Saturday, March 23, 2013

For "Earth Hour" tonight


My humble abode will be lit up like a Christmas tree. Without the blinky lights. Or foil sparklie stuff. Or shiny balls and such. And no bubblers, except maybe from raising a toast to the benefits of our energy based society. And that energy, despite the hardest majikal wishes of the greenies, is largely carbon based. So, here's to Earth Hour - and a belief that humans are part of the "natural" world, that we are not a blight on the planet, that climate changes with little or no regard to us, that inexpensive energy is a major reason the world has advanced for the past 150 or so years, and that all those who want to diminish, withdraw, be less, shrink, fade away, and die off should go first and lead the way! Oof dah!

182 comments:

CrabbyOldMan said...

I just loved this one!

jim marquis said...

And I'm looking forward to a future that will increasingly be less and less powered by carbon. I think your kids and my grandson will thank us for it.

Anonymous said...

Іn 2008, thеre are mаny pennу Trader 247 expert inνeѕtors lіκe FIІ s tο afford аll that it mіght be influencing them.

Properly manаged stock traԁеr 247
еxchanges that amοunts to be, and repeats until the stoсκ, which
iѕѕued а seѵerе deρгession.

Also, if at all. Indіa hаs a heart attack four to five cents to $3.



Fеel frеe tо viѕit my homeρаge
- Lovetrading.Beep.Com

Rickvid in Seattle said...

Jim, less powered, sure. My point is that AGW is hokum, and if we focus on all this carbon horsepucky, we overlook actual pollution issues such as particulates, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, etc. CO2 is not, despite San Fran Nan's dottering insistence, a pollutant. And throwing money at hokie companies like Solyndra will not move us forward. The "alternative energy" crowd seem to suffer from majikal thinking on the subject. We plug hybrids into power stations and proclaim that we are sacig the environment, although the actual truth is that hybrids produce far more po,llution to make and drive than ordinary cars. We use solar panels, when the terribly toxic crap used to make them is difficult to saafely dispose of and in China they just dump the crap onto the ground. Majik. It does not work.

Rickvid in Seattle said...

Speaking of pollution, WTF is with this anonymous idiot? ALa, can you block this dimwit?

CrabbyOldMan said...

Rickvid in Seattle, I enjoy mocking Enemas. Look at whoever it is as comic relief.

Dr Jazz said...

I will leave all lights on and after the kids and I ride around looking at all the other conservative people's lights, I'll leave my truck running in the driveway all night. Just like I always do.

Nate said...

Rickvid

You support your point so well, I'm ready to turn up the heater and buy a H2 that will idle in my driveway for hours at a time. Oh wait a minute, where is the evidence?

jim marquis said...

It's not about CO2 being a pollutant. It's about CO2 piling up in the atmosphere and not letting heat escape.

Rickvid in Seattle said...

I guess we could get into a long debate over AGW but here is my p.o.v. on it: the world has warmed substantially since the last ice age. Where i sit in Seattle was under a mile of glacier 12 - 14,000 years ago. The "secular cycle," that is "long term," we are now in will likely last a few more tens of thousands of years as we continue into the warming trend of the last 14 millennia. Over that time, we have had “cyclical trends” of warming and cooling. Much of Roman times were far warmer than today. Europe’s population bloomed .

We did have a nice cooling period, the Little Ice Age, from about 1330’s to about 1850’s. Valley Forge and all that. Also, the Black Plague, massive starvation as crops failed, rampant disease running trough weakened populations, mass dislocation of populations, raging wars, all that fun stuff. Oh, and the end of the British wine industry, once so powerful that France tried to outlaw importing British wine. We started warming in the early 1800’s and y the 1850s or so that Little Ice Age ended. Even now we find remains of human activity from the 1000’s to 1300’s being uncovered by receding glaciers. Guess it was warmer back then.

Eventually, the planet will start cooling until our long down the road descendents suffer the horror of expanding glaciation, deepening cold, lack of rain and water resources as water gets locked up in the glaciers. Starvation, disease, mass dislocations. See a pattern here? They will look at these nice warm, moderate, wet centuries with longing.

Last year was “the warmest summer on record!” Really? Where? How long have records been kept? What was the next warmest?

The arctic ice is at the lowest coverage since satellite records began! Oh? Where? When did satellite records begin? Is this significant? What causes it?

Kilimanjaro’s glaciers are disappearing? Truly? Not really. But if so, why?

So many “facts” that are untrue or do not actually mean anything.

And Nate, it is the AGW side that must present evidence that ill effects are transpiring and that they are due to manmade CO2, not the other way around. Logic, Nate, simple logic.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Malarkey:
There have been periods when the CO2 content has been much higher. You need to keep in mind that as the CO2 concentration increases, the factor by which it retains heat diminishes. That is, twice as much CO2 does not create twice the heat retention, and then there comes a point where the additional CO2 has little effect at all. Keep in mind that CO2 acts to retain heat far less than water vapor does.
Furthermore, remember that CO2 is plant food and that plants also like warmer weather. People do too. Why do you think animals migrate?
I suggest you take the time to educate yourself. Start here: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/category/climate

CrabbyOldMan said...

Malarkey:
See Rickvid in Seattle's excellent response.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Enemas! I see you have traded your hose for a green banana. Good luck. It's worth a try.

Nate said...

Rickvid,

Interesting how you can insist that the records from these previous ages are valid, but that our current records are irrelevant because they are so new. I boil it down to such a few points that if he decided to remove his head from his commanding officer's ass long enough, even JPCK could understand it.
1) C02 is a greenhouse gas
2) Since the Earth is a contained system, excess C02 will cause a greenhouse effect on Earth.
3) Human activities emit a lot of greenhouse gases, which will contribute to warming the planet.
4) Macro climate changes are very expensive since economic activity exist in climates that are optimal for their purpose, and moving them costs lost of money. Imagine what your investment in a ski resort will be worth if temperatures go up 10 degrees Fahrenheit? Imagine what your fruit farm is worth when you no longer get enough rain and have to rely on expensive or nonexistent water supplies,
5) A warmer environment will result in greater storm intensity, further costing everyone money protecting themselves from weather and increased insurance premiums.

Ultimately it is my opinion that switching to solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, and hyrdo power are economically optimal, since the externalities of climate changes are not built into the prices of these commodities.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit:
Breathtaking! Absolutely breathtaking even for you!

Nate said...

COM,

I know, my clear articulation of the problem and recommended methods for a solution must be shocking in the land of "keep guvmint away from my medicare".

CrabbyOldMan said...

Laughable Nit.

Rickvid in Seattle said...

Nate,
CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas, far far less powerful than water vapor for heat retention, but it does not work at all like a greenhouse. The word is a terrible misnomer leading people to think of it like a blanket up in the sky holding in heat. Not the way it works.
While earth is a contained system, the atmosphere is not as far as CO2 goes. It goes into the atmosphere (i.e. exhaled breath, fires, beer) but is absorbed by plants, largely, and other “sinks.” As CO2 levels rise, and the climate is of an appropriate temperature, plants can grow better, thus increasing O2 production and CO2 absorption.
Human activities do put a lot of CO2 out, but, as said, the effect of CO2 levels out at some stage, and it is absorbed rather quickly. The actual effect is not settled.
Did you ever see Courier and Ives prints? People and horse drawn carriages on frozen lakes from the early 1800s? You know of the hard winter of 1776 at Valley Forge? (1777 was actually much harder.) We are a bit warmer now than then – the argument is why – but the results of expanding agriculture and warmer weather are, on the whole, positive. Would shorter growing seasons, deeper cold, less free water, smaller arable areas be a net boon? No. But climate change is natural and uncontrollable. The remains of western/asian cities in the far west Gobi desert reveal vast rivers, fields of crops, orchards, a fairly large population. All gone to desert now. Due to AGW? No.
As for greater storm intensity, I utterly discount that. Where is the proof? We know that weather has been very rough at times, mild at other times. At the time of Elizabeth I, Britain got 30 years of moderate weather and good rains, resulting in food production and population growth and health that the rest of Europe did not. For that, and other reasons, Britain became the dominant power in Europe, fortunately. Recall that, too, that after Katrina, we were going to suffer multiple hurricanes hitting the US that very next year. We got none. Zip. The experts and AGW warmists were wrong. Again.
My real point is this: the natural cycles are little known, and 50 – 100 years of direct recordings are far too short a sample to be valid. It’d be like polling 2 people on a national topic and calling it good. There are many people in the world who see this AGW as a great opportunity. Not to actually do anything useful like develop actual working power, but to rake money out of the pockets of the productive people and nations and, in the name of “justice,” skim off a good portion for themselves and send the money to … well, to where? To some island that claims it is being covered by rising seas? What good will that do unless you remove the population? But that would be racist and genocidal, or something. To the Sloyndras of the world? Absolute theft. To the UN? That gang of crooks? Al Gore and the IIPC, a group of political hacks and activists, not a real collection of scientists as they try to pretend to be, are in it for the power and profit, at the cost of us all.
These alternative power sources may, someday, develop into usable products, but not for a long time. Wishing it to be so will not help. But do not cut off real sources of power to spite the people, as so many pols and bureaucrats want to do. Except for them, of course.

Zelda said...

It's all very hysterical and I don't trust the messengers. Nearly all of them have some personal interest in AGW whether it's monetary or increased power and control

It ought to make you very suspicious to see the shift in rhetoric from "global warming" to "climate change" depending on the weather phenomenon. The Climategate emails ought to make you even more suspicious. And finally, the fact that the dire predictions of the scientists who originated the theory haven't come to pass ought to make the most suspicious of all. But no. It's all gospel.

Nate said...

CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas, far far less powerful than water vapor for heat retention, but it does not work at all like a greenhouse.

Ok, we agree that C02 is a greenhouse gas. We agree that water vapor is a more effective greenhouse gas than C02. However it isn't the relative power it that is relevant. The better analogy is that the climate is like a balance. Add another weight (whether 1oz, or 1000 lb to one side of the balance and the outcome is the same.

While earth is a contained system, the atmosphere is not as far as CO2 goes. It goes into the atmosphere (i.e. exhaled breath, fires, beer) but is absorbed by plants, largely, and other “sinks.” As CO2 levels rise, and the climate is of an appropriate temperature, plants can grow better, thus increasing O2 production and CO2 absorption.

This may be true (I'm not a botanist). However at some point plants are saturated and run into other constraints when trying to absorb the C02, and can no longer keep up. Compounding this dynamic is industrialization, and the associated increases of population the percentage of the planet covered with a high density of plants has also decreased. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against industrialization.

Did you ever see Courier and Ives prints? People and horse drawn carriages on frozen lakes from the early 1800s? You know of the hard winter of 1776 at Valley Forge? (1777 was actually much harder.) We are a bit warmer now than then – the argument is why – but the results of expanding agriculture and warmer weather are, on the whole, positive.

Taking a year or two through various parts of history is unscientific and allows for lots of selection bias.

As for greater storm intensity, I utterly discount that. Where is the proof?

Ever notice that tropical storms are always the most intense? Hurricanes always originate from warm water areas? Warm oceans result in high energy storms. High energy storms result in strong winds. Warmer oceans will result in higher energy storms, and stronger winds with more damage.

But climate change is natural and uncontrollable. The remains of western/asian cities in the far west Gobi desert reveal vast rivers, fields of crops, orchards, a fairly large population. All gone to desert now.

Agreed that we aren't entirely in control. However evidence impacting the environment climate in meaningful ways via C02 and other greenhouse gas emissions.

My real point is this: the natural cycles are little known, and 50 – 100 years of direct recordings are far too short a sample to be valid. It’d be like polling 2 people on a national topic and calling it good.

Thankfully we have ice cores that represent thousands of years of climate status and we can compare current C02 levels and temperature to the past 800k years. Unfortunately the evidence indicates that we need to shift resources into more expensive less impacting energy sources.

Anonymous said...

What's ridiculous about the post is that she doe not seem to be able to have any kind of blissful moment without thinking that a political party is out to get her and ruin a good time.

free0352 said...

It's not about CO2 being a pollutant. It's about CO2 piling up in the atmosphere and not letting heat escape.

The problem with this, is that CO2 isn't trapping that much heat, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere created by humans is tiny anyway, and for all that... heat escapes the atmosphere just fine.

So any attempts to "mitigate" this non-issue is a total waste of time and resources. Not that I would care if someone wasted their resources but when we start talking about taxes and mandated lightbulbs and MPG that makes cars too expensive I start feeling like strangling someone. I nor do many other people have the money for your quasi-religious non-science boondoggle. Most people have figured out this is more liberal panic-mongering and quit giving a shit.

Create jobs, blare your lights!

CrabbyOldMan said...

RE: What's ridiculous about the post is that she doe not seem to be able to have any kind of blissful moment without thinking that a political party is out to get her and ruin a good time.

Enemas, what the hell are you talking about?

CrabbyOldMan said...

This ridiculous global warming/man made climate change has been discussed here and practically everywhere else ad nauseam. The scare has been exposed many times as a hoax perpetrated by means of sloppy to outright fraudulent methodology that have subsequently been covered up.
People whose mental prowess is equivalent to that of Nit, Malarkey, reliably blathers bilge, Enemas and ChessmomSis cling to the false belief notwithstanding the strong contradictory evidence. The reasons for the clinging are probably not real relevant, although I can imagine some unflattering explanations.
There are a number of very well worth reading articles covering the subject here:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archieves/catagory/climate
For my part, I’ve grown weary of arguing with block heads. In the future, I will just refer to the above address.

Anonymous said...

Crabs: oops, sorry, a man wrote it. Could have sworn.
Anyway, you can't see HE is raising a toast but can't help thinking in political terms. I can't help you Crabby Old Man.

Rickvid in Seattle said...

COM, I think A-nonymouse is off his/her/its meds and on to crack.

Nate said...

COM,

Claiming evidence is not the same as actually having it. Put up, or shut up.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit:
Have you gone here? http://www.powerlineblog.com/archieves/catagory/climate

Anonymous said...

You are just saying that because you have an intimate knowledge of crack and because you made that you write like a girl.

Nate said...

Since when does a blog written by three lawyers and a poli-sci guy constitutes a source on climate change?

Interesting the top article has C02 as a greenhouse gas, and it resulting in a 3 degree Fahrenheit temperature increase, which is lower than the IPCC 5 degree estimate but still quite meaningful. If the climate deniers are admitting as such, where does that leave you?

CrabbyOld said...

Somebody else read the article Nit says that he read and tell me if they agree with what he says.
I do not.

free0352 said...

resulting in a 3 degree Fahrenheit temperature increase

Whoopty do. Thats nothing.

Nate said...

The conclusion—taking the best observational estimates of the change in decadal-average global temperature between 1871-80 and 2002-11, and of the corresponding changes in forcing and ocean heat uptake—is this: A doubling of CO2 will lead to a warming of 1.6°-1.7°C (2.9°-3.1°F).

This a "key bit" of an article that the top article on COM's link uses to dispute the IPCC's estimates.

If I'm understanding the methodology correctly they are only using data points from two time periods and extrapolating based upon observed temperatures and C02 levels. This leaves open the possibility that it may not be a linear relationship between C02 and temperature, which could result in greater than their estimated 3 degree increase in temperature.

Nate said...

Whoopty do. Thats nothing.

What kind of temperature increase would make you take notice? What kind of temperature increase would make you take action?

free0352 said...

To answer your question nate, we've seen a similar rate of that warming... on Mars. That suggests its the sun doing the warming and not humanity.

As for the temperature, something that would actually have an impact. I mean, that's just not a big deal. That's not even a longer growing season. Its certainly not a warmer ocean and even if it were its' been far warmer or far cooler before.

Its a drop in a bucket the size of the pacific ocean.

CrabbyOld said...

Nit: …may not be a linear relationship between C02 and temperature… would be accurate if "may not" were "is not". The assumption that the relationship IS linear is why the bogus models are bogus.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit: Remember that in 1871 we had just come out of the little ice age. I think that is why the author picked that as a starting point.
You should read the rest of the articles.

CrabbyOldMan said...

RE: What kind of temperature increase would make you take notice? What kind of temperature increase would make you take action?
Assuming for a moment there was anything that we actually could do, I'd say nothing considering the benefits of earlier warming periods.

Nate said...

Just for the fun of it, I calculated how much energy it would take to heat up the atmosphere by about 3 degrees. The answer was astronomical -- 5x10^21 Joules (5 Zettajoules) , which is the equivalent of a billion of the most powerful nuclear bombs ever detonated. Yup, but 3 degrees is nothing. Do not look behind the curtain.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit, just what the hell was the point of THAT?

Haverwilde said...

In the last 17 years, CO2 in the air has increased from .0361% to .0394% in a fairly even progression. During the first 8 years the temperature worldwide went up. During the last 8 years it leveled off and went down.
No hockey stick.
But the Left screams about the problem.

Now the debt has increased significantly and has all the makings of a hockey stick graph, but the left just says, "There is no problem."

free0352 said...

I calculated how much energy it would take to heat up the atmosphere

I would LOVE to see this formula. I'm sure it takes into account every possible variable...

As for all that energy - however much it is.

Sun has it. In spades.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Haverwilde and Free0352:
Nit is drowning in a sea of fool.
You both have and continue to make way too much common sense to convince our resident nitwit.

Zelda said...

I calculated how much energy it would take to heat up the atmosphere

Why can't I stop laughing at this?

Nate said...

I would LOVE to see this formula. I'm sure it takes into account every possible variable

Oh no, I made lots of simplifying assumptions, but it takes into account the specific heat of nitrogen (80% of the atmosphere), and volume of Earth's atmosphere. Even if I'm wrong (I most certainly am), it is in the ballpark. Regardless, the point was the 3 degrees is an incredible amount of energy when heating something the volume of the planet's atmosphere, and the consequences, while still not entirely understood will be meaningful.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit:
I don't think anyone doubts that the Sun gives off an ENORMOUS amount of energy. I don't remember the actual number of watts, but I was amazed when I read the amount of sunlight that falls on one square yard of the Earth's surface. It is certainly true that an astronomical amount of THE Sun’s energy would be involved in a three degree change in the Earth's average temperature.
SO HOW IS THIS RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT HUMAN ACTIVITY IS WARMING UP THE PLANET?

Nate said...

COM,
Free seems to think that 3 degrees is meaningless. My point with the calculations is to let him understand how much additional energy will be in our atmosphere if our planet does increase by 3 degrees F.

Oh, I thought we settled that question.

Which of the four below questions do you answer yes?
1) Do you deny that C02 is a greenhouse gas?
2) Do you deny that humans are emitting lots of C02?
3) Do you deny that additional greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will result in a warmer planet?
4) Do you deny that there is more C02 in the atmosphere now than in the past?

Lets get to root of your denial.

Red Neck Reactionary said...

1) Nope
2) Nope
3) Nope
4) Nope, nor do I deny that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past also. Twice and, X3, X4 and X5 as much CO2.

CO2 is less that .4%, except if you test you hot air, than it is closer 1%.
Is there a connection between warming and CO2 levels, yup, a minor one.
The greenhouse gases including the H2O, methane and the sainted Ozone are bigger greenhouse gases, and particulate polution is also a factor. O2, CO2, H2O, and nitrogen are the foundations of life.
The cost of reducing CO2 would further bankrupt the world, and force us all into a third world shithole existence.
You are welcome to go there, but for me, I will fight that 'progress.'

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit says Free seems to think that 3 degrees is meaningless. My point with the calculations is to let him understand how much additional energy will be in our atmosphere if our planet does increase by 3 degrees F.
CrabbyOldMan says and the "additional energy" would?

Nate said...

Funny COM, you ask questions but never answer them. 1-4. Answer me.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit:
Ditto Red Neck Reactionary.
You Nit, of all people, should not throw stones. I doubt there is anyone who has failed to answer questions more than you.

Nate said...

So RNR agrees that human activities are contributing towards global warming. You do too.

Unlike you COM, I've got well over full time job, a wife that works, and a toddler. I certainly don't have time to read every post or answer every question posed to me. I would think that since you are living off my dime, that you'd have plenty of time to answer all of the questions.

Red Neck Reactionary said...

Hey Nate, How is your German.

http://www.welt.de/print/die_welt/vermischtes/article114733276/Wissenschaftler-warnen-vor-Eiszeit.html

It looks like some European scientist are beginning to worry about the coming 'Ice Age.'

Time to start pumping out the methane, and lots of CO2. If we don't stop it, the ice age will kill off half the population.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit:
Even if time does not permit you to check the "facts" that are the basis of your liberal religion, you should at least have the time to actually read what you respond to. Notice the words "yup, a minor one"?
I almost broke down in tears over I've got well over full time job, a wife that works, and a toddler. I sure everyone else did too, because nobody else has ever had problems as crushing as yours are.
By the way, you clearly have no idea at all at how ridiculous you are living off my dime nakes you look to anyone who actually knows what they are talking about.

Anonymous said...

Crabs: What are you talking about; people living off your dime. You don't pay taxes, right? Aren't your tears because you have never had a wife, children or much of a life at all?

Nate said...

RNR --
Do you know who GAZPROM is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom

Yup, a Natural Gas Company, and not exactly a credible source.

COM,

Funny how I'm the one arguing facts while you are the one slinging insults. RNR and you both agree with AGW, so what is to discuss here?

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit:
YOU arguing with facts?!
Laughable!
so what is to discuss here is asking why we should discuss incurring huge costs because of something that actually has few, if any, negative consequences. The disproportionate cost of saving some obscure bait fish from extinction is a parallel. I think I am correct in saying that 95% of all species that have ever existed are extinct.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit: Can it be an insult if it is true?

free0352 said...

Free seems to think that 3 degrees is meaningless. My point with the calculations is to let him understand how much additional energy will be in our atmosphere if our planet does increase by 3 degrees F.

The answer is a slightly longer growing season.

Oh and if you are searching for where that energy comes from, its the giant ball of fusion you see up in the sky during the part of life we call "Day"

Its the equivalent to millions of thermonuclear bombs all going off at the same time, all the time, every DAY.

Or I guess it could be because I bought the wrong light bulb. Probably not.

Nate said...

Ok, so we've gone from the climate is not warming, to the climate is warming but not caused by humans, to AGW believers, but their will be no damage. I suppose that is progress. I don't necessarily understand all of the consequences outside of increased storm intensity, so I can at least understand this position.

Haverwilde said...

Nate, You are an ass.

Of course the climate got warmer. It also cooled.
It is the SUN that heats the earth. You know that bright thingy in the sky.
Of course humans have influenced the environment, everything in the environment influences it.
The change that humans make is less than the annual variation in the earth temperature.
Is that enough reason for you and the rest of the socialists to destroy the American economy--obviously.
There is no increase in storm intensity.
You have no desire to understand our positions. You just want to continue to follow the path of destroying a free and vibrant America. You are succeeding.
But for me and mine, I wish you and your fascist commander and chief would just FOAD!

free0352 said...

Ok, so we've gone from the climate is not warming, to the climate is warming

"If"

We could fully start an ice age tomorrow. They can't predict the climate next week.

Zelda said...

You aren't really understanding, Nate. The climate gets warmer, the climate also gets cooler. There is no proof any of it is caused by humans. Right now, in spite of increased levels of carbon dioxide output, we aren't even in a warming trend and haven't been for the past 15 years.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Haverwilde:
Calling Nit an ass is an insult to the world's asses.

Haverwilde said...

COB

I apologize. You are quite correct. Although, Nate's party chose the right animal to represent them, they have slimed even that breed.
I guess their new mascot ought to be the dung beetle. Although even those beasties use the shit, and instead of just flinging it.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Havirwilde!!!!

Anonymous said...

Could Zelduh's answer being any dumber? Or Haverwilde's? Or Crap's? They are all complete morons. Although, with any luck they are all the same cretan.

Anonymous said...

Nate don't listen to Haverwilde, he is the ass.

It's interesting how what we eat effects our health but the garbage we dump into the environment has no negative effect at all. Thousands of cars, factories, wars,etc., no effect whatsoever. Fascinating.
I wish I could live in republicanville for a day, ignorance is bliss I guess.

Red Neck Reactionary said...

Anonymous/Nate:
Straw men and lies, straw men and lies, deceit and more lies.

Anonymous said...

I wish I could live in republicanville for a day

Sorry, but some people just don't meet the IQ requirements.

Anonymous said...

I don't know about that, your IQ requirements seem to be pretty low. Bush, Palin, Paul Ryan, Hannity, basically everyone that you idolize on FOX, Limbaugh, just to name a few. Glenn Beck wins the prize for stupidity.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Enemas, I don’t think that you really want to take all the time needed to read the roster of dupes and knaves among the Disciples. I for one am not going to waste my time writing you one. Instead, I refer you to the news over the last few years.

Anonymous said...

your IQ requirements seem to be pretty low

And you still don't 'measure up'.

Sucks to be you.

Zelda said...

Don't bother to refute anything, BabyKiller. You and Nate should read this article in The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions

I like how they just suck it up and get it out there in the first sentence:

OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar.

Anonymous said...

Previous anonymous post and Zelduh, since you are the same person (sucks to be you gave you away) your links never work.

Speaking of babykillers, and since you love doing research, why don't you look up the daily accidental shootings by lame brains like you. While you're at it name one case where someone has broken into a house and a woman used a gun to protect her "babies". Your party says this is a daily occurrence, funny that it never makes the news. You can't use the freak that testified before congress because she made the whole story up. If I were you I wouldn't clean my gun around my children...

Anonymous said...

PS
Tell your hubby not to bother w/nutritional counseling for his patients, they can eat Big Macs everyday and it will have no ill effect on their health.

I think I'm going to start burning garbage, mainly plastic, in my backyard and see if my neighbors complain. Why not? It's not going to hurt anything. We don't really need regulation because if companies want to dump their waste in our waterways it doesn't matter, it has no ill effects at all! BP oil spills, no problem.

CrabbyOldMan said...

What else are those voices telling you Enemas?

Zelda said...

BabyKiller, since you can't seem to figure out how to copy and paste links, I don't see much point in doing any research for you.

But if anyone else is interested, there is an interesting study on guns used in self defense.

http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

Basically the estimate is that there are between 800,000 and 2.5 million incidents where guns are used in self-defense, usually without a shot being fired. That dwarfs the homicide rate of roughly 168,000 per year.

Accidental deaths from firearms are 2% of all gun related deaths, which equates to less than one a day. In other words, water kills more people accidentally than guns. BAN POOLS!!!

But none of this changes the fact that there has been no temperature increase in the past 15 years in spite of huge increases in CO2 emissions.

Anonymous said...

Wasn't this article written 20 years ago? The Newtown shooter got his guns from a stockpile that his mother had for "self-defense." Why don't you ask one of the victims parents about guns and self-defense? Instead of being paranoid about the federal government you should be paranoid about living in a state with so many gun lovers. Over a 4 year period 3500 people have drown in pools. Accidentally. 60,000 deaths annually by guns, not counting all the people (many innocent) that police kill. This year in Raleigh 3 people were shot at a gun show, and these are the "experts"...can't wait to see what happens when we arm our teachers. No links to all these women out there protecting their babies out on the wild frontier?

Did you read the entire article from the Economist? Wasn't very convincing, but I see it did convince you that global warming doesn't exist. Again, I wish I could live in republicanville for a day.

I think I'll go and get some sculpted nails put on today in one of those toxic salons where everyone wears a mask. Why do they even bother with the mask? I'm sure the fumes would have no ill effect on their lungs.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Hebrews 13:8 (King James Version)applies particularly to Enemas.

Anonymous said...

Wasn't this article written 20 years ago? The Newtown shooter got his guns from a stockpile that his mother had for "self-defense." Why don't you ask one of the victims parents about guns and self-defense? Instead of being paranoid about the federal government you should be paranoid about living in a state with so many gun lovers. Over a 4 year period 3500 people have drown in pools. Accidentally. 60,000 deaths annually by guns, not counting all the people (many innocent) that police kill. This year in Raleigh 3 people were shot at a gun show, and these are the "experts"...can't wait to see what happens when we arm our teachers. No links to all these women out there protecting their babies out on the wild frontier?

Did you read the entire article from the Economist? Wasn't very convincing, but I see it did convince you that global warming doesn't exist. Again, I wish I could live in republicanville for a day.

I think I'll go and get some sculpted nails put on today in one of those toxic salons where everyone wears a mask. Why do they even bother with the mask? I'm sure the fumes would have no ill effect on their lungs.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Like I said, Hebrews 13:8

Anonymous said...

Crabs: Thank you for the Bible quote. It's comforting to know things never change; like you never being original and never making one ounce of sense.

Zelda said...

Wasn't this article written 20 years ago?

Yes, and the homicide rate has actually decreased in that time, so all your rambling conjecture is based on nothing. The fact remains that you are never going to keep evil people from killing innocents. I know it scares people to think that there isn't a big daddy government that can protect them, but the truth is that you have to be able to rely on yourself for your own protection. That is an extremely important right.

Anonymous said...

That poor kid in Connecticut might not have been so "evil" if his mother hadn't been brainwashed by people like Rush and the extreme right. She might not have been so paranoid about the government that she wouldn't have felt the need to have a stockpile of semi-automatics.

My right to not have my neighbor walking into a mall or movie theater or school armed is also an extremely important right. If my kid is walking around in a hoodie I don't want some idiot with a gun to shoot him.

I'm guessing that the Newtown parents would have taken their chances with a pool over a gun.

Homicides are down? Random, pointless shootings of innocents way up, thanks to the NRA and the extreme right.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Enemas, you've heard about that slasher in Texas, haven’t you?
Do you remember Bernadette and Bill?
Are you aware that people regularly get beaten to death with baseball bats?
Do you know if people are murdered more often by knives or firearms?
Do you know if the Colorado theatre and the Connecticut school were gun free zones?
Have you been paying enough attention to the news to see how unbelievably ignorant our elected gun control zealots are about that which they want to regulate?
Would you also support having illiterates write regulations covering the printing, sale and ownership of books (protected by the constitution)?

Zelda said...

That's right. Blame the victim, not the murderer.

Anonymous said...

COM
Can people go into a public place and take out dozens of people in minutes with a knife or baseball bat?

Did you know that there was a similar incident around the same time as Newtown in a school in China but all of the victims survived because it was with a knife, not a semi-automatic?

The only ignorant zealots are the pigs running the NRA.

Anonymous said...

Zelduh,

Why are you calling the Newtown shooter evil? He's one of your own isn't he? Having a stockpile? Wasn't that his right?

COM
ps...I'll take my chances with the elected officials and more regulation, over the NRA controlling us.

Anonymous said...

zelduh:

"I know it scares people to think that there isn't a big daddy government that can protect them, but the truth is that you have to be able to rely on yourself for your own protection."

Just who do you need to protect yourself from?

CrabbyOldMan said...

Enemas, it is a matter of how often the event occurs.
As an example: airliner crashes get lots of attention because they are dramatic and involve lots of victims in one event. Because of their emotional impact they also make great copy for the media.
However, I imagine that even you are aware that the insurance companies say that it is far more dangerous to drive to the airport than it is to ride on the airliner. The huge number of car accidents, that each involves just a few victims, do not get the news coverage and accordingly do not have the emotional impact on the public that air crashes do, even though there are many, many more deaths from auto accidents.
But then, you leftards are clearly mostly driven by emotion and apparently unable to come to your opinions via facts and logic.

Anonymous said...

Crabs: When you talk about driven by emotions are you talking about the republicans on this site that use foul language? They are so emotional they cannot even keep from swearing while they are typing! Foul language is not really a sign of using logic or reason. If someone disagrees with the republican mental cases on this site, they let loose with a string of swearing. I can only imagine their hands must be shaking while they're typing. Zelduh is a perfect example. She cannot contain the putrid thoughts contained in her limp brain.

Zelda said...

He's one of your own isn't he? Having a stockpile? Wasn't that his right?

Oh exactly the same except that he wanted to kill children and I only want to kill him.

It's baffling that after a tragedy like Newtown you want to leave children and their protectors with even less protection.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Enemas, the reason some people fly off the handle and use foul language is because people like you come up with some horse shit response like yours to posts like my last one.
You and the rest of your camp make arguments that probably do appeal to ignorant, emotion driven sheep with a child-like world view. That is, the fools that the Marxocrat knaves manipulate.
Pick the issue. Facts and logic are never on your side, so you instead come up with the drivel that you do. There are enough others here who repeat the same tiresome quack medicine you bleat so as to finally exhaust the patience of everyone else.
I’d say that most who comment here look forward to actual reasoned debate of pressing issues. The problem is that your camp apparently DOES NOT HAVE arguments based on facts and logic or else chooses not to present them. I think that the former is true of the fools and the latter is true of the knaves. The knaves have to create arguments (that the fools will buy) because the knave’s actual (very rational) reasoning supports an agenda that they don’t want to reveal.

Anonymous said...

COM, if it is a matter of how often the event occurs and you can't see that there are more and more "events" like these then you are clueless. So, people being killed car or plane accidents is the same as the people being blown away by someone with a stockpile? Interesting. Why is it normal in this country to own a stockpile of weapons? Why do you need that, are you that insecure of a person?

Zeldur, it makes sense that you would want to kill a troubled teenager who to me, looked malnourished, possibly anorexic. You are soooo weird.
It's baffling to me that you can't see that the children of Newtown would all be alive today if somebody did feel the need to have a stockpile for "protection".

Anonymous said...

correction- didn't feel the need to have a stockpile...

Anonymous said...

Crabs: You and your misfit companions are already "off the handle". You do not need any encouragement to use expletives. You are behaving, as are the others, as you normally would. You are all emotionally stunted and cannot help yourselves. Take responsibility for your own actions and choices. That's the republican creed. You cannot talk about wanting reasoned debate when if someone says anything that isn't already swimming in your heads you fly off at them and start swearing. Please, take one little look at your own behavior. You and Zelduh attack anyone with a different view and call them names and swear at them. Is your mind that shot that you cannot recall what you type?

Anonymous said...

All these republican gun owners relying on themselves for protection keep accidentally shooting their own family members. If they are going to stock pile guns, you would think they would have the brains to lock them up. You would also think they would have the brains to make sure the guns aren't loaded when they clean them or "play" with them around their families. Quite the responsible gun owners.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Enemas, Wikipedia says that the DEATHS PER 100,000 OF POPULATION USA via of autos and firearms were:
In 2011 there were 10.34 automobile deaths. There were about 6000 total casualties per month. Suicides were not broken out.
There were 10.20 firearms deaths in 2010. Of that number, 3.20 were homicides and 6.30 were suicides.
I haven’t noticed any spittle punctuated harangues to ban cars. We all could, after all, use public transportation. Nobody really NEEDS a car?
By the way, aircraft deaths are around .02 per hundred thousand, but it would be tough to glean that from the media coverage of air crashes.

Anonymous said...

Crabs: Is this the reasoned debate you are talking about?

Anonymous said...

Google children and accidental firearms deaths (at their famillies' homes with family owned guns) and see what comes up. The cost is pretty high for these families who think they are protecting themselves. They are sorely and sadly kidding themselves.

Anonymous said...

I'm all for public transportation, go ahead, ban cars.

When someone is attempting suicide with a gun it is almost always, over 95%, successful.

It's funny how everything is the medias fault. Never FOX news media, just the evil liberal media.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Enemas, “view” and “opinion” are interesting words. There were those whose “view” was that the Earth was the center of the physical universe. There were those who held the “opinion” that the Earth is flat. How do these tally with the facts?
As Margaret Thatcher pointed out in Parliament, there are those whose “view” is that it is better to have less disparity between the incomes of the lower ten percent and the upper ten percent even if the actual income of both groups is less. That is, it is much better to have the poor poorer if that makes the rich less rich.
There are those whose strongly held “opinion” is that the teacher’s unions, the Department of Education and political correctness have improved public schools, making them far superior than they were in say, 1950 or 1960.
Does this help you understand why your comments are greeted with such disdain?
By the way, I own three antique pistols that belonged to my father. I keep them in a bank box. I do not hunt or target shoot.
I grew up in a rural area where everyone had guns. I, along with all my friends, had to take a NRA sponsored safety course when I was a boy. No one locked up their guns, but trust me, no one would have dreamed of “playing” with them.
I’d say the misuses you describe are to be found primarily in the low information Marxocrat base.

Anonymous said...

No, Crabs, your rambling does not help because it does not make sense.I will take union worker wages in my community over Wal-mart workers dependent on gov't subsidies any day. You can keep putting quote marks around the words view and opinion but that doesn't make your argument make any more sense. I grew up with guns also and members of my family hunted. So what. Actually, the misuses described are every day occurrences in gun owning families all across the country. I take it you did not Google children and gun accidents.

Anonymous said...

Quoting Margaret Thatcher from your trailer is the epitome of self-flagulators in this country who continuously lick the boots of multi-millionaires. Let's forget how despised Thatcher was in England and throughout the world. That makes it easier to forget that her philosophy doesn't hold any merit with anyone with any sense of reflection.

Anonymous said...

Crabs: Comments other than the republican brainless type found on this site are met with disdain because you cannot deal with other information other than what republican leaders and right wing media hosts have told you. You are told everyday by them what to think and getting any new information is a shock to your system.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Enemas, I did Google children and gun accidents and looked at the first three (propaganda?) sites. There were lots of anecdotes and very few hard numbers. I did dig out that there were 114 child gun deaths in 2010, but then the next site said there were 500 per year.
I looked elsewhere and found that there are 1000 child deaths per year from choking accidents and 1300 from car crashes.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Thatcher was despised by whom?
The union leaders? The parasites?
The Communists? The counterculture?

You of all people should not mention thinking what others tell you to.

Anonymous said...

Crabs: Why is it you believe that people who are not multi-millionaires are parasites? Some of the biggest parasites in the world are wealthy. There were riots in many of the communities surrounding London that she instigated and had police go in and beat people. She was despised in South Africa as well. And in Ireland, and in Scotland.

You know that you get your marching order everyday by right wing media. Otherwise, how would you know what to think?

Anonymous said...

Crabs: Only a republican, one who himself loves right wing propaganda, would look at the Google sites on children being killed accidentally in their own homes by family members, and say it's propaganda. So you are saying, illogically as it is, that if kids or anyone else are going to die from other causes, they may as well die from shooting. Only a person without any reasoning skills could come up with that.

You also get your marching orders from the NRA. Why don't the lazy bums who buy all these guns get off their fat butts and lock up their guns? It is out of pure laziness. You don't call that kind of irresponsible behavior parasitic?

It's amazing how many people who view themselves as rugged individuals are really just lemmings for propaganda and rely on corporate right wing media hosts to tell them how to think. Even to the point they do not care about children's' lives.

Roboto said...

Why is it you believe that people who are not multi-millionaires are parasites?

WHERE did he say that "people who are not multi-millionaires are parasites"?

Did the term 'parasites' hit a little close to home, Sybil?

Anonymous said...

Robots, like zelduh, is confused about numerous people posting under anonymous. He's not very bright for a robot.

Who else would crabs be referring to as parasites if not the poor?

Anonymous said...

Roboto: Yes, every time I'm on this site that is the word I think of most including dupes, dullards, hypocrites, etc., etc. Especiallly, you. Have you been to an abortion clinic today. Either to take a "loved" one or to terrorize women in hopes of feeling tough? It is not working.

Anonymous:the genius that is the republican brain on this site cannot conceptualize more than one anonymous poster. Their very static brains just don't work that way. Of course, Zelduh's hubby is posting under her name. She needs all the help she can get, though.

They are so brainy they thought the advertisements were also from the same poster. Anything new introduced into their worlds really throws them off. DUH.

Zelda said...

Robots, like zelduh, is confused about numerous people posting under anonymous. He's not very bright for a robot.

I have no interest in distinguishing between retarded internet trolls. If you are too stupid to take two seconds to differentiate yourself, then you are going to be lumped in with everyone using the same name. Deal with it, BabyKiller(s).

Roboto said...

Who else would crabs be referring to as parasites if not the poor?
Maybe those who live off of others, providing nothing back to the host? That IS the definition of 'parasite', after all.
dictionary.com can be your friend. You do need, however, to know how to actually USE a dictionary.

Roboto said...

Yes, every time I'm on this site that is the word I think of most including dupes, dullards, hypocrites, etc., etc.
With your dissociative identity disorder, it's no wonder you use the plural of those words. But why is it only on the computer that you identify these problems you have? It it a fear of technology that brings this out in you? Are you a follower of Ned Ludd?

Have you been to an abortion clinic today
No, I've never been to an abortion factory. I haven't been to Auschwitz, either, but I know that it's not a good place.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Enemas, I am very aware that current writing instruction stresses short sentences, like those found in comic books and most newspapers.
If it is still taught that a sentence covers a complete thought, should one conclude that the schools are turning out people capable only of simple thoughts?
Am I wrong to believe that complex thoughts require longer, more complex sentences?
I am certain that Freemom could provide us with some insights into the difference between legalese and advertising captions.
I look forward to your response. I look forward even more to knowing what any of the others who comment here think.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Zelduh, Queen of BS and Big Batch Baby Killers; why does your hubby (you are not stalking him) post under your name? Is he afraid of something? See you always show how you really feel about babies. Now I see you have disdain for mentally retarded babies and children. You are really a weirdo!

Crabs: Zelduh is stressing simple sentences and is simple minded. Remember? She wants sentences kept short because her alcohol-soaked mind cannot comprehend compound sentences. Yes, by the looks of the sentences by the republican sponges on this site, schools are turning out people capable of only simple thoughts. Good for figuring that out, Crabs!

Robbed of Brains/ZelDUH: Every thing seems split to you because of your alcohol consumption. If you stop drinking for a day or week (too much?) simple concepts won't seem so disorienting to you. Like the idea there are multiple posters. Or advertisements. All simple ideas to comprehend when one is sober.

Anonymous said...

Robbed of Brains: You are sooo defensive about picketing women at abortion clinics.

Roboto said...

Sybil
You are sooo defensive about John Kerry, TOTUS, and your lack of intellect.

I don't blame you about the last; if I had the intellectual flexibility of a sack of potatoes, I would be defensive about it too.

If it wasn't for being able to point and laugh at you (particularly regarding your hilarious assertions about people), you'd have exactly no use whatsoever. No wonder you support abortion. If you had been aborted, you wouldn't be ridiculed every time you post.

But I support life even for someone who has no use for it, such as you. If you want to say goodbye to this cruel world, you can make the decision yourself. No one else should have the ability to make that decision for you.

Anonymous said...

robots

Who else would crabs be referring to as parasites if not the poor?

Maybe those who live off of others, providing nothing back to the host? That IS the definition of 'parasite', after all.
Thank-you for pointing out the definition of Rush Limbaugh and the Bush-Cheney crime families. Well said. No one has taken so much and given nothing in return like these people.

Anonymous said...

robots

Who else would crabs be referring to as parasites if not the poor?

Maybe those who live off of others, providing nothing back to the host? That IS the definition of 'parasite', after all.
Thank-you for pointing out the definition of Rush Limbaugh and the Bush-Cheney crime families. Well said. No one has taken so much and given nothing in return like these people.

Zelda said...

What's worse? Calling poor people parasites or killing their babies (Crabby's pro-abortion, btw).

Anonymous said...

If Crabs is pro-abortion then you need to start addressing him as babykiller. What's worse, killing babies before they're born or ignoring and then killing them as toddlers, as your party prefers to do?

Zelda said...

Because it's more fun to call you BabyKiller, BabyKiller. So let me get this straight. You prefer to murder babies straight up instead of giving them any chance at life because of the possibility that their parents might neglect them. I guess that's one solution.

Anonymous said...

Wait, you forgot to mention baby feet in jars, Zeldur. The point is that your feigned concern about anyone, other then yourself, is getting old. You don't care about the unborn so stop pretending. In your weird, twisted way you seem to be getting off on baby feet in jars since you mention it constantly. Like you honestly care if anyone gets a "chance at life" please, spare me.

Zelda said...

That wasn't an answer, BabyKiller. That was just more crazy.

Anonymous said...

....as she giddily repeats over and over about baby feet in jars...

Anonymous said...

Zelduh can mix it anyway she wants. The bottom line is she doesn't care if babies, pregnant women and their families are killed by bombs in wars she supports but turns around and acts like she cares about babies who are aborted.

Zelda said...

...say the schizos who voted for President Drone Strike.

BabyKiller logic one more time:

Abortion: Good

Obama drone strikes: Good

Bush drone strikes: OH MY GOD REPUBLICANS HATE CHILDREN!!!

Here's the truth, morons. Terrorists kill children. Terrorists are responsible for drone strikes. War is horrible, but if you kill terrorists, fewer children die. Abortion is murder. Abortion kills exponentially more children than drone strikes. Somehow that doesn't bother you.

Anonymous said...

Yes, that's why I voted for Obama, he actually has an interest in going after terrorists. Bush said he doesn't waste time thinking about them. Thanks for making my point for me. Explain again why your party, who pretends to be outraged by abortion, does nothing to stop it.

Anonymous said...

So, you admit to being a hypocrite because you support Obama "going after terrorists" with his drone strikes and killing women and babies?

Wow. I may not agree with others here about the war, but you really do take the cake when it comes to hypocrisy.

Zelda said...

So you like BabyKilling when Obama does it.

Anonymous said...

How many babies died the night that Bin Laden was killed?

Thank-you again for pointing out that republicans hate children, we know, you've proven this over and over...

Zelda said...

How many babies died the night that Bin Laden was killed?

Are you fucking retarded? The killing of bin Laden had nothing to do with Obama's drone program. Pull you head out of MSNBC's crazy ass and try reading:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/17/us-usa-security-drones-idUSBRE92G02720130317

Here's the first sentence:

"President Barack Obama, who vastly expanded U.S. drone strikes against terrorism suspects overseas under the cloak of secrecy, is now openly seeking to influence global guidelines for their use as China and other countries pursue their own drone programs."

And the original post was about the global warming hoax. Guess you are all done with that.

Anonymous said...

Zelduh, calm down and stop going crazy. These are your words: "but if you kill terrorists, fewer children die." You didn't consider Bin Laden a terrorist? You know you just look crazy when you swear sailor.

Anonymous said...

Does Zelduh's mother, preacher and children know what a profanity-ladened, out of control loon she is?

So you with out any irony are comparing drone strikes against terrorists to Shock and Awe bombing of cities that you were so thrilled about? What a moron.

You would love it if there were babies being taken out when the terrorists are. YOU CHEERLEAD FOR WAR. You jump up and down over death overseas--EVEN IF IT IS A BABY OR A PREGNANT WOMEN. Don't even try to pretend you have sympathy.

You are the one who is so mentally deficient that you can't wrap your one brain cell left from all your drinking to understand global warming and its ramifications other than what a fat radio host tells you, and you think that is science.

Zelda said...

You're missing the point as usual, nutbags. You can't possibly differentiate between Shock and Awe and Obama's expanded and sustained drone programs. Just because Obama does it secretly doesn't mean it isn't happening. And he's killing families in order to kill terrorists. If that bothers you about Bush, then it should bother you about Obama. But it doesn't. Because you're evil fucking baby killers who have no standards.

Anonymous said...

Zelduh: give us the specifics. Where. When. You know; the facts. And don't post another link. In your own words tell all about the strikes. If it is a secret, how do you know all about it. What a hick, moron you are. Do you get you information from that fat slob Alex Jones?

You have to lie to try to justify your incredible lust for war. Otherwise you can't keep acting like you care about abortion and babies.

Why don't you just admit your love of war and bombs dropping on families.

Pro War = Pro Choice Baby Killer.

Does your Mother and Preacher know about your demented profanity laced diatribes on this site?
Or do you keep it a secret?

Zelda said...

And don't post another link.

Why? Because you're happy living in demented ignorance?

Obama has expanded drone strikes to both Pakistan and Yemen. He's killed a lot of people. He doesn't broadcast it because he doesn't want people to call him a hypocrite. But he is. And so are you.

Anonymous said...

Zelduh just can't be specific in her answers about drone strikes. Any link she comes up with is what is ignorant.

Just admit you like babies, pregnant women and their families to have bombs dropped on them.

Zelda said...

No, BabyKiller. I like for babies to live. That's why I like terrorists to die, and why I think abortion should be illegal. You, on the other hand, could not care less. You're a selfish baby killer.

Anonymous said...

What's that BBBabyKiller? Time to put down the bottle and go to bed.

Zelda said...

Why do you care when I sleep, you stalker?

Anonymous said...

How do you care for your children when you're drunk?

Anonymous said...

Zelduh: You are the stalker coming after everyone with your incredibily foul language. No one cares when you sleep. It is just an explanation for your idiotic posts and nonsensical thoughts; lack of sleep explains a lot.

Zelda said...

Oooo the BabyKiller stalker talks about my kids. No, you can't have their feet.

You are stalkers. Stupid, vicious, babykilling, stalkers. What's nonsensical is you weirdos losing your shit over Bush in every comment.

Anonymous said...

Vicious? Weird? I don't lose my mind on every post to the point of swearing at everyone who disagrees with me, that would be you.

Zelda said...

Yes. You're very proper when you are ignoring abortionists and Obama's drone strikes and repeating the same comments ad nauseum. Very sane there.

Anonymous said...

Explain again why your party will never do anything about Roe v Wade? Oh, I remember now, because it's the only wobbly leg they have to stand on. They also don't care about babies, dead or alive...just like Zelduh.

Anonymous said...

Zelduh: Wake up, another black out has made you forget that you also keep repeating the same words. Accusing others of what you do daily reveals your mental state.

Know one believes Big Batch Baby Killers care about abortionists or babies.

Just because you make comments to others with the same exact beliefs and you all nod your heads don't kid yourself about your sanity.

You ignored GWB/DC wars and didn't care about bombings by drones or any other methods. You certainly didn't care about bombs dropping on babies, pregnant women and their families.

Anonymous said...

Zelduh you are so vicious that you believe that dropping bombs on babies and pregnant women is okay.

Calm down. You lose s__t over our FL. GWB/DC actually did something criminal and 1000s DIED and 1000s are MAIMED/INJURED--that you can get behind and be a cheerleader. The bombings made you very happy.

By contrast, you don't like our FL's LOOKS and that sends you over the edge--spewing your venom at her daily.

Talk about WEIRD and convuluted thinking!


P.S. Many times there are dozens of righties making numerous comments in a row, but if you read 2-3 opposing views at a time you go berserk. It's understood; reading is hard for you when it doesn't involve profanity.

Zelda said...

you are so vicious that you believe that dropping bombs on babies and pregnant women is okay.

No, BabyKiller. I think it's ok to drop bombs on terrorists. So does Obama. But Obama also thinks it's ok to strap women to tables, pump them full of drugs until they die, then snip their babies' spinal columns with scissors. I think that is murder.

Anonymous said...

Zelduh's party loves abortion, they will never do anything to overturn it.

Did you see the library dedication to the A+ #1 Murderer, GWB? I wonder if they will hang his paint-by-numbers inside?

Anonymous said...

Zelduh the Big Batch Baby Killer is trying to justify her zeal for dropping bombs on babies, pregnant women and their families.

You cannot ease your guilt--although, you probably don't have any.

Give it up. No one believes a bomb lover like you cares about babies! Now describe the effects on the human body when a bomb drops on it. Babies, pregnant woman and their families are just as murdered when the bomb hits them.

Zelda said...

Obama drops bombs on babies. And he supports abortion. He's a dick.

Anonymous said...

Ditto for Bush.

Anonymous said...

Zelduh doesn't mind ANYONE dropping bombs on babies, pregnant women and their families.

She also doesn't care about abortion. It's just an excuse for her to use her explosive temper and love of profanity against pregnant women while she is screaming at them from the picket line.

All in a day for Zelduh and her crazy family--whom she is not stalking, by the way.

Zelda said...

Zelduh doesn't mind ANYONE dropping bombs on babies, pregnant women and their families.

No. Obama doesn't mind ANYONE dropping bombs on babies, pregnant women, and their families. He does it all the time.

Anonymous said...

Zelda is such a huge proponent of bomb dropping. Nothing gets her going like "Shock and Awe" or drone strikes. Even when it means taking out babies, pregnant women and their families.

She then goes on the picket line to scream at pregnant women in order to hide her guilt--not that she has any.

She has such a busy schedule.

Zelda said...

And then what happens?

Anonymous said...

What happens is you almost shoot an "intruder" in your backyard. Maybe you should stick with knives, they're not as deadly.

Anonymous said...

Zelduh: your other personalities are worried about you not commenting on this thread. They may be coming over to talk with you.

Thanks once again for admitting defeat!

Zelda said...

Don't stop now, schizo. You're just getting to the good part.

Anonymous said...

No, Zelduh, you obviously are the paranoid schizophrenic. You have multiple personalities. Hate to inform you that one of your personalities is a big batch baby killer.

Zelda said...

And then what happened?

Anonymous said...

The other Zelduh's are all aware there is something wrong with this Zelduh. They'll take care of you--although they don't seem like nurturing caretaker types. (Ask their family).

Zelda said...

And then?

Anonymous said...

Then what?

Zelda said...

Then what happens? This your story. Go nuts.

Roboto said...

Go nuts.

Isn't that rather like asking a river to get wet? It already is.

Likewise with Sybil; it already IS nuts.

Anonymous said...

What?

Roboto said...

Which word is giving you difficulty?

Zelda said...

Bless it's heart, it doesn't know what it's talking about anymore.

Anonymous said...

You don't know what you are talking about? "It" does describe you perfectly. Although, as I recall, "it" is the word you use to describe poor children.

Zelda said...

No, it isn't, BabyKiller. But go on with your stories. We're waiting.

Anonymous said...

No continue on, please, Big Batch Baby Killer, who hates poor children. Just because your waiting doesn't mean you have to stuff your face with chips!

Zelda said...

And then?

Anonymous said...

You can't remember, can you?

Zelda said...

It's your story. Do go on.

Anonymous said...

Zelduh: No, please, after you; age before beauty.

Zelda said...

Well I guess you're finished. That was weird.