Climate change .. the SCAM.

Looks like the whacco kid got his chimpabilly ass handed to him one more time..........LMAO

you'll have to shout very loud chimp. ignore is a wonderful thing yes?

[QUOTE=Munchmasterman;105819711 5]

Your link doesn't work. Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

The link does work, Manassmuncher

Here try it again... https://deweesereport.com/

Here is your last little bit of wisdom.

[QUOTE=The_Waco_Kid;1058197792][QUOTE=Munchmasterman;105819708 5]
not really, you got a lot of that from an entirely different thread on Obama's economy, it wasn't even directed at you. you must be grasping at dingle berries to go to such efforts to deflect.
[QUOTE=The_Waco_Kid;1058190460]

Rather than recalling or reading your own words, you come out of the blocks with a lie on your lips. Instead of manning up and owning your own words, you say they came from a different thread and not directed at me.
So what does your word mean at this point? You disavow your own words. Words written in the permanent record, for all to see and by you, that you claim don't refer to "climate change". Then I'm grasping at dingle berries in my efforts to deflect? Deflect what?
Your words are shit. Your words are uninformed and lies.
I have thoughtfully included the posts in which I claim you said something and which you claim you didn't.
All are from this thread. Page 39 to the current page.

I posted information on the southern ozone hole from the NASA website.
Your response was:
you quote garbage from gigo sources. GIGO=GarbageInGarbageOut.

anything NASA says is tainted. if you believe it, you are tainted. Idiot.
You then told me the reason that was true was because they were government funded. They had no objectiveness because they were government fund. Tainted also means no integrity. You remember those pictures of bread and butter you added.

After I pointed out NASA was staffed by some of the finest scientists in the world, you came back with;

so NASA is the end all be all on this debate? right!! there are many other well funded and reputable groups studying this issue, why should NASA's work be held higher than others? just because they are NASA?

A worm, thrashing on the hook. Feeling the barbed point being shoved up your ass.

so NASA is the end all be all on this debate? I never said that. I cited them and you dismissed them as a source out of hand with the most idiotic reason I have seen posted. right!! there are many other well funded and reputable groups studying this issue, That's right. I never said there weren't. Name a couple that are as highly regarded as NASA and links to the subject matter. You claim climate change is a scam. What info (links, etc.) led you to this conclusion? why should NASA's work be held higher than others? I never said it should. What others am I dissing in your eyes? just because they are NASA? That's a stupid thing to say. No wait, that's the only smart thing you've said. Yes. Because they are NASA. They are one of the true gold standards in the world. A gold standard that your judgement sees as lead. The only links you referenced to me were op-ed pieces. You know, other people's opinions. Opinions, with limited factual value..

You also said, if you don't like the threads i start, don't post in them. Or you'll take your ball and go home? Too bad you can't be honest on your own. go start one of your own. you do know how don't you?? Your stupid is showing. You know I know how to. And when I do, have at it. Post links as you've proven your word is worthless.

like assup says .. with one click .. SNICK! NARF! So assup is your hero? He is right. Or put me on ignore you whiny bitch.

Next, the tainted NASA post.

Once again you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. Once again you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

History of the Ozone Hole
Throughout the 20th century, discoveries and observations trickled in that would allow scientists to understand how human-made chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons create a hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica each spring.
As early as 1912, Antarctic explorers recorded observations of unusual veil-type clouds in the polar stratosphere, although they could not have known at the time how significant those clouds would become. In 1956, the British Antarctic Survey set up the Halley Bay Observatory on Antarctica in preparation for the International Geophysical Year (IGY) of 1957. In that year, ozone measurements using a Dobson Spectrophotometer began.

Instruments on the ground (at Halley) and high above Antarctica (the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer [TOMS] and Ozone Monitoring Instrument [OMI]) measured an acute drop in total atmospheric ozone during October in the early and middle 1980s. (Halley data supplied by J. D. Shanklin, British Antarctic Survey ).
These measurements gave the first clues that there was trouble in the ozone layer. In 1985, a group of scientists (J. C. Farman, B. G. Gardiner, and J. D. Shanklin) published in the journal Nature the first paper on observations of springtime losses of ozone over Antarctica. In 1986, NASA scientists used satellite data from the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) and the Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet (SBUV) instrument to demonstrate that the ozone hole is a regional-scale Antarctic phenomenon.
Between 1986 and 1987, several papers suggested possible mechanisms for the ozone hole, including chemical, dynamical (meteorological), and solar cycle influences. Among the key papers explaining the atmospheric chemistry of CFCs and ozone depletion was one by Susan Solomon and several colleagues. The paper also emphasized the need for polar stratospheric clouds to explain the reaction chemistry. Also in 1986, Michael B. McElroy and colleagues described a role for bromine in ozone-depleting reactions. Paul Crutzen and Frank Arnold proposed that the polar stratospheric clouds could be made of nitric acid trihydrate, which would explain the clouds’ presence at an altitude and temperature that should not have been cold enough for the tiny amount of pure water vapor present in the stratosphere to condense.
Observational evidence of the role of chlorine in ozone loss continued to mount during that same period. For example, the National Ozone Expedition (NOZE) measured elevated levels of the chemical chlorine dioxide (OClO) during the springtime ozone hole from McMurdo Research Station. Then in 1987, the Antarctic Airborne Ozone Expedition flew the ER-2 and DC-8 research aircraft from Punta Arenas, Chile, into the Antarctic Vortex.

Aircraft measurements in the late 1980s confirmed the link between CFCs, chlorine, and ozone loss. Here a NASA ER-2 high-altitude research aircraft lifts off from Kiruna, Sweden on a mission to study Arctic ozone. (NASA Dryden Flight Research Center photo EC00-0037-22)
The aircraft observations produced the “smoking gun” linking CFC-derived chlorine to the ozone hole. The flight data showed a negative correlation between chlorine monoxide (ClO) and ozone: the higher the concentration of ClO, the lower the concentration of ozone. In 1988, the husband and wife team Mario and Luisa Molina described the chemical reactions through which ClO catalyzes the extremely rapid destruction of ozone.
NASA has been monitoring the status of the ozone layer through satellite observations since the 1970s, beginning with the TOMS sensors on the Nimbus satellites. The latest-generation ozone-monitoring technology, the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI), is flying onboard NASA’s Aura satellite.


http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/history_SH.html Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

you quote garbage from gigo sources. GIGO=GarbageInGarbageOut.

anything NASA says is tainted. if you believe it, you are tainted. Idiot. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Nice blanket statement. I don't want to strain your brain so I won't ask you what part is wrong. You just stick with j douche and all his "correct" info. Must be nice to live in the back woods where "cause I say so" means something other than you don't know the answer. Just becaue it works for trump.only because he doesn't have to be correct. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

i don't live in the back woods fucktard. i live in Dallas. in a rather upscale neighborhood. out of your league i would expect ..

or do you actually think i live in Waco? ahahaha

this is a thread about climate change. go post your political views somewhere else.

oh wait this is the Political Forum ahahah

can you stay on topic? or is that too much to ask? munchface?

NASA know who butters its bread boy. the Government, the same Government yelling "Climate Change .. Climate Change!!"



got it now? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

So you inherited money? You couldn't have earned it.

Several things.
Who gives a shit where you're from? I figured the sticks because you can't back up what you say.

What political views did I post in this thread? Like you have any say ass breath.

My post was a reply to a post. In this thread. That makes it on topic.

So what if NASA knows where it's butter comes from. You mean you don't know where yours comes from?
The difference is they publish their info so that greatly reduces the odds they're lying. I don't see many legitimate sources refuting them.
You on the other hand "publish" here and that YMCA website you're always talking about. They publish info that can be independently confirmed.
You rely on the "cause I say so" and the fact you don't read the whole post.

None of that is my problem. Neither is you being mad at me 'cause I was mean to you or you going to the Driskill. Way over priced. For the tourists. Unless you like that great view of a bunch of buildings taller than the one you'll be in or all the drunks you'll be wading though.
I would of suggested the Omni, the Hyatt, the Radisson, or the 4 Seasons.
Those are hotels too. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Next, wacko plays the millionaire card.

your problem is obvious., you have your head up your ass. yeah i inherited money. did you? so sorry your parents were poor. not my problem.

and by the way, i do make a lot of money. on top of what i inherited. which i prudently invested

in 10 years i'm on track to be a millionaire, can you make the same claim?

stick to the topic of this thread. Global climate change is a scam. it's a fraud

they the arrogant punks at the UN admit it. read my very first post in this thread dick for brains

these people are so arrogant, they know they have all the G20 nations backing them, that they can say whatever they want .. even the truth and it doesn't matter. that's how big of a scam it is. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

[QUOTE=Munchmasterman;105818897 5]

well now, these are some really arrogant people aren't they? they ADMIT Climate change is not just a scam, it's the New World Order! jeez you'd think these dummies could keep their mouths shut? but that's what arrogance gets you eh?

So .. how many of you "Climate Change" freaktards are gonna keep yapping it's real now?



http://www.investors.com/politics/ed...warming-scare/
The above is op-ed.
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
So what is the goal of environmental policy?
“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer."


http://www.investors.com/another-cli...tt=naomi+klein
The above is op-ed.


"Klein’s statement is perfectly in line with Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, and in fact is almost an echo. Figueres acknowledged earlier this year that the environmental activists’ goal is not to spare the world an ecological disaster, but to destroy capitalism."


http://www.investors.com/climate-cha...obal%20warming

Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.” You know what a model is, right? It's not part of controlling things. It's part of predicting.[/QUOTE]

Your links go to editorials. In an economic publication.
It wasn't discussing the mechanisms of global climate change. It was discussing the economic aspects, among other things, but it is an op-ed piece. It's one persons take on information associated with climate change. Possible economic impacts and possible ways to take advantage of.

But again, its one persons opinion about other people's opinions



Nothing in the OP has furthered the cause of the "climate change" deniers. There is no new scientific information in the articles because it's mostly about what changes global economics might go through, trying to figure out models to predict directions things might go.
It is an editorial. An opinion. It actually proves nothing.
You agreeing with it adds no weight to its validity.

Remember we discussed you being unable to tell opinion from fact? Good example right here.

Nothing you post suggests you have money. On the contrary your boasts of inheriting, earning, and investment prowess (along with your choice of hotel for a weekend stay in Austin) say the opposite. You're touchy about money. Why would you feel the need to respond to me about your finances? On an anonymous website? With no way to prove the info?
On top of all that is the main reason. I don't give a shit. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

[QUOTE=Munchmasterman;105819044 0][QUOTE=The_Waco_Kid;1058189453]

your problem is obvious., you have your head up your ass. yeah i inherited money. did you? so sorry your parents were poor. not my problem.

and by the way, i do make a lot of money. on top of what i inherited. which i prudently invested

in 10 years i'm on track to be a millionaire, can you make the same claim?

stick to the topic of this thread. Global climate change is a scam. it's a fraud ,

they the arrogant punks at the UN admit it. read my very first post in this thread dick for brains" and the immortal, say "this thread is full of articles, not related to economic models, that dispute climate change" so after you define the portion of the thread you are talking about and you get a response derived from that portion you don't have to eat another mis-stated post

QUOTE]

4500+ posts and you don't know how it's done or understand the logic of doing it this way. There are many other processes that work besides this one. You seldom use any of them.
I'll type slow for you.

A thread contains posts. The first post is called the OP. The OP is submitted by the thread starter and contains the original topic(s).
Because threads can contain many pieces of information, most people hit the ""quote" button which includes the post you are replying to.
That's where you discuss, challenge information with no links, ask and answer questions. And of course we hurl our insults (Does the truth insult? Is a statement that is true an insult? Should it be? Has wacko ever sucked a dick bigger than mine?).
If you are responding to several quotes you use.....that's right! Multi quotes.
So if you post something that will be questioned, including a link to the info is a good idea. In the interest of discussion, answer questions (that are germane to the post).
Someone who dodges or ignores valid questions about a topic or claims they've made is the classic "cause I say so" douche-bag or the asshole who claims something is there for all to see but they can't explain it. These losers numbers have leaped due to the internet. The societal recluses are that way for a reason
But I digress.
If you reference a specific post in the thread and it's attached links such as wacko's post containing "they the arrogant punks at the UN admit it. read my very first post in this thread dick for brains" and the response (partial), "Nothing in the OP has furthered the cause of the "climate change" deniers. There is no new scientific information in the articles because it's mostly about what changes global economics might go through, trying to figure out models to predict directions things might go.
It is an editorial. An opinion. It actually proves nothing.
You agreeing with it adds no weight to its validity.

Remember we discussed you being unable to tell opinion from fact? Good example right here" don't squeal like a 9 year old girl, say "this thread is full of articles, not related to economic models, that dispute climate change" and pretend you suddenly don't know exactly which articles and posts are being talked about. It highlights your already exposed lack of credibility and habit of lying (examples available on request)
The number of lofted serves you've made which are returned with the ball embedding itself in your chest or the huge number of unforced errors tells the tale of your life. Go dry your new vagina and suck your "Uncle" Phil's dick Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

[QUOTE=The_Waco_Kid;1058190460][QUOTE=Munchmasterman;105819044 0][QUOTE=The_Waco_Kid;1058189453]

3,264 posts and you are still an idiot dickmuncher. post something, anything that proves your point. i've posted more than enough to prove mine. dickmuncher.[/QUOTE]
I'm not going to search 600 odd posts looking for facts that support denial. The amount caused by man is the debate. The subject being a scam is flat earth.
[QUOTE=Munchmasterman;105819708 5][QUOTE=The_Waco_Kid;1058190460]

You're a denier. No matter what information anyone posts, you claim it means nothing. While you post information that can be refuted by many sources, you refute by calling people idiots.
A quick example.
In post 585 I posted a link/content that refuted a post by j douche. He had included numerous factually incorrect components in his post, no links of course.
The article I posted contained information about the formation and other facts about the ozone hole that appears over Antarctica. Mostly measurements and a time line. You refuted my post with,

you quote garbage from gigo sources. GIGO=GarbageInGarbageOut.

anything NASA says is tainted. if you believe it, you are tainted. Idiot.

In one fell swoop, on your word alone and without any information on why you would say something like that, you try to eliminate one of the preeminent sources on atmospheric conditions in the world.
In your next post you astutely explain why NASA is tainted and that posting anything by them is airing my political views.

this is a thread about climate change. go post your political views somewhere else.

oh wait this is the Political Forum ahahah

can you stay on topic? or is that too much to ask? munchface?

NASA know who butters its bread boy. the Government, the same Government yelling "Climate Change .. Climate Change!!"

They have the specialized equipment to take readings and such. Their weather analysis is limited. You ignore the observations of some of the best scientists in the US as well as the world because you think they are like you. That they would sell out. NASA doesn't have large funding cuts come along without years of warnings

Forget the fact the ozone layer is part of the climate change dialog (topic) besides the fact my post was in response to one before it you cocksucking piece of shit.

So we're back to my premise that you can't tell opinion from fact. You haven't shown a single fact it doesn't exist let alone it's a scam.

The fact you try to keep this thread going proves what an asshole you are. When someone posts information that is linked to a credible source you attack the poster, not the information. Because that's all you can do.

What else have you got?
Besides hemorrhoids and herpes? Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

[QUOTE=The_Waco_Kid;1058197792][QUOTE=Munchmasterman;105819708 5]
not really, you got a lot of that from an entirely different thread on Obama's economy, it wasn't even directed at you. you must be grasping at dingle berries to go to such efforts to deflect.
[QUOTE=The_Waco_Kid;1058190460]

[QUOTE=Munchmasterman;105819710 0]

not really, you got a lot of that from an entirely different thread on Obama's economy, it wasn't even directed at you. you must be grasping at dingle berries to go to such efforts to deflect. No, just stop lying. This is the only thread I pulled info from. So just shut the fuck up. See above. It's not a nightmare. You are already awake. You are naked and unprepared in front of the class.
Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

To sum up, you're less than a man. You can't admit even the most obvious of mistakes. You made proven lies, made more lies to cover those lies up. The concept of personal responsibility eludes and baffles you.
Your parents should have hit you more

[QUOTE=IIFFOFRDB;1058198004]

The link does work, Manassmuncher

Here try it again... https://deweesereport.com/


Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

So what's your point? You believe anything you read on the internet?
This guy has enough people shooting holes in his bullshit. You don't need me.

[QUOTE=Munchmasterman;105819868 5]Here is your last little bit of wisdom.

[QUOTE=The_Waco_Kid;1058197792][QUOTE=Munchmasterman;105819708 5]
not really, you got a lot of that from an entirely different thread on Obama's economy, it wasn't even directed at you. you must be grasping at dingle berries to go to such efforts to deflect.
[QUOTE=The_Waco_Kid;1058190460]

Rather than recalling or reading your own words, you come out of the blocks with a lie on your lips. Instead of manning up and owning your own words, you say they came from a different thread and not directed at me.
So what does your word mean at this point? You disavow your own words. Words written in the permanent record, for all to see and by you, that you claim don't refer to "climate change". Then I'm grasping at dingle berries in my efforts to deflect? Deflect what?
Your words are shit. Your words are uninformed and lies.
I have thoughtfully included the posts in which I claim you said something and which you claim you didn't.
All are from this thread. Page 39 to the current page.

I posted information on the southern ozone hole from the NASA website.
Your response was:
you quote garbage from gigo sources. GIGO=GarbageInGarbageOut.

anything NASA says is tainted. if you believe it, you are tainted. Idiot.
You then told me the reason that was true was because they were government funded. They had no objectiveness because they were government fund. Tainted also means no integrity. You remember those pictures of bread and butter you added.

After I pointed out NASA was staffed by some of the finest scientists in the world, you came back with;

so NASA is the end all be all on this debate? right!! there are many other well funded and reputable groups studying this issue, why should NASA's work be held higher than others? just because they are NASA?

A worm, thrashing on the hook. Feeling the barbed point being shoved up your ass.

so NASA is the end all be all on this debate? I never said that. I cited them and you dismissed them as a source out of hand with the most idiotic reason I have seen posted. right!! there are many other well funded and reputable groups studying this issue, That's right. I never said there weren't. Name a couple that are as highly regarded as NASA and links to the subject matter. You claim climate change is a scam. What info (links, etc.) led you to this conclusion? why should NASA's work be held higher than others? I never said it should. What others am I dissing in your eyes? just because they are NASA? That's a stupid thing to say. No wait, that's the only smart thing you've said. Yes. Because they are NASA. They are one of the true gold standards in the world. A gold standard that your judgement sees as lead. The only links you referenced to me were op-ed pieces. You know, other people's opinions. Opinions, with limited factual value..

You also said, if you don't like the threads i start, don't post in them. Or you'll take your ball and go home? Too bad you can't be honest on your own. go start one of your own. you do know how don't you?? Your stupid is showing. You know I know how to. And when I do, have at it. Post links as you've proven your word is worthless.

like assup says .. with one click .. SNICK! NARF! So assup is your hero? He is right. Or put me on ignore you whiny bitch.

Next, the tainted NASA post.

Assup is the comedy clown of ECC. i like to make fun of him. here's his portrait .. you might recognize it











Next, wacko plays the millionaire card.



[QUOTE=Munchmasterman;105818897 5]

[QUOTE=Munchmasterman;105819044 0][QUOTE=The_Waco_Kid;1058189453]

[QUOTE=The_Waco_Kid;1058190460][QUOTE=Munchmasterman;105819044 0][QUOTE=The_Waco_Kid;1058189453]

3,264 posts and you are still an idiot dickmuncher. post something, anything that proves your point. i've posted more than enough to prove mine. dickmuncher.[/QUOTE]
I'm not going to search 600 odd posts looking for facts that support denial. The amount caused by man is the debate. The subject being a scam is flat earth.
[QUOTE=Munchmasterman;105819708 5][QUOTE=The_Waco_Kid;1058190460]

[QUOTE=The_Waco_Kid;1058197792][QUOTE=Munchmasterman;105819708 5]
not really, you got a lot of that from an entirely different thread on Obama's economy, it wasn't even directed at you. you must be grasping at dingle berries to go to such efforts to deflect.
[QUOTE=The_Waco_Kid;1058190460]

To sum up, you're less than a man. You can't admit even the most obvious of mistakes. You made proven lies, made more lies to cover those lies up. The concept of personal responsibility eludes and baffles you.
Your parents should have hit you more Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

you have too much free time on your hands, and you are too stupid to know it.

show me a link where i posted what you claim in this thread? can you even post a link?
probably not.

you are next. rest in peace eatfibo. he guested his account. he fought the liberal fight to the bitter end, but he died trying. so will you

http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1675891&page=21#303

http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1675891&page=21#305

bye bye eatfibo. eat more fiber!!!


shithead

[QUOTE=The_Waco_Kid;1058198747][QUOTE=Munchmasterman;105819868 5]Here is your last little bit of wisdom.

[QUOTE=The_Waco_Kid;1058197792][QUOTE=Munchmasterman;105819708 5]
not really, you got a lot of that from an entirely different thread on Obama's economy, it wasn't even directed at you. you must be grasping at dingle berries to go to such efforts to deflect.
[QUOTE=The_Waco_Kid;1058190460]

Rather than recalling or reading your own words, you come out of the blocks with a lie on your lips. Instead of manning up and owning your own words, you say they came from a different thread and not directed at me.
So what does your word mean at this point? You disavow your own words. Words written in the permanent record, for all to see and by you, that you claim don't refer to "climate change". Then I'm grasping at dingle berries in my efforts to deflect? Deflect what?
Your words are shit. Your words are uninformed and lies.
I have thoughtfully included the posts in which I claim you said something and which you claim you didn't.
All are from this thread. Page 39 to the current page.

I posted information on the southern ozone hole from the NASA website.
Your response was:
you quote garbage from gigo sources. GIGO=GarbageInGarbageOut.

anything NASA says is tainted. if you believe it, you are tainted. Idiot.
You then told me the reason that was true was because they were government funded. They had no objectiveness because they were government fund. Tainted also means no integrity. You remember those pictures of bread and butter you added.

After I pointed out NASA was staffed by some of the finest scientists in the world, you came back with;

so NASA is the end all be all on this debate? right!! there are many other well funded and reputable groups studying this issue, why should NASA's work be held higher than others? just because they are NASA?

A worm, thrashing on the hook. Feeling the barbed point being shoved up your ass.

so NASA is the end all be all on this debate? I never said that. I cited them and you dismissed them as a source out of hand with the most idiotic reason I have seen posted. right!! there are many other well funded and reputable groups studying this issue, That's right. I never said there weren't. Name a couple that are as highly regarded as NASA and links to the subject matter. You claim climate change is a scam. What info (links, etc.) led you to this conclusion? why should NASA's work be held higher than others? I never said it should. What others am I dissing in your eyes? just because they are NASA? That's a stupid thing to say. No wait, that's the only smart thing you've said. Yes. Because they are NASA. They are one of the true gold standards in the world. A gold standard that your judgement sees as lead. The only links you referenced to me were op-ed pieces. You know, other people's opinions. Opinions, with limited factual value..

You also said, if you don't like the threads i start, don't post in them. Or you'll take your ball and go home? Too bad you can't be honest on your own. go start one of your own. you do know how don't you?? Your stupid is showing. You know I know how to. And when I do, have at it. Post links as you've proven your word is worthless.

like assup says .. with one click .. SNICK! NARF! So assup is your hero? He is right. Or put me on ignore you whiny bitch.

Next, the tainted NASA post.

Assup is the comedy clown of ECC. i like to make fun of him. here's his portrait .. you might recognize it











Next, wacko plays the millionaire card.



[QUOTE=Munchmasterman;105818897 5]

[QUOTE=Munchmasterman;105819044 0][QUOTE=The_Waco_Kid;1058189453]

[QUOTE=The_Waco_Kid;1058190460][QUOTE=Munchmasterman;105819044 0][QUOTE=The_Waco_Kid;1058189453]

3,264 posts and you are still an idiot dickmuncher. post something, anything that proves your point. i've posted more than enough to prove mine. dickmuncher.[/QUOTE]
I'm not going to search 600 odd posts looking for facts that support denial. The amount caused by man is the debate. The subject being a scam is flat earth.
[QUOTE=Munchmasterman;105819708 5][QUOTE=The_Waco_Kid;1058190460]

[QUOTE=The_Waco_Kid;1058197792][QUOTE=Munchmasterman;105819708 5]
not really, you got a lot of that from an entirely different thread on Obama's economy, it wasn't even directed at you. you must be grasping at dingle berries to go to such efforts to deflect.

you have too much free time on your hands, and you are too stupid to know it.

show me a link where i posted what you claim in this thread? can you even post a link?
probably not.

you are next. rest in peace eatfibo. he guested his account. he fought the liberal fight to the bitter end, but he died trying. so will you

http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1675891&page=21#303

http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1675891&page=21#305

bye bye eatfibo. eat more fiber!!!


shithead



Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

What a fucking douche-bag. You want links to your own posts. Posts that are included in mine. I don't care if you can't find them and I'm sure not going to take the time to help you.
There is a huge difference between ignorant and stupid. You combine both to not have a clue what you don't know and the things you think you know you're wrong about.

Then you added some links. To an exchange between 2 people over shooting a point down. You didn't include the point. You didn't include how it was shot down or with what. Your normal link. Worthless.
Ironically the page those links go to has one of your beloved op-eds on it. No real facts that have anything to do with your own thread
You didn't address any points because you can't. You laid down some lame bullshit to cover your retreat and then crawled from the thread.
You're pathetic.

you'll have to shout very loud chimp. ignore is a wonderful thing yes?

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

You respond to his post in 7 minutes. So you're not ignoring him.

Can't you tell the truth about anything?

LMAO

You respond to his post in 7 minutes. So you're not ignoring him.

Can't you tell the truth about anything? Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Perhaps you do not understand if you have never had anyone on ignore. You can see they posted, it just doesn't automatically display the content.

Ekim008 knows this but is unable to discern the difference between knowing a post exists, and knowing what the post says. So, he gloats over a Pyrrhic victory, thinking he is superior, not understanding how stupid he truly is.

You, while annoying, aren't stupid - so I'll assume you have never bothered putting someone on ignore.

LMAO Originally Posted by i'va biggen

at you and your unfathomably huge stupidity.

0zombies would never astro-turf us would they... NO?


“Clean-Energy Jobs Surpass Oil Drilling for First Time in U.S.” So what?

David Middleton / 1 day ago May 26, 2016
Guest post by David Middleton



From Bloomberg…

The number of U.S. jobs in solar energy overtook those in oil and natural gas extraction for the first time last year, helping drive a global surge in employment in the clean-energy business as fossil-fuel companies faltered.

Employment in the U.S. solar business grew 12 times faster than overall job creation, the International Renewable Energy Agency said in a report on Wednesday. About 8.1 million people worldwide had jobs in the clean energy in 2015, up from 7.7 million in 2014, according to the industry group based in Abu Dhabi.

EXCEPT there is a BIG PROBLEM with this LIE... Check it out!https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/...n-u-s-so-what/

Perhaps you do not understand if you have never had anyone on ignore. You can see they posted, it just doesn't automatically display the content.

Ekim008 knows this but is unable to discern the difference between knowing a post exists, and knowing what the post says. So, he gloats over a Pyrrhic victory, thinking he is superior, not understanding how stupid he truly is.

You, while annoying, aren't stupid - so I'll assume you have never bothered putting someone on ignore. Originally Posted by DSK

As a matter of fact I have 2 on ignore.
Gay rey who, even though it is statistically unlikely, has not made a single relevant post.
And I. b. I'm tired of his large cut and paste, offensive insults. Every thread he starts validates, in his mind, something he's been saying for years.

0zombies would never astro-turf us would they... NO?


“Clean-Energy Jobs Surpass Oil Drilling for First Time in U.S.” So what?








EXCEPT there is a BIG PROBLEM with this LIE... Check it out!https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/...n-u-s-so-what/




Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

This is why Trump is winning. People are sick of the lies told to us like we are too stupid to handle the truth, and Trump effectively challengers the misleading leftist rhetoric.

The reason you put someone on ignore is so you can ignore the stupid shit they post, and have no need to reply to them. If you reply to something you have no idea what was said you have just doubled down on stupid. I could see what you posted because Munch quoted you.