Over 59614

Attacked Politics


TAGS: nevada rancher attacked by feds
Rating: 4.71/5

More politifakes by foxrecon19d

EmmaRoydes - April 21, 2014, 10:55 pm
Probably too late for that. This is the internet, it makes my heart bleed :)
foxrecon19d - April 21, 2014, 7:26 pm
Try not to let the feds know that you have acquired that knowledge. It is not allowed by the government.
EmmaRoydes - April 21, 2014, 7:13 pm
It appears that the BLM has its eyes on 90,000 acres of land in Texas (land that is already deeded to ranchers)



Welcome! With open arms and eyes wide shut! -

TAGS: parliament attacked by unvetted terrorist
Rating: 5/5

More politifakes by ScatXXVII

Aurielius - March 23, 2017, 10:12 am
Unfortunately the Terrorist was UK born...he was however on the MI-5 watch-list. It's always tempting to be current but concrete facts usually take at least 24 hours.

Resist and think for yourselves -

media lap dogs for democrats -

TAGS: hillary worshipped sarah attacked media bias more journalistic failure
Rating: 4.38/5

More politifakes by OTC

fauxnews - May 25, 2015, 10:59 pm
Words of wisdom, mate - Self-deprecating humor might work as a dodge if it wasn't already true that only person you ever make fun of with this stuff is yourself. ;-) Food for thought...
calron - May 25, 2015, 10:52 pm
What does my tin foil hat have to do with anything?
fauxnews - May 25, 2015, 10:50 pm
Translation (Calvon): The tinfoil thing is still getting to me :-/
calron - May 25, 2015, 10:47 pm
You have to try to mind read better than that.
fauxnews - May 25, 2015, 10:38 pm
Translation (Calvon): Ignoring him out loud by pretending I don't get the joke isn't working. Gotta keep trying, sweating now. And now, the tinfoil thing is pushing my b'uttons. :-/
calron - May 25, 2015, 10:35 pm
Come one faux, your spelling isn't that bad. Though your mind reading can use much more work.
fauxnews - May 25, 2015, 10:28 pm
Translation (Calvon): Time to triple down. Why isn't this working? How can he tell that he is pushing my b***ons? Is the bad spelling a nervous tic? I know he can't see me on my mom's computer. Need more tinfoil.
calron - May 25, 2015, 10:23 pm
Dang faux, your really on a roll with these admission tonight. :)
fauxnews - May 25, 2015, 10:20 pm
Translation (Calvon): Maybe if I double down and pretend 'again' that it doesn't bother me, he will buy it.
calron - May 25, 2015, 10:16 pm
Dang faux, I'd thought you'd never admit to that it ether. ;P
fauxnews - May 25, 2015, 9:31 pm
TRANSLATION (Calvon): I'll play stupid and pretend that I don't get it when he is sarcastically translating 'other' people's lame comebacks. Maybe he will be too distracted to know my notice my OWN lame comeback. =p
calron - May 25, 2015, 9:09 pm
Dang faux, I'd thought you'd never admit to it. :P
fauxnews - May 19, 2015, 8:17 pm
TRANSLATION (IMMAassEnnIBeeEss) http://i.imgur.com/Vw4sDg6.jpg
rebeccaolsen - May 19, 2015, 6:52 pm
So says the fail troll. At least you have enough sense not to call us "attack dogs" this time around. :) Your slip is showing, hun.
MMessEnnBeeCee - May 19, 2015, 5:13 pm
Are you always this obstinate or do you have problems controlling your ego?
fauxnews - May 19, 2015, 4:35 pm
TRANSLATION (OTC): I'm a Fox News fan denier. If it's reality, gotta deny it.
fauxnews - May 19, 2015, 4:34 pm
Fox News is not right leaning...lolololol..It's a far-right propaganda network. #REALITYFAIL
OTC - May 19, 2015, 3:44 pm
And that still doesn't say what you claim I said
OTC - May 19, 2015, 3:43 pm
I would think reasonable people would see an observation of one right leaning network compared to all the networks on the left. one opposing view compared to 5, & Fox isn't that far to the right. Showing how scared liberals are doesn't mean I'm a big fan
fauxnews - May 19, 2015, 2:18 am
OTC, you made a poster that says, "ATTACK FOX NEWS - Because the last thing a Socialist America needs, is an opposing view." Most reasonable people will infer you are a big fan, especially considering it's a political network. Cheers
fauxnews - May 19, 2015, 2:15 am
??? OP on #75252 April 17, 2015 You Responded - May 19th Nice necropsying. Even so - www.politifake.org/attack-fox-news-dumbcrats-liberals-politics-5042.html wrote "ATTACK FOX NEWS - Because the last thing a Socialist America needs, is an opposing view."
OTC - May 19, 2015, 12:35 am
Nope, after studying these two posters I still don't see where I made the claim thaat Fox News is the most trusted network with more viewers. I supposed that my recent posters about MSNBC will make you think I've switched loyalty? lol
rebeccaolsen - April 19, 2015, 3:03 pm
rebeccaolsen - April 19, 2015, 3:03 pm
scientific method. You DENY it, the outcome of it (the consensus - as the scientific debate over MMCC is now over), and its findings. Hence, you are a DENIER. Simple. Glad "you liked" science class in school. Do them a favor. Stick with shop class hun. :)
rebeccaolsen - April 19, 2015, 2:58 pm
"The other science?" LOL There is no OTHER science hun. :) There is SCIENCE, one branch of it is KNOWN AS climatology. They investigated man-made climate change which ended in a consensus BY them, by science, that MMCC is unequivocal. There is only one
rebeccaolsen - April 19, 2015, 2:52 pm
If you deny God then you may DENY the BELIEFS of religion. My point was,when it comes TO religion - I don't think faux (or those cut of his cloth) CARE if you call him a "denier." WE accept the consequences, the reality. You don't. That's YOUR bag, OTC.
calron - April 19, 2015, 2:16 pm
So have you looked at the links I provided where a lot of scientists also say we are contributing, but not the main cause? The consensus studies themselves often use a low enough standard that you are agreeing with them.
OTC - April 19, 2015, 9:22 am
I actually enjoyed science classes in school, and being mechanically inclined, basically everything I worked on or repaired involved science, so there you go.
OTC - April 19, 2015, 9:18 am
In the other argument, if you deny God, then you must deny religion. But how can you deny religion when thhere are churches and TV evangelist begging for your money?
OTC - April 19, 2015, 9:07 am
As I said before,my belief is we are contributing, not causing CC. You are the ones denying the other science that pertains to CC. Climate is not static, it changes, history proves that
OTC - April 19, 2015, 9:02 am
the planned Biodiversity Strategy, which may be a good thing for the planet, but power and greed corrupt, and the gov't can abuse that like everything else they get control of. So this push that humans are a problem concerning climate, I get skeptical
OTC - April 19, 2015, 8:59 am
Sorry, I don't trust the government when they can lie and do what they want. They lied about the income tax (it was supposed to be voluntary and never over 7%) EPA lied, John C Beale another gov't liar, and it just seems strange that GW started ahead of
OTC - April 19, 2015, 8:46 am
40 out of 100,000 molecules in the air are CO2 and even smaller number of that 40 are MMCO2, and that tiny bit is causing CC? I deny that humans are the major factor in the changing of climate, I don't deny science. Why is that so hard to understand?
rebeccaolsen - April 19, 2015, 3:04 am
rebeccaolsen - April 19, 2015, 2:43 am
You actually do deny science OTC. Taking a wild stab at this - but I imagine faux recognizes that the scientific community doesn't think your denial makes you a bad person, nor should they. They don't have to. They just don't give a **** what you think :)
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 2:43 am
You know, becca, I've sh** people for less X-D (it's the withdrawal talking, I promise).
rebeccaolsen - April 19, 2015, 2:31 am
Boy this is dumb OTC, even for you - a rational person can deny the literalness and superstition some zealots invest in religion while acknowledging the existence of religious ideology, and even respecting it to some degree.
rebeccaolsen - April 19, 2015, 2:20 am
Who need cigarettes, faux, when you can bite into an healthy organic carrot or pop into your trap a stick of refreshing gum? Instead of smoke breaks, a nice fresh air break. Yes - I'm being ornery and annoying on purpose. :)
OTC - April 19, 2015, 2:15 am
BTW faux, you deny God exists, does that mean you deny religion exists as well?
calron - April 19, 2015, 2:04 am
Here'e a handy link as if goes to the studies in question where you can read the them in total, http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html
calron - April 19, 2015, 2:03 am
Cook had a nice breakdown with the study. However double checking by other did not come up with the same results. Some of the others have been accused of padding, but Zimmerman was a poll.
OTC - April 19, 2015, 1:51 am
Still, someone had to come up with that number and no one can tell me who or how. Did they just use papers that leaned toward MMCC, or did they use all the research papers?
OTC - April 19, 2015, 1:45 am
Depends on how you ask too, as in the Zimmerman survey. Many scientists had a problem answering the question and supposedly some refused to answer because of how it was written
calron - April 19, 2015, 1:43 am
And OTC might be arguing the more than 1/2 and dangerous standard, which would be even lower. That's why defining exactly what is meant in an argument is important.
OTC - April 19, 2015, 1:42 am
and the climate seems to be getting cooler (at least here in the south where the last 2 Springs have been unseasonally cool)
calron - April 19, 2015, 1:39 am
The consensus among climatologists is actually around 90% if you ask if a significant amount of warming is AGW. If you ask if more than 1/2 is then that number drops even lower.
OTC - April 19, 2015, 1:39 am
Again, I don't deny science, or that we shouldn't be good stewards of earth and pollute, and I don't deny we are contributing to CO2, but when people are profiting from MMCC fear, then I have to question it, especially when the ice caps didn't melt
OTC - April 19, 2015, 1:31 am
when their has been a huge 'green' movement against pollution,oil, and energy using current global heating as a tool to further an agenda? Just as in the Bee-Gate, where scientists drew a conclusion before the research simply to ban a pesticide
OTC - April 19, 2015, 1:26 am
I'm mention 97% because that's what it's know as,it could be 80 to 100% for that matter as that's still a majority, but therre are reports of the consensus being doctored, so how do we know papers not favoring MMCC were omitted to make a bigger percentage
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 1:26 am
Have a good one, OTC. Cheers =)
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 1:25 am
Accept my apology if I over did it. Truly, it was nothing personal. I just got carried away is all. Still loves ya, mate. ;-) We are just doing our Siskel and Ebert thing. I enjoy it too. Just take me with a grain of salt. You enjoy the weekend as well
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 1:23 am
haha...You didn't push my b.uttons mate ;-) Im always this cantankerous when I quit smoking.Sorry if I came off as harsh.I admit I was being too opinionated.I truly didn't mean it.Just got caught up in the spirit of things and was being overly competitive
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 1:20 am
correction(#75389): "No one in their right mind would suggest that MOST (if not NEARLY ALL) climatologists do 'NOT' find MMCC to be unequivocal."
OTC - April 19, 2015, 1:19 am
I usually enjoy sparring with you, but you went off the deep end, sorry, didn't mean to push your bu.tton, have a good weekend mate
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 1:18 am
They are only guilty of being a little rough around the edges and over simplifying things a bit for an ignorant public. But whether THE TRUTH is the consensus is 95.2% or 99.3%, they are still in the right ballpark. You're splitting hairs, mate.(2/2)
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 1:16 am
In other words, OTC, you can't see the forest for the trees. No one in their right mind would suggest that MOST (if not NEARLY ALL) climatologists find MMCC to be unequivocal. Four peer-reviewed meta studies on the consensus uphold this (1/2)
OTC - April 19, 2015, 1:14 am
It's not my own science, its science other than MMCC, such as cosmoclimatology, pacific decadal oscillation, earth's orbit etc. but because those don't fit the MMCC narrative its just junk political science
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 1:13 am
(on OTC#75383) You are misrepresenting facts completely.Virtually every peer-reviewed study and reputable climatologist finds that MMCC is unequivocal when they examine the findings.They invite your skepticism.But reject your baseless denial.
OTC - April 19, 2015, 1:11 am
Denying we are a major factor in the game is not the same as denying science. you believe we are, I believe its nature and that this would be happening (as it has done in the history of earth) even if we weren't burning fossil fuels.
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 1:06 am
...but, aside from junk science (which is NOT really science) you can't have your OWN 'science' (not in the objective logical sense, at least - as in, you can have your OWN set of opinions, but not your OWN set of facts). Cheers
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 1:04 am
According to the Christian theology, I probably AM blasphemous and I'm probably going to their hell in their worldview. I can live with their opinion of me. Why? Because I can care less what they think of me. You can have your own religion...
OTC - April 19, 2015, 1:04 am
And l report that said as little as 79 papers were used to draw a consensus. Kinda like "4 out of 5 dentists agree.." Where dies that come from? Someone has to make that determination, can they be trusted? Who decided on the 97%, Cook, Zimmerman, Doran?
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 1:02 am
Well science says MMCC is unequivocal and you are denying it. I'm just telling you what the science SAYS. No one is saying you have to AGREE with the science; you have the freedom to DENY it all you want. I deny God exists.Feel free to call me blasphemous
OTC - April 19, 2015, 12:56 am
Consensus was determined, it makes me wonder if some papers were disregarded for not favoring MMCC which would give a different outcome as I've read there were only 200 papers out of 1000's that were used to derive the 97%
OTC - April 19, 2015, 12:51 am
I love how I'm labeled a 'science denier' because I don't believe MMCO2. is causing global warming but contributing to it along with other factors that may have a greater percentage of an effect than what we are doing. since I couldn't find how the
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 12:02 am
But yeah, I whole-heartedly agree that both sides engage in a denialism that is equally stupid. We are all guilty of letting our politics get in the way. It's the people that can't admit it that are THE REAL troublemakers. My 2 cents,Calron.Cheers,mate =)
fauxnews - April 19, 2015, 12:00 am
...I dont think there is a problem even as severe as MMCC that we humans cant evolve past.But that require BOTH SIDES to let go of their dogma.They need to acknowledge science(ie.deniers)and how their personal politics ONLY makes things worse(ie.the left)
fauxnews - April 18, 2015, 11:59 pm
...I dont think there is a problem even as severe as MMCC that we humans cant evolve past.But that require BOTH SIDES to let go of their dogma.They need to acknowledge science(ie.deniers)and how their personal politics ONLY makes things worse(ie.the left)
fauxnews - April 18, 2015, 11:57 pm
...the documentary "Pandora's Promise" shows how the left is complicit as the right in keeping us dependent on a status quo that is killing our planet by basically starving our species of "progress." I think the left underestimates human ingenuity...
fauxnews - April 18, 2015, 11:56 pm
...the problem over MMCC will probably largely fix itself when we run out of oil, which will happen sooner than we like to think. But between the damage we've already done to the planet AND our addiction to oil, that is WHERE calamity awaits us...
fauxnews - April 18, 2015, 11:54 pm
...The left are NUCLEAR POWER deniers in that they fail to acknowledge that nuclear power probably holds the ONLY PROMISE to accommodating society in the face of peak oil and a calamity on the horizon caused by oil dependence...
fauxnews - April 18, 2015, 11:53 pm
...the film indicts THE RIGHT for denying science and being in the pocket of oil companies. It also indicts the left for DENYING the realities of our energy needs by attacking nuclear power which is safer than stereotypes suggest...
fauxnews - April 18, 2015, 11:52 pm
...Green energies won't fix a planet THIS overpopulated and dependent on oil. We need to convert to nuclear power...and FAST. There is a great documentary I always squawk about titled "Pandora's Promise". It indicts both the right and the left...
fauxnews - April 18, 2015, 11:50 pm
...For me, climate change is a window (a symptom) into a MUCH LARGER problem, energy co-dependence. That is what is really sinking our species. It makes everyone dependent on the volatile Middle East for our survival...
fauxnews - April 18, 2015, 11:49 pm
...To evoke a figurative a***ogy, Calron, climatology is right in their diagnosis of the disease.But the FAR-RIGHT inadvertently makes a powerful case that the liberals have come up with a cure that only makes it worse....
fauxnews - April 18, 2015, 11:46 pm
(reply to #75361) Yes, I agree on this. I think the left would LOVE to use the consensus on MMCC to create an eco elite where lame green energy alternatives and wacky anti-vaxxer wholistic beliefs are empowered.To me it's in the same league as scientology
fauxnews - April 18, 2015, 11:44 pm
(reply to #75366)Aye, mate. Like I said, it's hard to have a proper dialogue on a commentboard with this limits. Easy to get lazy or be sloppy. ;-) Usually I mean "climatologists" on this debate when I say scientists. Good catch.
fauxnews - April 18, 2015, 11:42 pm
...Even if climatology is finding that MMCC is real, I don't think that represents an indictment. The politicians are doing that, and hopefully people go after the hard targets (the people in power) not the easy targets; which are just strawmen.Cheers:-)
calron - April 18, 2015, 11:40 pm
Looks like you didn't see my last post as well as the link. You really should say climatologists when you point to very high levels of agreement. If you are less specific then you get about 20% in decent.
fauxnews - April 18, 2015, 11:39 pm
...So, even though that is true, when deniers go after the scientists to get back at the liberals and the media, that is simply wrong..and a strategy destined to backfire. It's scapegoating...
fauxnews - April 18, 2015, 11:38 pm
In other words, it is NOT the scientists that should be blamed for doing their jobs. But the media, and politicians, who likes to make everything into a soap opera....
fauxnews - April 18, 2015, 11:37 pm
...(cont.from #75362)as all the scientists are saying is that MMCC is unequivocal AND it is serious. But then the libs jump in and conflate it to scare people...which I agree is wrong...
fauxnews - April 18, 2015, 11:35 pm
...In other words, the science community saying MMCC is unequivocal hopefully isn't the same thing as saying WE ARE DOOMED! I know the scientists are saying this. That's where the media IS at fault (as well as some libs)
calron - April 18, 2015, 11:35 pm
Unfortunately a lot of misinformation gets put out by both sides, but something I found interesting is... https://news.uns.purdue.edu/images/2014/prokopy-climatetable.pdf It shows consensus on one point and yet disagreement on another.
fauxnews - April 18, 2015, 11:33 pm
I think it's fair to say that science is saying MMCC is unequivocal. However, I think it's idiotic to a**UME that this is a doom and gloom scenario. To say this means it is the end of the world is as bad as denying the science IMHO
fauxnews - April 18, 2015, 11:32 pm
we could probably have a dialogue that would allow for the nuance and thoughtfulness to come through. You'd see we are more alike in our skepticism that you'd think. I'm being reductive here for the purpose of practicality.
fauxnews - April 18, 2015, 11:31 pm
(replying to #75354 and #75355) Believe it or not, Calron, we agree more than it appears. I don't really disagree with your position per say *sigh* It's hard to have an effective debate on a commentboard :-/ In a more thoughtful setting,like our own forum
fauxnews - April 18, 2015, 11:29 pm
But that shouldnt stop scientists across the board from challenging this.Hopefully they will keep at it.I would love it if IT did turn out they were wrong.Who wants to be right about environmental calamity?But I think it's healthy to face hard truths(2/2)
fauxnews - April 18, 2015, 11:27 pm
(reply to #75324) Of course, Calron. I'm not suggesting suddenly science should stop being skeptical about this or anything. I'm just pointing out that, for now and for awhile now, the findings are standing up to the scrutiny very well.(1/2)
calron - April 18, 2015, 11:25 pm
Includes many skeptics. I agree that mankind has caused some of the warming and still am skeptical of whether we cause most of it. Your standard doesn't account for that.
calron - April 18, 2015, 11:23 pm
Well science doesn't equal numbers. The actual descent on that is greater that what you represent AND there is also the debate on the effects of AGW and how serious they will be fracturing the number even further. And of course, your standard here...
fauxnews - April 18, 2015, 11:13 pm
whatever the EXACT number is, the dissent represents a minority SO small that it doesn't really matter IN a qualitative sense. We can infer at this point that science SAYS that MMCC is unequivocal.That doesn't mean anyone is required to AGREE with it(2/2)
fauxnews - April 18, 2015, 11:10 pm
Calron....given that the exhaustive debate over MMCC has concluded, it is reasonable to infer that the clear majority of scientists have found MMCC to be unequivocal. Whether it is 95.2% or 99.9% doesn't change the fact that (1/2)
fauxnews - April 18, 2015, 11:06 pm
Sorry if I got carried away Moo+. Just caught this. I'll tone it down if you feel as if I'm going too far with my rant.lol Was trying to indict D.ick Cheney logic. But maybe I was making it TOO personal. I hear what you're saying. Roger that. Cheers :-)
calron - April 18, 2015, 11:05 pm
I forgot to add, The 97% from Zimmerman comes from 75 out of 77 specialists with more than 50% of their peer reviewed papers on AGM. It is a very small number from a small sliver of the scientific community.
fauxnews - April 18, 2015, 11:04 pm
...because doing whatever you can, at all costs to defend that point of view, is not only right but is also the most honest and officiously heroic thing a person could do. My 2 cents, mate. Cheers
fauxnews - April 18, 2015, 11:02 pm
...but because you believe you are required to lie to cover up the what you think is the brutal tooth-and-claw realpolitik dirty deeds most of us dont want to admit our civilization is based on.You think that is what makes you strong in the American sense
Mooooooooooooooooooo - April 18, 2015, 11:02 pm

You can't tell people what they are implying. That only amounts to what you are inferring. Putting words in the mouths of others only diminishes your own credibility.
fauxnews - April 18, 2015, 11:00 pm
...(and, of course, stitching “facts” together at will to support all these views) you are not really pretending that your telling the truth. The implication, though, is that you're lying not because you're a scoundrel who’s out for your himself...
fauxnews - April 18, 2015, 10:57 pm
... By which I mean, when you refuse to admit that you were ever wrong about anything, never giving an inch on the scientific consensus about MMCC or even on a simple question about your gender (which you once were caught being deceptive about)...