Thanks for putting it much more diplomatically than I did.
I doubt he’ll understand. He’s either an idiot or obtuse. I’m leaning toward the former.
Thanks for putting it much more diplomatically than I did.
I doubt he’ll understand. He’s either an idiot or obtuse. I’m leaning toward the former.
Yeah, I understand what his position is. The thing is though that if you go read my initial comment about the hurricane, I didn't say anything to the contrary, he throws up a strawman and decides to tell me that I don't know anything. Total BS.
Also, I agree with you about the Saffir-Simpson scale (that's how you spell it by the way), but in this case with Florence, the national weather media all talked all week about the potential damage from the storm being stalled, and with that they still all said it would be better if the storm weakened along with tons of graphs about how a weaker storm greatly reduced the storm surge, etc.
Also, to clarify even further, here is the comment I made (before the storm made landfall) that the voice from on high decided I needed to be taken to task over - "Florence has been downgraded to category 2 already, so that's helpful."
Florence had briefly been a category 5 out in open water, and had been predicted to possible land as a Category 4.
Said voice from on high:
1) Didn't consider that a Category 2 still off the coast might fall to Category 1 or even tropical storm level by landfall.
2) Made some comment about a high 2 being not much better than a 3. Well, I never said anything about comparing a 2 to a 3. It had been a 5!
3) Didn't consider that the storm surge from a weaker storm is much less than a stronger one.
Anyway, he was wrong to challenge me on this, wrong in the way he went about it, and wrong in his assumptions of what I said or knew.
Noticer of Flagpole wrote:
PrincessLoper wrote:
Flagpole. UR such a princess. Late nights in park restrooms must be good times 4U.
Hi Flagpole!
You think someone using "UR" and "4U" is me? That doesn't even deserve my normal Wejo IP check response.
Flagpole wrote:
Florence had briefly been a category 5 out in open water, and had been predicted to possible land as a Category 4.
And Flaggy gets his "do,"
Peps Law. strikes again.
Dude, I owned you on this topic, so you had to make up a fake poster name (and couldn't even spell Saffir-Simpson correctly) so you could try to save face because you said you wouldn't comment further. No need to deny, because I will not believe you. You suggested things I didn't state or insinuate or infer. That's setting up a strawman. You then make statements that are factually incorrect and tell me that I am "dumb" while writing "storms due LESS damage". Nice.
You should stick to your statement that you are done on this topic. I am done unless you come back here and I need to school you more.
noticer of errors wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Florence had briefly been a category 5 out in open water, and had been predicted to possible land as a Category 4.
And Flaggy gets his "do,"
Peps Law. strikes again.
Yep. I made a typo (different from a homophone mistake, but a mistake nonetheless). I never said I was perfect. I also didn't do it while calling someone else "dumb". THAT'S when you'd better make sure not to make a mistake at all.
Braun has NO experience. Worse, he was elected to the Indiana House and quit the job. AND he was a Democrat -- until he decided to run for political office. Then he changed his colors. . . . LOL . . . he is not going to beat Donnelly. Not with the positions Donnelly holds on issues important to republican voters.
So, keep your hopes up troll that simply claiming you are a Republicans is enough for nothing else to matter to get elected. It doesn't work that way, as the post about red West Virginia documented -- heavy voting for Trump, BUT voting in only Democrats for Senate from 1958 to 2014.
noticer of errors wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Florence had briefly been a category 5 out in open water, and had been predicted to possible land as a Category 4.
And Flaggy gets his "do,"
Peps Law. strikes again.
LOL
Not sure what Peps Law is, but it “probable” has to do with someone spouting off at the mouth about topics that he/she doesn't understand.
Instead of continuously typing his diatribes, at any point he could have just said he was wrong. But no. He had to go on and show us how much of an idiot he is.
Flagpole wrote:
Thanks for putting it much more diplomatically than I did.
I doubt he’ll understand. He’s either an idiot or obtuse. I’m leaning toward the former.
Dude, I owned you on this topic, so you had to make up a fake poster name (and couldn't even spell Saffir-Simpson correctly) so you could try to save face because you said you wouldn't comment further. No need to deny, because I will not believe you. You suggested things I didn't state or insinuate or infer. That's setting up a strawman. You then make statements that are factually incorrect and tell me that I am "dumb" while writing "storms due LESS damage". Nice.
You should stick to your statement that you are done on this topic. I am done unless you come back here and I need to school you more.[/quote]
Ummm . . . that's pretty much the definition of being "not done".
Dude, then don’t drag my name into your mental circle jerk.
Take my advice and see a psyche doc and get some meds.
Igy
L L wrote:
Kennedy, Johnson and Jimmy Carter won Texas.
Lloyd Bentsen was a Democrat Senator for Texas for years up until 1993.
Things change. And they change again.
You know what's changing? The demographics of Texas.
The Hispanic population is soon going to pass the white non-Hispanic population and vote more.
Liberal cities like Austin are growing.
TX cities with over 100,000 voters in 2016 which voted more for Clinton.
Bexar (includes San Antonio): 54.19%
Dallas: 60.75%
El Paso: 69.08%
Fort Bend (includes part of Houston): 51.39%
Harris (south of Dallas; includes part of Houston): 53.95%
Hidalgo: 68.50%
Travis (includes Austin): 65.77%
The 5 of the 6 largest cities in Texas (Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, Austin and EL Paso) voted for Clinton.
MANAFORT PLEADS GUILTY
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/14/politics/paul-manafort-guilty-plea/index.html
Didn't reach Cat 5. Plot of all Florence readings. Highest winds 140mph. Cat 5 is greater than 156.https://weather.com/storms/hurricane-central/AL062018
noticer of errors wrote:
And Flaggy gets his "do,"
Peps Law. strikes again.
Didn't reach Cat 5.
Plot of all Florence readings.
Highest winds 140mph.
Cat 5 is greater than 156.
https://weather.com/storms/hurricane-central/AL062018I'm not sure what the point of Manafort fighting the charges was anyway.
He just got convicted of major crimes and is already going to spend the rest of his life in jail.
Why waste money on this trial that could go to his family?
Plead guilty now.
Then wait for Trump to pardon him for everything.
It doesn't matter how bad that looks for Trump or what the grounds for pardons are.
There is nothing legally, no checks and balances, that can prevent Trump from pardoning anyone.
The Constitution was written to assume a rational president on these things.
Only impeachment and conviction could stop it. And that's a long road.
If Trump is going to get impeached (but not convicted) anyway, he might as well give Manafort a thank you pardon for not turning in any evidence against Trump.
Sure thing Master Bates.
I'm surprised that nobody has brought this up yet. Apparently, a woman has accused Bret Kavanaugh of sexual assault. She did not want to come forward but a letter from her made its way to a congressperson, who gave it to Sen. Feinstein (judiciary committee), who turned it over to the FBI.
Reports say that the alleged incident happened in High School.
I have no doubt that reporters will figure out who this woman is. She is in for a nightmare. But if the allegations are credible, it could be enough for Murkowski and Collins to vote "no".
L L wrote:
If Trump is going to get impeached (but not convicted) anyway, he might as well give Manafort a thank you pardon for not turning in any evidence against Trump.
Trump will never grant a "thank you pardon". He will only pardon someone if it serves his own interests.
But I guess that all doesn't matter now. Manafort has just agreed to cooperate with Mueller!!!!
Fat hurts wrote:
L L wrote:
If Trump is going to get impeached (but not convicted) anyway, he might as well give Manafort a thank you pardon for not turning in any evidence against Trump.
Trump will never grant a "thank you pardon". He will only pardon someone if it serves his own interests.
But I guess that all doesn't matter now. Manafort has just agreed to cooperate with Mueller!!!!
I'm sure Trump made a deal with Manafort in advance - shut up and I will pardon you.
So this is in Trump's own interest.
Manfort cooperating with Mueller just means, ok I am guilty, give me a sentence.
It's not giving dirt.
Fat hurts wrote:
L L wrote:
If Trump is going to get impeached (but not convicted) anyway, he might as well give Manafort a thank you pardon for not turning in any evidence against Trump.
Trump will never grant a "thank you pardon". He will only pardon someone if it serves his own interests.
But I guess that all doesn't matter now. Manafort has just agreed to cooperate with Mueller!!!!
With Manafort flipping it is likely the other bigly fishes in Trump's swamp will all flip. The only hold outs will be the two Fredos, and Ivanka. Even Jared will flip.
Fat hurts wrote:
I'm surprised that nobody has brought this up yet. Apparently, a woman has accused Bret Kavanaugh of sexual assault. She did not want to come forward but a letter from her made its way to a congressperson, who gave it to Sen. Feinstein (judiciary committee), who turned it over to the FBI.
Reports say that the alleged incident happened in High School.
I have no doubt that reporters will figure out who this woman is. She is in for a nightmare. But if the allegations are credible, it could be enough for Murkowski and Collins to vote "no".
I heard about some letter but had to dig around to find what you wrote.
Kavanaugh is being accused of holding a girl down and sexually assaulting her in high school.
Then 65 women have come to his defense, saying he is a good person.
But being good around 65 women doesn't mean you were not bad to one.
It comes down to he said/ she said and if it will change one Republican's mind.
My guess is that he will soon be sitting right next to Clarence Thomas, not Bill Cosby.
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Rest in Peace Adrian Lehmann - 2:11 Swiss marathoner. Dies of heart attack.