Donald Trump running for president

Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
'louisiana man accused of killing police officer's two year old son while spraying house with gunfire during violent rampage'

kendrick myles,41 is the name of the 💩....google that name and see if you can figure out why liberals keep putting this :poop: back out on the street after the crimes he has committed?
 
Last edited:
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
The chart is in degrees celcius. The lone 'C' just denotes the metric
why not be consistent? kind of stupid to show it two different ways on same graph-eh?
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
I've copied and pasted that link as many times as you've posted it and... nada
maybe that is information google decided they don't want us to see....kinda like hunter biden-eh?

all i can say is it was there when i posted it.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
'police rip biden's repeated advice to shoot suspects in the leg'

police reject the 'incredibly ignorant suggestion'


biden needs to spend a week in a patrol car on southside of chicago.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
You're one of the people who see a dip in a chart and be like "SEE, it's getting cooler again" while the chart shows peaks and troughs but still has an upward trajectory.

You look at the mean average and the trajectory overtime, not take one day and use that as evidence for the rest of eternity.
That was the culture back then, that was my main point.

I honestly dont trust those charts, there have been corruption behind the scenes and scientists have been handed false data, especially from the UK.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
This chart highlights exactly this:View attachment 198798
Also, assuming this chart is truly legit, it is only evidence the planet it getting hotter, it is in no way evidence that man is its primary contributor if any at all.

Your not going to stop the climate from changing, its impossible....at least not on an "official" short term level, but as I always say they can turn that chart around if they want no problem but they dont want you to know about that.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
The cost of a superheated planet is everyone dies. We have been through several extinction events on this planet already, and I'm pretty sure extinction is worse than 50 trillion dollars.
This is just another extreme exaggeration, dont upgrade your AC you will be just fine. Ive heard it all. I remember Al Gore telling everybody that California would be under water...and that was supposed to happen 10 years ago, lol.

The planet superheating will take thousands of years, and sure we dont want to destroy it for them but even just 500 years from now the tech that will be out in the open will be unbelievable. We aint going anywhere dont worry. Our extinction is impossible due to climate, but rather the hooligans running our governments if so.

Im not into drugs or alcohol, but whenever climate comes up I think some weed would do you some benefit. My secret is wrapping that tinfoil real tight. :)
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
'abc silent after biden town hall attendees identified as ex-obama speechwriter, wife of prominent dem'

the abc moderator-'little georgie', bill clinton's fixer, passed them off as being undecided voters picked at random....say it aint so, joe.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
This is just another extreme exaggeration, dont upgrade your AC you will be just fine. Ive heard it all. I remember Al Gore telling everybody that California would be under water...and that was supposed to happen 10 years ago, lol.

The planet superheating will take thousands of years, and sure we dont want to destroy it for them but even just 500 years from now the tech that will be out in the open will be unbelievable. We aint going anywhere dont worry. Our extinction is impossible due to climate, but rather the hooligans running our governments if so.

Im not into drugs or alcohol, but whenever climate comes up I think some weed would do you some benefit. My secret is wrapping that tinfoil real tight. :)
yeah, i remember that creep al gore 10 years ago saying california will be in water in 10 years...instead they have wildfires from not doing forestry cleaning-maybe if they wouldn't have listened to creepy gore they would have done some essential cleanup.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
We know this, but where is the 6x more than the US statement? That's what I'm wondering here.

If that source exists, great, but noone has posted it and I cant find it.
they have taken down the number of active members of white supremacists---probably because they don't want people to know how low that number really is!!! in 2017 the splc estimated there were 3000 active members-i guess they thought that number reflected such a small amount that it did not serve their purpose, so they removed it.

i can't find it again either, but when i originally posted that info it was available!!!
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
yeah, i remember that creep al gore 10 years ago saying california will be in water in 10 years...instead they have wildfires from not doing forestry cleaning-maybe if they wouldn't have listened to creepy gore they would have done some essential cleanup.
He did that show some 20 years ago, Cali being under water would have happened 5-10 years ago but going by memory here.

Whats hilarious in 2010 he bought a 8 million dollar ocean view mansion.....IN CALIFORNIA!!! How the F do you make this shyt up??? Oh, I know, there is money to be made!
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
He did that show some 20 years ago, Cali being under water would have happened 5-10 years ago but going by memory here.

Whats hilarious in 2010 he bought a 8 million dollar ocean view mansion.....IN CALIFORNIA!!! How the F do you make this shyt up??? Oh, I know, there is money to be made!
there are apparently 100's of trillions to be made off climate change....
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I agree, opposing views based on equally credible evidence is absolutely fine. However some people will have opposing views in the face of overwhelming evidence. All it takes is a quick scan of any journal to see the evidence for climate change. Methane concentrations and pumping carbon from the ground into the atmosphere do play a role in climate change - we know this because we can observe planets like Venus and Mars.

Obviously those did it of their own accord, and so the same could happen to earth, however the same processes that have superheated venus are happening now on earth, and we are the ones accelerating that process.

It also boggles me how much opposition climate change has received. At worst, let's say we are wrong, we will be more dependent on renewable energy (which we are going to need to be anyway once stocks run out). On the other side of the coin, the worst that could happen is far more worrying.

I'd rather be wrong and have cleaner air than be right and die on a superheated planet with my skin bubbling. But to each their own.

I trust the 97% of climate scientists on this.
So part of my view on this is that if we are wrong that it is man made, we DIE. Since the climate DOES seem to be warming and we can agree on that (the climate and everything on this planet is constantly changing) - being so arrogant to assume we are the driving force is what will get us killed, because our efforts are possibly in the entirely wrong place.

But people love to think humans are in control of everything - just like they love to blame a random new virus on politicians, etc. Humans don't have near the control they are arrogant enough to think they have.

As far as mars/Venus I would bet the data strongly supports that humans are NOT causing global warming, if we even have much of the data. Most likely we lack data and only have small sames. Dilling ice samples is tough on earth, finding ice samples on those planets is even tougher.

But the data has to be taken lightly anyway because it is apples and oranges, mice and humans.

Except it's not ONLY the government saying it. Most climate researchers arent government employees. You can choose to be a skeptic all you like, it's your grandchildren who will pay the price.
We all know that funding for research has to come from somewhere, and we all know that science that supports what those funding sources want to believe do, often, get more funding. In every area of science. And research that goes against the expected outcome is often not published.

Regardless, I still have not seen any experiment that can demonstrate that humans have much cause. I can agree we should protect our environment and strive for newer technology that improves our impact on the environment, but I don't see much evidence we are driving much change that wouldn't otherwise happen.

The cost of a superheated planet is everyone dies. We have been through several extinction events on this planet already, and I'm pretty sure extinction is worse than 50 trillion dollars.

Most of these extinction events occur due to atmospheric conditions. For example, a giant volcanic eruption pumped out 14T tons of carbon into the atmosphere which caused soil and seawater to superheat.

Quite a few extinction events are linked to CO2 balance. The Triassic period ended likely due to volcanic activity and causing massive amounts of CO2 to be pumped into the atmosphere once again.

Now here we are, doing this process voluntarily. Drilling up carbon and pumping it into the atmosphere. Carbon naturally makes it way back into the earth, but we are pumping it out faster than it can regulate.
I agree with everything you said up until the last paragraph, and those things we agree on I see as being a really good, almost overwhelming evidence, reason to be skeptical of man being a real driving force here.

But what if we spend $50T and only then finally admit there was no evidence man caused it and we were wrong?

Then we have wasted time and resources and find out $50T should have been spent on a real solution to the real problem. But too late then, we will all be dead.

This chart highlights exactly this:View attachment 198798
This chart reminds me of college stats and how you can just show the top portion of a bar chart to really give the impression of a big difference when it is really very minor.

But still, it looks like the temp change from 1900-1940 was about the same as from 1840-2019. So we are doing pretty good. It took twice as long to achieve the same delta, and for the first 50 of thpse years man made climate change was barely know.. more evidence that maybe our efforts and beliefs that we are impactful are misplaced.

But charts are not evidence. They are graphics. I still would like to see an experiment. I haven't seen any in any journals, but you mentioned just browsing one had it. Would like to see it.

'police rip biden's repeated advice to shoot suspects in the leg'

police reject the 'incredibly ignorant suggestion'


biden needs to spend a week in a patrol car on southside of chicago.
Like he could last 2 hours.

Also, assuming this chart is truly legit, it is only evidence the planet it getting hotter, it is in no way evidence that man is its primary contributor if any at all.

Your not going to stop the climate from changing, its impossible....at least not on an "official" short term level, but as I always say they can turn that chart around if they want no problem but they dont want you to know about that.
We may be able to do something about climate change, if we learn more about it and figure out the real causes - and that would be a better way to spent $50T...advancing tech so that we can figure out something to help.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
there are apparently 100's of trillions to be made off climate change....
I thought he made all his money from inventing the internet. And he keeps it in a box.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I thought he made all his money from inventing the internet. And he keeps it in a box.
I remember years ago reading about he was invested in drones that fly over countries that measure man made co2 output. Just going off of old memory here.
 
dixonk

dixonk

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
He needs to be in the back of a patrol car!!!!
One of those plastic back seats after you just got in a scuffle with a sweaty bloodied up guy that was high on PCP that pissed and shitted himself without getting a chance to hose it out yet...
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
why not be consistent? kind of stupid to show it two different ways on same graph-eh?
I dont follow? It's the same symbol for Celcius. Nowhere does it say farenheit
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Maybe, but there is no way to verify if its true since the scientific community has been compromised with political filth and corruption.
Honestly, this view is part of what I've been discussing. While skepticism is fine, you are literally lumping all evidence together and tarnishing it with the same brush.

The crowd for anti climate change is mostly oil moguls, so why do you trust them more? It's like you think climate scientists are sitting on buckets of money, taking bribes from governments to promote....a healthier atmosphere. Most are independent researchers with zero care for governmental policy other than how they use the research they conduct to better the planet. Researchers make very little money to conduct research - and they dont get money from journal publishers.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Also, assuming this chart is truly legit, it is only evidence the planet it getting hotter, it is in no way evidence that man is its primary contributor if any at all.

Your not going to stop the climate from changing, its impossible....at least not on an "official" short term level, but as I always say they can turn that chart around if they want no problem but they dont want you to know about that.
That chart wasn't the sum of all knowledge of climate change, it's just a record of temperature. You can look up the carbon cycle yourself, carbon budgets and other stuff and work through it yourself, but much like every other skeptic you wont, because "Big Green are just liars, the data is fake and it's all BS anyway."

It's the same mindset that people have about everything they can't see.

A simple way to understand how humans affect the planet is the ozone layer. We pumped out so much chlorofluorocarbons that the ozone layer spawns holes during summer in the Southern Hemisphere. That is a direct man-made impact on the ozone. So we know that our actions can, and have, impacted our atmosphere already.

Going back to carbon, the ocean (including ice and glaciers), rocks and living organisms hold the majority of the earth's carbon. The ocean alone holds 50x more than the atmosphere. What happens when water warm up? It evaporates, freeing up more carbon to enter the atmosphere. The runaway greenhouse effect of evaporating oceans is why Venus is what it is today, a giant sweltering heat ball.

Even before that stage, the ocean reabsorbing carbon is slowly acidifying it. It has dropped 0.1pH (which is a Log increase of 30%). If you know basic chemistry, H2O and CO2 mix to create Carbonic Acid which releases Hydrogen Ions and can create acid rain and acidic water. The more H+ ions, the greater the acidity. This affects biodiversity in water ways, which will eventually have a flow on effect to us.

For reference, a change in pH of human blood of 0.2 can cause comas and death, so it's not something to baulk at.

Hence why there is so much of a fuss about climate change affecting marine biodiversity as it is maintained within very narrow pH ranges.

I honestly cannot fathom how this is not important for anybody on this planet.
 
Last edited:
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
This is just another extreme exaggeration, dont upgrade your AC you will be just fine. Ive heard it all. I remember Al Gore telling everybody that California would be under water...and that was supposed to happen 10 years ago, lol.

The planet superheating will take thousands of years, and sure we dont want to destroy it for them but even just 500 years from now the tech that will be out in the open will be unbelievable. We aint going anywhere dont worry. Our extinction is impossible due to climate, but rather the hooligans running our governments if so.

Im not into drugs or alcohol, but whenever climate comes up I think some weed would do you some benefit. My secret is wrapping that tinfoil real tight. :)
Our extinction is not impossible due to climate - it is an inevitability. If it isnt nuclear winters, virus or bacteria, it'll be the climate. The earth has wiped out life before many times, and we're not as powerful as you seem to believe.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
So part of my view on this is that if we are wrong that it is man made, we DIE. Since the climate DOES seem to be warming and we can agree on that (the climate and everything on this planet is constantly changing) - being so arrogant to assume we are the driving force is what will get us killed, because our efforts are possibly in the entirely wrong place.

But people love to think humans are in control of everything - just like they love to blame a random new virus on politicians, etc. Humans don't have near the control they are arrogant enough to think they have.

As far as mars/Venus I would bet the data strongly supports that humans are NOT causing global warming, if we even have much of the data. Most likely we lack data and only have small sames. Dilling ice samples is tough on earth, finding ice samples on those planets is even tougher.

But the data has to be taken lightly anyway because it is apples and oranges, mice and humans.



We all know that funding for research has to come from somewhere, and we all know that science that supports what those funding sources want to believe do, often, get more funding. In every area of science. And research that goes against the expected outcome is often not published.

Regardless, I still have not seen any experiment that can demonstrate that humans have much cause. I can agree we should protect our environment and strive for newer technology that improves our impact on the environment, but I don't see much evidence we are driving much change that wouldn't otherwise happen.



I agree with everything you said up until the last paragraph, and those things we agree on I see as being a really good, almost overwhelming evidence, reason to be skeptical of man being a real driving force here.

But what if we spend $50T and only then finally admit there was no evidence man caused it and we were wrong?

Then we have wasted time and resources and find out $50T should have been spent on a real solution to the real problem. But too late then, we will all be dead.



This chart reminds me of college stats and how you can just show the top portion of a bar chart to really give the impression of a big difference when it is really very minor.

But still, it looks like the temp change from 1900-1940 was about the same as from 1840-2019. So we are doing pretty good. It took twice as long to achieve the same delta, and for the first 50 of thpse years man made climate change was barely know.. more evidence that maybe our efforts and beliefs that we are impactful are misplaced.

But charts are not evidence. They are graphics. I still would like to see an experiment. I haven't seen any in any journals, but you mentioned just browsing one had it. Would like to see it.



Like he could last 2 hours.



We may be able to do something about climate change, if we learn more about it and figure out the real causes - and that would be a better way to spent $50T...advancing tech so that we can figure out something to help.
Mars has ice caps and has deep reservoirs of ice at or below the surface.

Despite its atmosphere being 95% carbon dioxide, due to its thin atmosphere the effect of CO2 has been almost opposite to Venus.

Remember, noone is saying that the climate doesn't change - they are saying that the rate of change since the industrial revolution has been exponential. We already know that gases like CO2 and methane block heat from leaving earth. So it's not exactly a huge stretch to figure out that more of these gases would mean less heat escapes and that trapped heat warms the planet. The warmer the planet gets, the more the ocean evaporates and the more carbon is released and around and around we go.

Look at Greenlands and the Artics Ice loss over the last few decades.

You could probably set up a small experiment yourself to test this.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
So part of my view on this is that if we are wrong that it is man made, we DIE. Since the climate DOES seem to be warming and we can agree on that (the climate and everything on this planet is constantly changing) - being so arrogant to assume we are the driving force is what will get us killed, because our efforts are possibly in the entirely wrong place.

But people love to think humans are in control of everything - just like they love to blame a random new virus on politicians, etc. Humans don't have near the control they are arrogant enough to think they have.

As far as mars/Venus I would bet the data strongly supports that humans are NOT causing global warming, if we even have much of the data. Most likely we lack data and only have small sames. Dilling ice samples is tough on earth, finding ice samples on those planets is even tougher.

But the data has to be taken lightly anyway because it is apples and oranges, mice and humans.



We all know that funding for research has to come from somewhere, and we all know that science that supports what those funding sources want to believe do, often, get more funding. In every area of science. And research that goes against the expected outcome is often not published.

Regardless, I still have not seen any experiment that can demonstrate that humans have much cause. I can agree we should protect our environment and strive for newer technology that improves our impact on the environment, but I don't see much evidence we are driving much change that wouldn't otherwise happen.



I agree with everything you said up until the last paragraph, and those things we agree on I see as being a really good, almost overwhelming evidence, reason to be skeptical of man being a real driving force here.

But what if we spend $50T and only then finally admit there was no evidence man caused it and we were wrong?

Then we have wasted time and resources and find out $50T should have been spent on a real solution to the real problem. But too late then, we will all be dead.



This chart reminds me of college stats and how you can just show the top portion of a bar chart to really give the impression of a big difference when it is really very minor.

But still, it looks like the temp change from 1900-1940 was about the same as from 1840-2019. So we are doing pretty good. It took twice as long to achieve the same delta, and for the first 50 of thpse years man made climate change was barely know.. more evidence that maybe our efforts and beliefs that we are impactful are misplaced.

But charts are not evidence. They are graphics. I still would like to see an experiment. I haven't seen any in any journals, but you mentioned just browsing one had it. Would like to see it.



Like he could last 2 hours.



We may be able to do something about climate change, if we learn more about it and figure out the real causes - and that would be a better way to spent $50T...advancing tech so that we can figure out something to help.
How do you know that research that doesnt support the expected outcomes isnt published? I've not heard of this happening, and I worked in a research driven University. Most of the funding came from the University itself with the idea to support the body of literature. No stipulations to ensure it passed the requirements of sponsors.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Honestly, this view is part of what I've been discussing. While skepticism is fine, you are literally lumping all evidence together and tarnishing it with the same brush.

The crowd for anti climate change is mostly oil moguls, so why do you trust them more? It's like you think climate scientists are sitting on buckets of money, taking bribes from governments to promote....a healthier atmosphere. Most are independent researchers with zero care for governmental policy other than how they use the research they conduct to better the planet. Researchers make very little money to conduct research - and they dont get money from journal publishers.
I dont trust any of them thats for sure. I dont think its fair to group climate change skeptics with oil monguls, its sorta like a dodge. I know you didnt mean it that way but its just not fair. Im not picking sides, I just call it as I see it, Im not Im not the only one including many other scientists who are ignored or discredited.

Im not certain all these low profit researchers were fed accurate data, and I havent seen any concrete evidence that man made causes have impacted the climate and thats that.

There is no reason we cant focus on renewable energy, fighting pollution while providing fiscally responsible sources of energy to people during a transition, but if you think your going to stop the climate from changing I say its impossible, at least with what we have publicly available at this time.
 
Last edited:
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Look at Greenlands and the Artics Ice loss over the last few decades.

You could probably set up a small experiment yourself to test this.
If it did or didnt its irrelevent to the issue, the issue that they are saying man made actions are the cause. The Arctic can be completely melted tomorrow, but that doesnt mean its our fault. Here in NY we have smooth mountains, where I live used to be a complete block of ice only 15,000 years ago during the end of the Pleistocene Epoch, but they werent driving cars back then, I dont think.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Mars has ice caps and has deep reservoirs of ice at or below the surface.

Despite its atmosphere being 95% carbon dioxide, due to its thin atmosphere the effect of CO2 has been almost opposite to Venus.

Remember, noone is saying that the climate doesn't change - they are saying that the rate of change since the industrial revolution has been exponential. We already know that gases like CO2 and methane block heat from leaving earth. So it's not exactly a huge stretch to figure out that more of these gases would mean less heat escapes and that trapped heat warms the planet. The warmer the planet gets, the more the ocean evaporates and the more carbon is released and around and around we go.

Look at Greenlands and the Artics Ice loss over the last few decades.

You could probably set up a small experiment yourself to test this.
since 1900 the population has grown from 1.6 to over 6 billion in 2000. i guess we could just eliminate 4 billion people-eh?
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
congrats to lopez....not really a very exciting matchup, loma fought a floyd kind of fight until the last few rounds and by then it was too late. i was more disappointed in lomachenko's performance than impressed by lopez.

but a win is a win and lopez is now a 4 belt holder.

i don't want to see a rematch, clearly time, injuries and years of miles in the ring have taken their toll on lomachenko---i truly believe this was the best loma had to offer at this point in his carrer...time to hang up the gloves for lomachenko, imo.
 
Last edited:
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
'france moves to expel 231 radicalized foreigners after assasination of teacher'


waiting for the leftist liberal democrats to call france racist....tick tock.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
'anti-twitter rally turns ugly as alleged antifa thugs attack protesters'


waiting for biden and lefties to condemn this violence against truly peaceful protesters.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
congrats to lopez....not really a very exciting matchup, loma fought a floyd kind of fight until the last few rounds and by then it was too late. i was more disappointed in lomachenko's performance than impressed by lopez.

but a win is a win and lopez is now a 4 belt holder.

i don't want to see a rematch, clearly time, injuries and years of miles in the ring have taken their toll on lomachenko---i truly believe this was the best loma had to offer at this point in his carrer...time to hang up the gloves for lomachenko, imo.
It didnt remind me a floyd kind of fight, floyd is boring but loma just sucked, lol

Damn, you always seem to throw in the flag and call it a career after a single bad performance on a fighter....fighters can bounce right back and be back on top. He is still on the back end of his prime, he just had a bad night or just a horrible matchup. Plus he is fighting weigh-classes above his natural just to get more fights.

Whats up with that 119-109 card??? No way. 116 or 117 max was fair.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
It didnt remind me a floyd kind of fight, floyd is boring but loma just sucked, lol

Damn, you always seem to throw in the flag and call it a career after a single bad performance on a fighter....fighters can bounce right back and be back on top. He is still on the back end of his prime, he just had a bad night or just a horrible matchup. Plus he is fighting weigh-classes above his natural just to get more fights.

Whats up with that 119-109 card??? No way. 116 or 117 max was fair.
wasn't overly impressed with loma's performance against campbell either...but in fairness campbell was the bigger guy also. guess i'm just used to seeing loma be spectacular and don't like to see him struggle against guys i think he would have handled easier a few years ago....of course this is just my opinion and i can see where you are at also.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
'kirstie alley responds to nasty, horrible, people criticizing her support for trump'


i think it has become chrystal clear that the people who claim to be anti-fascist are in effect the true fascists.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
'covid-19: these doctors are saying wearing face masks may do more harm than good'

' who changes stance, now says public should wear face masks'

'doctor gives a solid reason why masks won't protect you'

'facemasks won't protect from coronavirus says cdc and w.h.o'

'data do not back cloth masks to prevent covid-19, experts say'

'surgeon general: data doesn't back up wearing masks in public'

'face masks: w.h.o. stands by decision not to wear them'

'w.h.o. finally endorses masks to prevent coronavirus'

here is a really good article i found---'the face mask debate reveals a scientific double standard'
 
Last edited:
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
after listening to biden's latest 'speech', i'm not sure joe biden realizes there are poor and needy people in this country who are NOT black.

for someone who talks about unity he sure does bring up race a lot--actually to me he sounds a lot like al sharpton, a race baiter.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
'fbi, dhs say hackers have gained access to election systems'



bring back the old style lever machines, and when you needed to show ID to vote.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
'covid-19: these doctors are saying wearing face masks may do more harm than good'

' who changes stance, now says public should wear face masks'

'doctor gives a solid reason why masks won't protect you'

'facemasks won't protect from coronavirus says cdc and w.h.o'

'data do not back cloth masks to prevent covid-19, experts say'

'surgeon general: data doesn't back up wearing masks in public'

'face masks: w.h.o. stands by decision not to wear them'

'w.h.o. finally endorses masks to prevent coronavirus'

here is a really good article i found---'the face mask debate reveals a scientific double standard'
The WHO did make it far more complicated that it needed to be. The reason why they stood by their decisions to not wear them initially was because ill fitting masks can cause people to touch their face more often (placing them at higher risk of touching a contaminated surface then touching their eyes and mouth and because of a global shortage back in the early stages meaning that front line workers did not have access to adequate masks. They felt they needed to prevent panic buying of PPE so it could be distributed to those who needed it most.

They had recommended wearing them if you were symptomatic.

Unfortunately headlines give no context, and can be misleading.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
The WHO did make it far more complicated that it needed to be. The reason why they stood by their decisions to not wear them initially was because ill fitting masks can cause people to touch their face more often (placing them at higher risk of touching a contaminated surface then touching their eyes and mouth and because of a global shortage back in the early stages meaning that front line workers did not have access to adequate masks. They felt they needed to prevent panic buying of PPE so it could be distributed to those who needed it most.

They had recommended wearing them if you were symptomatic.

Unfortunately headlines give no context, and can be misleading.
if you think those titles of articles are taken out of context google them and read for yourself, i did and titles of those articles are true to the substance of the articles. :)
 
Last edited:
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
'social media erupts over biden's big tech ties after twitter, facebook censor NY post story on hunter'

a former facebook exec will oversee enforcement of the biden campaign's ethics plan---yeah right, as if joe has any ethics :rolleyes:
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
85% of people that caught the Kung Flu were wearing masks...lol. Yep they sure are working lol.
At least a bunch probably got it from touching them improperly.

As a matter of fact, I saw FAlsci on 60 minutes tonight, and he pulled his mask out and rubbed all on the inside as he is showing it off.
 
dixonk

dixonk

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
At least a bunch probably got it from touching them improperly.

As a matter of fact, I saw FAlsci on 60 minutes tonight, and he pulled his mask out and rubbed all on the inside as he is showing it off.
Fauci is a mongoloid. I trust gas station sushi more than I trust that idiot.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
active duty military, veterans and law enforcement officers support trump and republicans...

criminals, thugs, hooligans, rioters and looters support biden and democrats.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Our Founding Fathers would vote for Jo Jorgensen and stomp both Dump and Groper.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Our Founding Fathers would vote for Jo Jorgensen and stomp both Dump and Groper.
send me a pic when you see washington, jefferson and franklin show up at poll to vote--and i will vote for jo also:cool:
 

Top