K-9

All seriousness? Better count me out, then.

Wow, as luck would have it, we have actual footage of Mandela dancing, so we have to go with this one. Not sure what it's called, though. We can work on naming it.

Although they didn't talk, there are rumors of dry erase board messages, hand signals, and other non verbal communication taking place at those summer league games. This is footage of Stan Bowman gesturing towards Vesey at his last game. Experts are trying to ascertain the meaning but it's clear he means two of something. And another of Bowman and Quenneville at a previous game (don't let the disguises fool you)

I'll have to give it some thought, but I'm gonna eliminate Irish clog dancing right off the bat. Apologies to Michael Flatley.

Depends. I'm waiting on the Mike Pence translation for the crystal clarity of Trump's meaning. Seriously, he was joking, like he jokes about other things. But it's the epitome of poor taste. There are some things you just can't joke about. Especially mere weeks after one of his advisers prompted a Secret Service investigation when he suggested Clinton should be shot for treason. It's a pattern of irresponsible rhetoric and I'm not convinced it doesn't thoroughly appeal to a segment of his fans. And that borders on dangerous.

Something about the term "making a big push" just doesn't jive with "no tampering".

Is there anything wrong with that? That said, he leaves himself wide open for charges of hypocrisy and other scrutiny. Goes with the territory.

There are lessons for all of us in this professor's response, regardless of political stripe, and certainly not confined to Black Lives Matter, but also to life in general. http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/law-professors-epic-response-to-black-lives-matter-shirt-complaint/

Bernie preaches not being successful, rich, and owning houses? Is he unwilling to pay the higher tax rates he proposes for those in his bracket? Is he paying the same 13% that Romney was paying? If that's true, then he has some 'splainin to do Lucy.

I disagree we can never fully he sure, we just have to wait for Pence's routine explanation of what Trump "clearly" means. Explainer in Chief is one helluva important position in Trump's cabinet.

Please confine the discussion to the very specific area of global warming/climate change. I'm not calling believers deniers, I'm calling deniers, deniers. There are those who flat out deny that global warming/climate change is occurring and/or human beings don't play a role in that. They, themselves, refer to themselves as deniers. I suppose if I denied Christ, it wouldn't bother me that a Christian called me a denier because that is what I would be, after all.

Didn't a Trump adviser, a few weeks ago, say that Clinton should be shot for treason and that resulted in an investigation by the Secret Service, the very security force tasked with guarding Trump and other candidates? The irony is palpable. But it's concerning that this is becoming a pattern of rhetoric.

Has the "apologizer" in chief" Mike Pence been sent out to explain what Trump "clearly" meant, yet? Every couple of days he has to walk back the asinine comments made by that knucklehead.

Outstanding.

How could I not guessed regulations. Like they haven't been cut enough since the 80s and the foxes haven't been guarding the hen house, anyway. Trickle-down, "voodoo" economics has been repudiated by more economists than there are scientists that agree on global warming and climate change. Not surprised The Donald dusted off that old relic.

I think you're painting with too broad of a brush here and I'm more center than left, anyway. I don't care if people are wrong. I've been wrong about countless things and expect to be wrong about many more in the time I have left. If I get over-heated at times, it's because I have a low tolerance for flat out manipulation of facts and obfuscation for no other purpose than to marginalize those who take time to acquaint themselves with issues and have reached certain conclusions about them without based on that research and NOT because of a blind buy-in to some ideology as I was accused of, yet again, by a certain board member today. I had asked you twice to clarify the points you said I was missing by you, eleven, and sizzld, as I'm not opposed to being edified. You chose to not to do that and instead moved the goalposts on the issue of water vapor in the atmosphere. So be it.

Why is the word "deniers" derisive, condescending, or smug? Would it be better to say "skeptics"? It would also be easier to discuss if people didn't reclassify benign words and find insult where none is intended. Again, I risk suspension because I honestly don't know what constitutes the "abusive behavior" cited as the reason to do so. Perhaps it would be entirely easier to discuss without my participation. I bow out with a standing ovation from the right. Yippee!

Ah yes, carbon dioxide. I'm surprised it isn't a noble gas all by itself. It's gotten such a bad rap. I mean just a few short years ago, the coal industry was actually publishing propaganda that suggested burning coal was a good thing because it helps trees and that MORE of it in the atmosphere is actually a positive outcome. We owe it to nature to dig miles into the earth and strip the tops off mountains because it needs all the trapped CO2 in order to survive. It would be easier to embrace some of these counter-arguments by the deniers if crap like that wasn't foisted upon us.

Didn't hear the speech and didn't read a lick of the linked NYT story, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict his major economic plan is to lower taxes, especially corporate taxes, which are the highest in the world because that will create jobs by making it better for people to start small businesses. Am I close?

Has he been properly introduced to Butt and Fuchs? I can't believe I just typed that.

As I understood the point, it was to suggest that since water vapor comprises 95% of all green house gas in the atmosphere, the left would never point that out because it just isn't scary enough. Is there a bit of nuance I didn't catch there? If the point was to create an equivalency between water vapor and other green house gases, I don't buy it. I didn't laugh at the graph, I laughed at the suggestion that water vapor poses the same threat to our atmosphere as other green house gases. It doesn't by it's very cyclical nature. I certainly never made the assertion that water vapor isn't a factor in climate and the heating of the atmosphere. But I doubt that mankind has contributed large amounts of new water vapor into the atmosphere. You just can't say the same about fossil fuels previously trapped inside the earth.

I don't understand the science? Sorry, but I'm not the one who suggested that water vapor, because of it's sheer abundance in our atmosphere, is the most threatening of the green house gases. And the way you worded the argument was clumsy, too. Green house gases are not 95% water vapor as each green house gas is 100% of what it is, period. Methane is CH4, carbon dioxide is CO2, etc. You meant to say that water vapor comprises 95% of the green house gas in the atmosphere. But you conveniently just leave it at that and don't bother pointing out that water vapor recycles and doesn't stay in the atmosphere very long, while other green house gases, carbon dioxide especially, stays in the atmosphere far, far longer. That is not an insignificant thing to ignore. No, I don't profess to understand much of the science, let alone all of it. But I do understand what side of the argument makes the most sense. Perhaps much of that goes back to my COMSAT days when I worked closely with NOAA and NASA back in the early 90s and they first started getting results derived from entirely new instrumentation and technologies. Certainly, nobody had to scare me into that stance. It's not about being scared, anyway. It's about meeting challenges.

And water vapor also recycles. Carbon dioxide, methane, other gases tend to stay in the atmosphere for long periods. I like the comparison to the tobacco industry, too. For decades, they had no compunction about bald faced lies, either.

Which is what, exactly? I understand Eleven's point about making a determination of the costs involved if we determine human culpability and I can respect that. It's an important, perhaps most important, consideration moving forward. Sizzle pointed out that I'm a leftist, ideological bully. But what else is new? Oh, and he tried to convince me that water vapor is the real danger when it comes to green house gases with a nice colorful chart. I can't stop laughing at that one.