Ok, so maybe you can. Maybe you can spell it without the S or the W or the N. But both words share an “O”. There is simply no disputing that fact. Therefore, you should play quizzo tonight in the snow. I think we could see a few romantic questions this week, what with the big holiday coming up this weekend. Action starts at O’Neals at 8 p.m., then moves to Bards at 10:15 p.m. We had good turnouts at both places last week. Hopefully we can keep it up this week.
Wow! That global warming is coming down right now as I type. A possible 18 more inches of the stuff tonight and tomorrow. We just gots to do something 'bout dat Cee Oh Two shit. Pass me another beer and open another bag of them carbon offsets, dude.
Indeed, a lot of snow in one small region one winter clearly means that there's no such thing as global warming.
Probably not indeed.
But perhaps the fact that mean global temperatures have not risen for a considerable number of years despite increases in carbon emissions and in direct contradiction to the computer models that would predict increases under those circumstances might just throw some doubt on the reliability of the computer models on which the theory is based in the first place. Some completely hairbrained scientists even entertain various crazy theories that the sun with its sunspots and solar storms and such sort of activity might be the main source of the variations in global temperature. (You know, the sun– that big nuclear furnace around which the earth rotates and which is the ultimate source of the warming in global warming.) At the very least, we might be reluctant to cripple our entire economy during a recession with a rather flawed regulatory system that probably would have a very minimal impact on warming even if the regulatory system lived up to expectations– a big big if– and even if human activity is the major source of the warming in the first place– another pretty big if, despite the confident assertions from blowhards like Al Gore, that the science is settled and the debate is over. Al and his pals, of course, can't get it straight whether the oceans are going to rise a few inches or twenty feet, whether in the next few years or over the course of the next several hundred years, and whether various glaciers are going to be completely gone in the next few years or, never mind, will be around for quite some time. Their vacillations do not inspire a whole lot of confidence that they have the faintest clue as to what the hell they're talking about.
You'll have to excuse me now. I have that love of a great snowstorm which owes a lot to the fact that I don't have to be any place in particular in the morning. I'm going to take a walk in the snow which will probably end at my favorite pub which I only hope won't be closing too early because of the storm. If Al is right, I won'y be able to enjoy such storms for very many more years.
The Earth revolves around the Sun. It rotates on its axis. In science (and debate on scientific issues), it's importnat to get your terms straight so that everyone know what you are talking about. Neither you nor that blowhard Al Gore seem to understand that point.
Otherwise, enjoy the “Winter of Warming” we are experiencing and I have to say, spending it in a pub sounds like a fine idea.
Hi Mike. You're right, of course. Before I head for the pub today I promise to whip myself to a bloody pulp and then put on my best hair shirt. Unfortunately, though, I suspect the pub in question will be closed and I'll have to content myself with drinking my cheap whiskey at home and working on my memoirs. (Bankers Club, $9 for a whole liter, and it's really pretty good. Few if any chemical burns around the mouth and soft tissues.). It's more economical anyway. You enjoy your snow day too.
Why in the world do you want to use the JGT website to espouse your right-wing lunacy? I will never understand this.
I don't know why you refer to my political beliefs as lunacy. I'm not the one who believes silly shit, such as that Obamacare will improve medical service and save money, or that the stimulus bill was actually good for the economy, or that it was a good idea to try KSM in a criminal court in Manhattan, or that Obama was ever going to be able to close Gitmo. Hell, I just got done arguing with a guy who says that Chris Mathews is a right-wing conservative and thinks that Pat Robertson poses a bigger threat to America than al Qaida terrorists. Those are pretty off the wall ideas. Why not call his ideas lunacy.
As for the recent unpleasantness, it all started when wrote what was really just a throw away line “Ain't that global warming a bitch?” People took it way too seriously and the next thing you know we arguing about all kinds of unrelated crap. Things just got out of hand. Well, I probably shouldn't have refered to Muslims as camelfuckers. I don't actually know for sure that they do fuck camels. But they do definitely go in for child rape, and if they're willing to espouse and defend that, then they probably wouldn't draw the line at fucking a camel or two along the way. And I've never been close enough to one to know whether they do actually smell like goats. But I wouldn't be suprised if they do. Anyway, Muslims believe and espouse and defend all sort of horrible things, everything from suicide bombing to killing homosexuals to cliterectomies to honor killings. So I ask you which is worse– actually supporting such horrible things or my calling the people who support such horrible things silly obscene names.
But let's not get into all that shit again. Allaha Ahkbar to you, my friend.
Bob, please leave the Muslim stuff alone. It just makes you sound like a complete jackass. Do you think Muhammed Ali has sex with camels? Do you think Kareem Abdul Jabbar supports suicide bombing? Do you think Dave Chappelle is a fan of child rape? Bob, I'd highly suggest you narrow the focus of your hate speech. You want to make some points about Muslim-run governments? Go right ahead. But to use the words you use to describe all Muslims just makes you just sound like a raging bigot that is unfit for society.
No, I don't think Mohammed Ali has sex with camels. I also doubt that he thinks forcing twelve year olds into arranged marriages is a good idea. I bet though that if you asked him he'd say that the prophet married a nine year old and that that makes such marriages okay for a Muslim. I'll also bet a large percentage of Muslims would defend the concept of sharia law and would refuse to unequivocally condemn suicide bombings and violent jihad. I also doubt if most Muslims go in for clitorectomies, but some do, and not just a tiny percentage either.
I suppose I've been making the point in my usual subtle way that Islam has an awful lot of features about it that makes its interaction with the West a highly problematic encounter and that the correct response to its horrible features is not to pretend that they don't exist and that everything is hunky-dory, but to actually defend Western values. Therefore, if some Muslims start rioting and killing people because of some perceived insensitivity to their religion, we don't apologize and beg forgiveness but directly confront the free speech issues involved. If some shithead imam somewhere in the West is preaching violent jihad, we take him to task over it and don't pretend his hate speech is acceptable to us. If some
Muslim assholes go in for an honor killing we fully publicize and discuss the issue and prosecute everyone involved to the fullest exrent of the law. If some jerkoff imam starts talking about sharia law in the U.S., we tell him we don't do sharia law around here and suggest he move some place else where they have it. We stop being cowards when it comes to the fucking so-called “religion of love.”
As an illustration of what I mean, in commenting about the current trial against Geert Wilders for “hate speech” in the Netherlands, the Weekly Standard had a representation of one of the famous Mohammed cartoons that sparked rioting and murder around the world. The cartoons have apparently become an issue in that trial. This is exactly the sort of reaction to Muslim intimidation that we need. When the cartoon issue arose, practically no media in the West published the cartoons. They should have been on the editorial page of every goddamn newspaper in the country along with an editorial unequivocally supporting free speech.
OK, I'll give the Muslim stuff a rest. But I will point out as a parting shot that If I were living some places in Europe, my life would be in danger after my comments about Islam.
Dear Bob,
Take your racist, bigoted, ignorant views somewhere else. You're the reason why America gets hated on, so put a sock in it. You're jeopardizing the lives of the rest of us sane folks.
This is a quizzo blog. I think you'll find yourself more at home with the website's of the KKK or the Roman Catholic church.
Unfondly,
TRS
It is remarkable how much more people would respect your intelligent yet debatable positions (such as the one above) if you didn't accompany them with such idiotic and indefensible slander (camelf******).
I'm not interested in siding with Bob on this issue, but the comment from TRS is representative of exactly the kind of left-wing thinking that folks like Bob find so absurd (in many ways rightfully so). If we take TRS at his word, Bob is a racist and bigot because he condemns Islam but only a few sentences later, TRS is lumping the Catholic Church in with the KKK.
As I'm writing this I'm wondering if TRS is attempting to be ironic; the real irony in the situation is that you have someone criticizing someone else's criticism of a religion by shitting on another faith, in this case one that is closer to home. The thing that people like Bob feed off is the liberal way of excusing other cultures' behavior in the name of multiculturalism while at the same time ripping our own culture's values.
And one more thing: the Catholic Church is on the hook for some of history's great injustices. That is beyond debate. And there are plenty of the Church's views on social policy that are not exactly accepted by everyone. But no sane person can seriously argue that the atrocities and general backwardness committed by much of institutionalized Islam today is in any way comparable to what the Catholic Church sanctions in 2010. Just to be clear: not all Muslim individuals (in fact, I'd assume, very few) but a significantly vocal set of Muslims groups. That whom I'm calling out.
To equate the Catholic Church in 2010 to radical Islamic groups and governments that enslave, murder and torture their own people in the name of God is an absurd and ludicrous assertion.
Here! Here! Buy that man a snow cone.
BTW, it's not generally known and I usually try to keep it on the q.t., but I am under contract to Goodtimes Enterprises LTD to try to pump some interest and action into this moribund website. Let's face it, you're not going to get thirty comments in a thread discussing the dire and imminent threat posed to Western civilization by the dominance of Steak'EmUp at the Bard's. (Or should that be immanent threat?)