Discussion Random Discussion

[Johnnyrayflamingo]

I replied twice but

These things are not mutually exclusive you know. You can still maintain the fire prevention whilst tackling climate change.

But the real reason is that you are a lazy human being who disbelieves climate change because it may impact the easy comfortable life you lead in some way. Its okay mate, I get it, you're just one of the millions of lazy average Australians who believe in doing the same thing.. which is basically nothing.

I replied twice but it got deleted twice. I guess you can imagine what my reply was.

 

[Johnnyrayflamingo]

Great story on a fella using traditional methods.

Redirect Notice

 

[gringo2011]

Nancy LeTourneau | Washington Monthly

washingtonmonthly.com

Does Nancy LeTourneau seem fair and balanced to you?.

Perhaps not but the infiltration of religious groups into the US political landscape is frightening. The evangelicals are a death cult that literally want to end the world and have made themselves a nice nest inside US policy making.

 

[gringo2011]

This clearly shows a trend. One can see the progression from a varying pattern but mainly green right up until the 1980's but then the trend is more yellow and rather rapidly progressing to red.

This is a trend and the pattern is suggestive but not yet strong evidence for climate change.

What is more compelling is that all the natural factors would have us cooling - and those that genuinely believed that mankind is too powerless to destroy a planet, looked at the natural cooling effect of solar radiation and recent volcanic activity placing particulate matter in the atmosphere reducing the amount of light that reaches the Earth. So many predictions were made that Earth would stop warming and resume cooling - every one of them were wrong. Many of these were not climate scientists, but had ideological reasons (usually religious) to believe the way they did.

Climate scientists took into account the cooling effect of reduced solar activity and the particulate matter in the atmosphere (there are other factors but this is not my area of expertise so a simple explanation is all I can offer). Despite this they predicted global warming. They were conservative in their predictions. There are many tipping points which suddenly alter the equations and complicate the models they use. They also admitted they were wrong in some predictions - like the rate of global CO2 levels did not rise at exactly the rate they predicted - so they investigated to find out why and discovered that more CO2 was being dissolved in the oceans than they predicted which has something to do with cold ocean currents carrying this dissolved CO2 deeper - now this feature has to be fully investigated to see if this will present as another tipping point.

The upshot of all their trials and errors has been the creation of a model which predicts global temperatures with greater and greater accuracy.
They are still underestimating the increase in temperature - so there are some minor factors still at play, but the science is strong and only getting better.

Let me remind you that those predictions that contradict the climate scientists have all proven wrong.

It is these predictions that make the argument from climate scientists compelling. They made predictions that went against the natural trend of climate on Earth. Their predictions of a warming Earth with increased rates of extreme events is showing to be accurate. This is despite the bleatings of climate change deniers.

So how do climate change deniers continue to believe something other than the facts?

Much of the groundwork for denialism was initiated in the USA. Their coal and oil industries played an essential role in climate change denial and were joined by other corporations concerned about the US government's efforts to control CO2 emissions. Peabody coal, Exxon Mobil, and industry groups like Western Fuels Association and the American Petroleum Institute have provided direct funding to contrarian scientists such as Patrick Michaels as well as several conservative "think tanks". Exxon Mobil has been the most important source for climate change denial. Another key mechanism was that these wealthy bodies have set up "associations" such as the Information Council on the Environment, The Global Climate Coalition and The Cooler Heads Coalition. The conservative side of politics especially (although there is evidence that all sides of politics are vulnerable to the huge amounts of money involved in maintaining the right to pollute the Earth with impunity) has conspired with the oil companies to maintain profits through legislation

There are a number of web sites dedicated to climate denialists. They provide propaganda, graphs and memes to further this cause.
Russian bots also exacerbate the situation. A warming Russia is considered to be desirable and they have political interests as well as self-interests in allowing the climate deniers to persist and flourish.

There are also a number of web sites which attempt to counter the lies: see Skeptical Science - Arguments from Global Warming Deniers

Computer technology keeps developing better and better modelling tools and can now use satellites to read climactic conditions in close to real time. What was available even 10 years ago would be primitive in comparison to what we have now. The better tools should have shown the climate scientists up pretty quickly. NASA is a big supplier of climate information, I don't see why a space agency would have a vested interest in making up a huge conspiracy against energy generators.

 

[Kildonan]

Great story on a fella using traditional methods.

Redirect Notice

In science, isolated incidences like these are called anecdotes. They do not serve as evidence for or against a premise. They can however indicate that further study is needed to be able to make inferences. I think this would be a good course of action. The traditional burns need to be documented and the results need to be tabulated before we can say that it was the burn that helped and not just good luck or wind direction or some other factor. I suspect that this is a promising area of research though and needs to be carried out.

 

[Crusty Undies]

As I stated, a blend of traditional and current hazard reduction methods is required. Its pretty arrogant to dismiss aboriginal methods given they successfully managed the threat for thousands of years. They know country better than anyone. The custodians of our land should be listened to, not ignored or dismissed.

Stop linking the current bushfires to climate change to try help a green ideology based agenda get more traction, its devious BS.

No actually. It isn't. It's science. And I can quite easily display the difference between my scientific claims and your pseudoscientific claims.

Every claim ever made about climate change is subject to change. In fact, every scientific claim ever made is subject to change. Scientific evidence is falsifiable, this isn't a bug it's a feature. People like you saying "look see science was wrong 40 years ago" means nothing. We agree on that, but the difference is that scientific models used to try and predict reality were refined and updated. Being falsifiable is the very foundation of science and your pseudoscientific claims that "the traditional custodians of the land" knew what they were doing, or that "greenies are to blame" or that "climate change is a hoax by greenie scientists" etc etc. Are not scientific claims, they are pseudoscience at best and name calling at worst. You haven't devised or referenced a falsifiable test that disproves climate change.

In fact, claiming that traditional elders, ancient scholars or any other similar almost mythical historical figures is one of the most common features of pseudoscience. Seen in "alternative" medicine such as acupuncture, chiropractic therapy, healing crystals, essential oils and so on and so on. They all make the claim that we should learn from thousands of year old methods that were and still are completely unscientific. Unscientific because science wasn't around when these "traditional methods" were created. In all reality these are about as accurate as wives tales saying your eyes will go square if you look at a tv for too long, or eating lots of carrots gives you night vision.

Next, science develops hypotheses and tests based on observation that model reality and are replicable. Not once have I seen you show me a replicable test demonstrating why climate change isn't real. Instead you use outliers such as the 74/75 bushfires which were, as we now know, already 70+ years after the onset of climate change due to industrialization. You try to point at one example as if that disproves the entire collection of data, hypotheses and models that have been tested, falsified and then been proven true over the last half a century. Perhaps you're right Johnny, perhaps there are things science hasn't considered about climate change. But the difference between scientists and you is that we accept when we're wrong, incorporate the new data and update the models we have to now predict the outliers. As an example of this, Isaac Newton developed a working theory of gravity and motion. He however was wrong, at least in some cases, see his theories only worked on earth with an earthlike gravity. So while Einstein was developing his theory of relativity, he didn't throw out Newton's work he augmented it with an updated understanding of how what was previously thought of as a constant; gravity, can actually be a variable along with some other bug fixes per se.

Not only do you not, nor have you, referenced replicable tests; you haven't even referenced falsifiable tests. You haven't referenced any tests. Your theories don't model reality, your hypotheses can be disproven with the most basic of google search and here's the next key. You don't update your views when you're proven wrong. That is another key indicator of pseudoscience. Many pseudoscientific publications are printed and when proven wrong are not updated. Thousands of copies, hundreds of editions and not one revision. Pseudoscience doesn't admit when it's wrong, that doesn't mean it isn't wrong, you just have to work slightly harder to prove it. And the fact that even though it is so easy to disprove, they still won't update their (sometimes thousands of year old) claims should be evidence enough to you that they're unscientific.

Next we have some questions that we can ask to try and figure out whether something is bad science and/or pseudoscience. Question 1, what is the source of your counter claims? Is it the majority of scientists? No, it's a very small minority of less published and almost never referenced scientists, and a collection of partisan hacks, billionaire oil and mining magnates, and Rupert Murdoch. This leads us very nicely into question 2, what is the agenda? Now if I were a betting man I'd suggest that the common agenda amongst all these groups is to make money; climate change quite obviously steps in the way of that. Question 3, what kind of language do your counter claimants use? Is it scientific language that hedges bets and supports claims with excess evidence? No, it is people making outlandish claims with little to no evidence. The claims are usually emotive, and attempt to anger people into support, and there are a lot of expressive techniques used (exclamation marks, bolded words, caps locked writing etc). Question 4, does it involve testimonials over actual data? Yes, quite clearly. Since you've not presented data, the entirety of your claims are based on testimonials and personal experience. Question 5, are there claims of exclusivity? "People have been doing this for thousands of years", next. Question 6, is there mention or mentions of conspiracy/ies? Yes, you claim that the entirety of science is part of some giant conspiracy to... save the world? You claim that all climate scientists falsify data, you claim that climate science is a hoax etc. Question 7, does the claim involve multiple "disorders"? Damage to many body systems, many health benefits, or in this case many social implications, yes. Question 8, Is there a money trail or passionate belief involved? Yes and yes. Money trail from the billionaires, passionate belief from the idiots who listen to them. Question 9, were real scientific processes used? No. As I quite explicitly explained earlier not a single reference from you has been scientific in any form. Question 10, is there expertise? Sort of. Expertise is defined as people with Bachelor's, PhDs, specialists or researchers in the relevant field and with current knowledge. Now sure, the 80 year old you talked about may well have been an expert, is he still one considering science has progressed for 30 years without him? Probably not. Otherwise you don't have anyone else backing up your claims than uneducated politicians or people making claims outside their area of expertise.

So there you have it Johnny. A wrong answer to all 10 questions. A complete failure to follow the scientific process. All the hallmarks of pseudoscientific claims with juuuust the tiniest bit of bad science mixed in.

 

[Yawkey way]

Perhaps not but the infiltration of religious groups into the US political landscape is frightening. The evangelicals are a death cult that literally want to end the world and have made themselves a nice nest inside US policy making.

So many politicians are for sale, campaign funding is a massive issue.

I’ve seen this stuff linked to British politics and the establishment of the state of Israel, I’ve always just flicked past like an Area 51 doco. Pretty worrying stuff if people in positions of power are cheerleaders of a death cult, who’d have thought that after turning 60 last I’m still constantly being surprised.

Makes me realise how lucky my generation has been in so many ways.

 

[gringo2011]

I actually agree with Johnny on a few things.
We can learn a lot from our indigenous peoples. They are custodians of this land, they have been for an unbelievable amount of time. They remain so now, despite the white invasion and now multicultural occupation of this land. Their practices have served them well but arguments can be made that strategies which worked for millenia may now be obsolete. The Earth has been changed - its atmosphere is now warmer, the flora and fauna are altered, and the combustible loads are different to what used to be. The timing of burns has to be more critically planned, there are more interests to take into account. Our society already has rules and regulations that take the decision-making away from random individuals and given to trained experts who make risk assessments to decide when and where to burn.

We have to learn to trust these true Australians with a more complex situation than they traditionally had to deal with.

A lot of traditional ways have ben lost through interventions in their traditional way of life. One of my cousins is half Indigenous, he would have no more idea than me. There are very few victorian tribes that have been allowed to keep their traditions alive. The guys who still burn in the top end can't be transplanted down to Victoria and do the same thing. The top end guys have maintained grasslands for a long time which gives them hunting grounds. Thick forest isn't the same. Indigenous Australians were great land managers but it's simplistic to suggest it will fix everything.

 

[Mowman]

So many politicians are for sale, campaign funding is a massive issue.

I’ve seen this stuff linked to British politics and the establishment of the state of Israel, I’ve always just flicked past like an Area 51 doco. Pretty worrying stuff if people in positions of power are cheerleaders of a death cult, who’d have thought that after turning 60 last I’m still constantly being surprised.

Makes me realise how lucky my generation has been in so many ways.

ALL are for sale
None of them worth a pinch of sh1t

 

[Kildonan]

Nancy LeTourneau | Washington Monthly

washingtonmonthly.com

Does Nancy LeTourneau seem fair and balanced to you?.

Yes she does to me.
Do you think otherwise?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I actually agree with Johnny on a few things.
We can learn a lot from our indigenous peoples. They are custodians of this land, they have been for an unbelievable amount of time. They remain so now, despite the white invasion and now multicultural occupation of this land. Their practices have served them well but arguments can be made that strategies which worked for millenia may now be obsolete. The Earth has been changed - its atmosphere is now warmer, the flora and fauna are altered, and the combustible loads are different to what used to be. The timing of burns has to be more critically planned, there are more interests to take into account. Our society already has rules and regulations that take the decision-making away from random individuals and given to trained experts who make risk assessments to decide when and where to burn.

We have to learn to trust these true Australians with a more complex situation than they traditionally had to deal with.

As a scientist Kildonian, why do you think they are better equipped to deal with the topic?
I can't see why you would decide such things based upon race.

I don't believe in racial memories.

 

[Moral Decay]

I actually agree with Johnny on a few things.
We can learn a lot from our indigenous peoples. They are custodians of this land, they have been for an unbelievable amount of time. They remain so now, despite the white invasion and now multicultural occupation of this land. Their practices have served them well but arguments can be made that strategies which worked for millenia may now be obsolete. The Earth has been changed - its atmosphere is now warmer, the flora and fauna are altered, and the combustible loads are different to what used to be. The timing of burns has to be more critically planned, there are more interests to take into account. Our society already has rules and regulations that take the decision-making away from random individuals and given to trained experts who make risk assessments to decide when and where to burn.

We have to learn to trust these true Australians with a more complex situation than they traditionally had to deal with.

Sorry but what empirical evidence do you have that indigenous practices were safe or sustainable?

Apart from the accepted narrative all research indicates a gradual and massive change in the make up of Australian flora and fauna, from first landfall that continues to this day, this isn't me this is Tim Flannery in The Future Eaters; Danielle Clode, The Megafauna of Australia: and Altered Ecologies: Fire, climate and human influence on terrestrial landscapes, vol32 by Haberle, Stevenson and Prebble. Flannery and Clode deliberately avoid the question of apportioning blame for the effects and causes of fire management and extinction of mega fauna, because of the political sensitivities, it's contentious. We still have an upto 80% extinction of megafauna and the change of 10% fire regenerative species to 90% of forest makeup.

Until the 1970's in the USA fire was regarded as just part of the environment and that everything just grew back, but successive studies at that time shocked researchers because American forests did not grow back the same. In Australian forests the whole evolution of fire regenerative species is that they change the environment to suit themselves and that involves burning out competitors and changing the fertility of soils to suit their own needs. This destruction isn't just Australia this is every continent where modern man has laid his foot, it's just that in Australia the destruction was worse than every other continent, if anything what we can learn from indigenous practices is that they don't work and need to be studied for what not to do.

For anyone that wants to continue the idea that climate change caused these extinctions, the same patterns of localised climate change every where and every time modern man brought fire to new environment we've been changing the climate or as long as we've come out of Africa. Yes there is the eating them to death aspect for the megafauna, these events are part of a pattern where one doesn't exist without the other but these weren't problems that occurred when other hominid species came out of Africa.

How different it is when our perspective is 200 years when we need our perspective to be 100,000 years, because we're not going to get a functioning answer to ecological management until we understand what the problems are. Hiding behind Indigenous traditions is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

 

[Grav]

I don't give a rats arse whose to blame for the different climatic conditions that I grew up with, all I would like to see is the powers to be, stop selling Australia to cotton picking farmers, mining moguls that keep using excessive water & the over of cutting down trees. Would love my 2 1/2 yo grandson to enjoy some of the things I had as a child.

 

[Enclosed_Animal]

Every rare occasion l visit this thread, l leave appalled by some of the idiotic sh1t that some (usually the same) posters continue to spew out on subjects they clearly know nothing about.

A perfect demonstration of the ego driven thought patterns, pseudo intellectualism and fear

Nailed it bro

It might surprise you, but I sit in the centre in the political and social spectrum. I am neither left or right wing.

Yet in the last week …

The education system has unfortunately gone left wing, especially in unis. It's become really bad that these sheltered academics that have achieved nothing in the real world are trying to brainwash kids out of high school

All these urban elites and latte sipping vegan greenies need to get their heads out of their arse and stop this madness!

Geez, I love smashing this little green uptopia some want to live in.

those hippy w***ers that chained themselves to trees and Comrade Andrews who ignored the threats from the likes of Packham for years should be on the front lines in Victoria and out in the scrub. But...I doubt they would be very welcome or actually any help at all. Typical. Maybe Dan should stay away in his Mulgrave mansion and the hippies keep ordering their vegan salads in Brunswick.

Lastly, I'm sure we might catch you on TV holding up a fake piece of coal and a ScoMo caused the bushfires placard at one of these far left wing lunatic Greenie protests tomorrow admist the tragedy of a bad bushfire season.

Thanks to the green lunacy, they never listened or got the job done in time.

Stop linking the current bushfires to climate change to try help a green ideology based agenda get more traction, its devious BS.

Yeah, I'm sure there might be a bit of a link between co2 and some increased temperatures but its been utilised for propaganda purposes and exaggerated for political based ends linked to Green ideology.

This was also a personal favourite.

I am a lot more worried about an asteroid wiping out Earth and the expansion of China (which are real threats) over global warming which is being wildly exaggerated and used by rogue environmentals and socialists to try ruin the world to their pipedream.

It's all good to make the planet a better place in any area but let's not fall for the hysterical far left mob or a 16 year old child abused actor to get there.

The internet really is an interesting window into how some people rationalise the world. And themselves ...

 

[Johnnyrayflamingo]

Nailed it bro



Yet in the last week …











This was also a personal favourite.


The internet really is an interesting window into how some people rationalise the world. And themselves ...

And?

I sit in the centre as stated.

This is a left wing forum.

Fact and fact.

What a waste of copying and pasting.

 

[Johnnyrayflamingo]

No actually. It isn't. It's science. And I can quite easily display the difference between my scientific claims and your pseudoscientific claims.

Every claim ever made about climate change is subject to change. In fact, every scientific claim ever made is subject to change. Scientific evidence is falsifiable, this isn't a bug it's a feature. People like you saying "look see science was wrong 40 years ago" means nothing. We agree on that, but the difference is that scientific models used to try and predict reality were refined and updated. Being falsifiable is the very foundation of science and your pseudoscientific claims that "the traditional custodians of the land" knew what they were doing, or that "greenies are to blame" or that "climate change is a hoax by greenie scientists" etc etc. Are not scientific claims, they are pseudoscience at best and name calling at worst. You haven't devised or referenced a falsifiable test that disproves climate change.

In fact, claiming that traditional elders, ancient scholars or any other similar almost mythical historical figures is one of the most common features of pseudoscience. Seen in "alternative" medicine such as acupuncture, chiropractic therapy, healing crystals, essential oils and so on and so on. They all make the claim that we should learn from thousands of year old methods that were and still are completely unscientific. Unscientific because science wasn't around when these "traditional methods" were created. In all reality these are about as accurate as wives tales saying your eyes will go square if you look at a tv for too long, or eating lots of carrots gives you night vision.

Next, science develops hypotheses and tests based on observation that model reality and are replicable. Not once have I seen you show me a replicable test demonstrating why climate change isn't real. Instead you use outliers such as the 74/75 bushfires which were, as we now know, already 70+ years after the onset of climate change due to industrialization. You try to point at one example as if that disproves the entire collection of data, hypotheses and models that have been tested, falsified and then been proven true over the last half a century. Perhaps you're right Johnny, perhaps there are things science hasn't considered about climate change. But the difference between scientists and you is that we accept when we're wrong, incorporate the new data and update the models we have to now predict the outliers. As an example of this, Isaac Newton developed a working theory of gravity and motion. He however was wrong, at least in some cases, see his theories only worked on earth with an earthlike gravity. So while Einstein was developing his theory of relativity, he didn't throw out Newton's work he augmented it with an updated understanding of how what was previously thought of as a constant; gravity, can actually be a variable along with some other bug fixes per se.

Not only do you not, nor have you, referenced replicable tests; you haven't even referenced falsifiable tests. You haven't referenced any tests. Your theories don't model reality, your hypotheses can be disproven with the most basic of google search and here's the next key. You don't update your views when you're proven wrong. That is another key indicator of pseudoscience. Many pseudoscientific publications are printed and when proven wrong are not updated. Thousands of copies, hundreds of editions and not one revision. Pseudoscience doesn't admit when it's wrong, that doesn't mean it isn't wrong, you just have to work slightly harder to prove it. And the fact that even though it is so easy to disprove, they still won't update their (sometimes thousands of year old) claims should be evidence enough to you that they're unscientific.

Next we have some questions that we can ask to try and figure out whether something is bad science and/or pseudoscience. Question 1, what is the source of your counter claims? Is it the majority of scientists? No, it's a very small minority of less published and almost never referenced scientists, and a collection of partisan hacks, billionaire oil and mining magnates, and Rupert Murdoch. This leads us very nicely into question 2, what is the agenda? Now if I were a betting man I'd suggest that the common agenda amongst all these groups is to make money; climate change quite obviously steps in the way of that. Question 3, what kind of language do your counter claimants use? Is it scientific language that hedges bets and supports claims with excess evidence? No, it is people making outlandish claims with little to no evidence. The claims are usually emotive, and attempt to anger people into support, and there are a lot of expressive techniques used (exclamation marks, bolded words, caps locked writing etc). Question 4, does it involve testimonials over actual data? Yes, quite clearly. Since you've not presented data, the entirety of your claims are based on testimonials and personal experience. Question 5, are there claims of exclusivity? "People have been doing this for thousands of years", next. Question 6, is there mention or mentions of conspiracy/ies? Yes, you claim that the entirety of science is part of some giant conspiracy to... save the world? You claim that all climate scientists falsify data, you claim that climate science is a hoax etc. Question 7, does the claim involve multiple "disorders"? Damage to many body systems, many health benefits, or in this case many social implications, yes. Question 8, Is there a money trail or passionate belief involved? Yes and yes. Money trail from the billionaires, passionate belief from the idiots who listen to them. Question 9, were real scientific processes used? No. As I quite explicitly explained earlier not a single reference from you has been scientific in any form. Question 10, is there expertise? Sort of. Expertise is defined as people with Bachelor's, PhDs, specialists or researchers in the relevant field and with current knowledge. Now sure, the 80 year old you talked about may well have been an expert, is he still one considering science has progressed for 30 years without him? Probably not. Otherwise you don't have anyone else backing up your claims than uneducated politicians or people making claims outside their area of expertise.

So there you have it Johnny. A wrong answer to all 10 questions. A complete failure to follow the scientific process. All the hallmarks of pseudoscientific claims with juuuust the tiniest bit of bad science mixed in.

Do you honestly believe half this stuff you write...OMG.



I wish I had the spare time to respond to most of this dribble but I don't unfortunately. The fact you still think 15 year old kids would do better in government than expierenced adults from a number of different backgrounds pretty much sums it up!
Time to get off your Nintendo Wi sonny jim and enter the real world.

 

[Crusty Undies]

Do you honestly believe half this stuff you write...OMG.

No actually I don't believe it. I prove it.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I don't give a rats arse whose to blame for the different climatic conditions that I grew up with, all I would like to see is the powers to be, stop selling Australia to cotton picking farmers, mining moguls that keep using excessive water & the over of cutting down trees. Would love my 2 1/2 yo grandson to enjoy some of the things I had as a child.

There's a certain amount that's population related.

I know as a child , there were places i could go and sit, and swim in a creek.

Go into the dandenong's and you are queuing up.
We only have so many of these national resources , they are less accessible than ever, and more people.

 

[SaintersUnite]

Johnnyrayflamingo okay, serious question. Look at the graph that was posted about our country getting consistently hotter throughout history. Now, even if it didn’t START the bushfires, because like you pointed out we as a country have had them lots of times in the past, surely you can agree that climate change has made these current ones worse than they could have been? If the country was not consistently getting hotter, these fires could have been put out and contained a lot more easily than what we are witnessing.

 

[Kildonan]

And?

I sit in the centre as stated.

This is a left wing forum.

Fact and fact.

What a waste of copying and pasting.

This is a footy forum. You are bringing the right wing agenda in here and by comparison to you everybody is left wing, despite your protestations of centrism

 

[mightymalaka]

And?

I sit in the centre as stated.

This is a left wing forum.

Fact and fact.

What a waste of copying and pasting.

I'm starting to think you may well need a compass, and glasses
To go with the Pills and Medication you have clearly ignored for 20 years!

Never before has the Centre leaned as far Right as what you have us all to believe!
Sure the are plenty of obvious Lefties on here
But don't insult us all with your claim that you are smack in the centre of the political spectrum!
You are exactly like everyone else, at least own it and claim your allegiance
Trying to pass yourself off as the central common sense thinker, when it's as clear as the shiny pimple on my arse
That your an old school Rightie does not do you or your beliefs any favours!

 

[Mowman]

This thread LOL

one getting so many triggered

 

[George]

This thread LOL

one getting so many triggered

Don't tell me how to feel!

 

[gringo2011]

This thread LOL

one getting so many triggered

A human hand grenade.

 

[jwikked]

Don't tell me how to feel!

Feelings are a leftist conspiracy