People mean different things when using words. Your definition is not universal no matter what you might think
And don't forget the impact of such thinking on the gun and oil guys plans for bigger yachts .
optimal course of governance for the USA. His brilliance is without reproach within the message board
environment and his opinions are accepted by at least a dozen people who frequent the same message board, He is truly the type of individual his followers would love to see in command of this country. Do not
fret that his opinions are only manifest on an anonymous message board because they clearly have not had sufficient exposure for the intelligent of the USA to recognize him as a potential leader. It is clearly only a matter of time before Hawcreek can step out of the shadows and expose himself so the good citizens of the USA can bask in his wisdom and then he can take his place in history as the great leader he imagines himself as being. The only issue is which party will he run under,
The cost of having a crazy nut for president that the world fears is unneeded warfare. I think we are better off with thinking people running government.
several words had their meaning changed by the supreme court.
take voter for instance as a word that use to mean only males.
So the supreme court may not in your narrow view redefine a word they may well
change what the word refers to.
Surely you understand that the POTUS must choose his words more carefully. Even your phallic fantasy bush might have chosen better words
Fox tells em what they want to hear which is that the present generation with its tolerance and progressive ideas are ruining the world. It makes em feel good.
he fancies himself a potential talk radio show host. A low bar indeed but it's all he can imagine at this point in his final years.
Sure, an ignorant hick like you can say this all the way up to the day florida becomes uninhabitable and flooded. You will still find 'other' causes to blame while ignoring the obvious.
The study says the outcome is likely to match middle estimates of warming. You do know there is more than one climate model prediction ??
So to dumb it down for you. The study supported model scenarios in the middle of the range. Which is perfectly reasonable to a thinking person. That leaves you out don't it boi.
Turn off the Rush Limbut, you don't have the brain cells to spare on his dumbing down techniques.
""On the April 22 edition of his show, Limbaugh touted the Duke University study as "[b]ad news for the climate change crowd" and claimed the Duke researchers are part of a "consensus" of people who think "there isn't any warming going on." He went on to assert that the study, which examines temperature records over the past 1,000 years, shows that "there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that long-term warming over the next 100 years is going to be anything even noticeable, abnormal."
But the study itself said nothing of the sort. Rather, the study stated that, out of the range of warming projections outlined by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), temperature records suggest that at present time the "middle-of-the-road warming scenario" is more likely than the most severe warming projections. One of the study's authors, Duke doctoral candidate Patrick Brown, confirmed as much in an email to Media Matters, and called Limbaugh's assertion "ridiculous":