wow!
mother earth/gaia is attempting to pass a heterosexual by moonlighting as a sumo wrestler.
I can just picture Rosie O’Donnell and Whoopi Goldberg in a WWF smack down grudge match.
The judges would have to use a seismometer determine the winner.
For someone who dislikes gay people you sure do like to talk about them. I don’t think it’s particularly kind or mature.
#3!!! Christie over O any day, yes!!!!
When climatologists measure gaia’s temperature do they do it orally, rectally or do they put the thermometer under one of her hairy arm pits?
Mary and Deluded Lib – if I may: this is not vulgar as these are medically accurate descriptors of measuring temperature :)
I can understand Deluded Lib crying about this non-issue but you Mary? just my two cents…
Hi Thomas R,
You make a valid point.
Yes it is indeed medically accurate but so are descriptions of rectal and gynecological exams.
I have seen vulgar Mary and what Ken wrote ain’t it.
Hi Thomas,
We will just have to agree to disagree.
Keep ’em coming Ken!! You don’t even compare to some of that “toilet” Hollywood humor in so many “comedies” lately. You are much cleaner :)
If he were actually funny I probably wouldn’t think much of it. “Humor” that sucks is always so much worse than actual humor, lol.
This is not about being funny but the difference between vulgar and graphic. Are people honestly misunderstanding vulgar with graphic nowadays?
Jack,
Just like many have scrambled to rename this “crisis” Climate Change instead of Global Warming, they are admitting that water vapor is much more of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
This is obvious to anyone walking into a greenhouse. And now it poses a dilemma for the Hollywood Left worrying about the rainforests. Instead of their being “carbon sinks” soaking up CO2, they’re actually precipitation factories, perhaps spreading their localized stuffy heat worldwide.
Oh my. Maybe it’s time to speed up the deforestation of the Amazon, if you really think we’re warming. But then where can we blame mankind for this?
Ah, we can all eat more plant life! Now there is something you can really get behind! :)
The definition of vulgar is “lacking in sophistication or good taste, unrefined”. I believe that fits the VAST majority of Ken’s comments lol.
Why do you always have to be so vulgar Ken? You’ve got, like, forty years on me and you act a decade younger.
Jack, this is one of the funniest and truest things you’ve said. ;)
–
Except when I’m throwing temper tantrums like my three year old haha.
You’re in the “terrible twenties”. Things get better.
The topic of “global warming” is not deserving of sophistication, good taste or being refined. Ken is correct in giving it such graphic treatment.
Lol Hans. Once my daughter once was pitching an awful fit over something ridiculous, couldn’t get her to calm down, so I flopped down on the ground next to her and started whining too. She started laughing, so I guess it worked!
Thomas I see zero reason that Ken needs to bring up rectal thermometers and lesbians if he wants to mock the concept of climate change. It’s vulgar.
Perhpas Ken views all three as having a common link :) IDK. He is certainly entitled to His opinion, Hasn’t been deleted in the 7 months I participate here (unlike some individuals).
Yeah Ken’s entitled to his opinion. Meanwhile the adults can have an actual conversation.
I’ve seen many people deleted over the years, actually I do believe Ken has been deleted a time or two. I got deleted twice for swearing, and then there was that one time when Tyler and I got an entire thread deleted lol, that wasn’t intentional.
Hey Jack,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBUhV4seFHA
Oh drat. My comment woudn’t come through for some reason. There’s my wistful 9th-grade self from behind faculty doors.
You are the whitest of the white guys Hans.
That video is amusing. When I did it with my daughter I just threw myself down on the ground like she was doing lol and starting crying “no daddy no!!”. She thought it was hilarious.
Hi Thomas,
In retrospect, that gaia temperature comment by Ken was pretty funny. Also, Reality had a good comeback to it. It was a comical exchange.
That is the way temperatures are taken on humans, as I well know.
If I had a dime for every…….oh never mind! Let’s just say I could have retired by now!
Yeah, comebacks definitely work better than crying about someone being “vulgar.” ;)
One of my all time favorite TANTRUM videos. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyzfIaTGLf0
Lol that’s great Carla, that’s kinda like what I did, haha.
I wasn’t *crying* Thomas, I just think it’s funny when I correct Ken on something and he comes back with like fifteen paragraphs of vulgarity. I’m quite disappointed he didn’t do it this time tbh.
When I was a toddler I had terrible tantrums. One day I started on the sidewalk and my mother simply walked away and left me there screaming. Every kid in the neighborhood stopped to watch me and me my mother says I was so embarassed I got up and ran after her.
HI DLPL: Perhaps one day when you reach 30 and up you will understand that being graphic does not equate with vulgarity and stop policing everyone’s words :)
Thomas I think we’re defining graphic and vulgarity differently.
And you police my words a lot, I don’t do it more than you.
All I can say to that Jack is that you can most definitely learn a thing or two from those that have forty or so years on you ;)
Not me of course as I only have 20+ ;)
I can’t learn anything from Ken, he’s like a huge rape victim blamer and he’s exceedingly rude to me. No respect there. If I’m gonna look up to the older guys here it’s Hans or someone like that.
I learned from Ken that his posts above were not vulgar but graphic (yes I think you and I define those two very differently)..
We can always learn from one another see ;)
I told you the definition I was using for vulgar. Graphic is “shown or described in a very clear way”, I suppose graphic fits as well, his comments were both vulgar and graphic.
I can learn from Ken the kind of man I don’t want to be. :)
Is that so ;)
Well, I’ll never make jokes about how some women are so ugly I can’t imagine why anyone would ever rape them. That’s one thing I learned from Ken.
If I’m gonna look up to the older guys here it’s Hans or someone like that.
But I don’t quite have forty years on you, Jack. 59 in two weeks. So, I’m still down with the younger generation. I’m hep with it. Scooby doo, and all that.
O_o you’re almost exactly what age my dad would be if he were still alive Hans, lol.
Bummer. But I guess it beats the alternative,.
I’d rather you be alive than him!
(is that too edgy? lol)