Over 58373

Even Politics

Killary Klinton -

THE CURRENT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT - Is exactly what the Founding Fathers were trying to prevent .

Unfit For Command -

Top 4 Reasons NOT To Vote For Hillary -

Hildabeast Rotten Klinton -

OBAMA COVER-UPS - Dead Americans could hurt re-election efforts Who would trust this President? No wonder military personnel prefer opposite party

TAGS: obama 2012 election brian terry chris stevens dead americans
Rating: 4.43/5

More politifakes by ihadone

Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 11, 2012, 5:42 pm

Told ya so! :)
SethMythrax - October 11, 2012, 5:20 pm
I now see this is a different BG, I thought it was the one that was sh** last week, my bad.....
SethMythrax - October 11, 2012, 5:19 pm
No Moooooooo, I had it right.....
SethMythrax - October 11, 2012, 5:18 pm
The FBI says it appears the agents opened fire on each other of friendly fire. http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/19796632/utah-funeral-set-for-border-patrol-agent-thursday
SethMythrax - October 11, 2012, 5:18 pm
Ivie was sh** to death last week near the Mexican border as three agents responded to an alarm that was triggered by a sensor aimed at detecting smugglers. A second agent was wounded.
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 11, 2012, 8:08 am

I think you're mixing up two different events.
SethMythrax - October 10, 2012, 11:09 pm
I didnt hear that Mooooooo, just that he may n=have been sh** by his fellow guard when they went to check out the alert....
Mooooooooooooooooooo - October 9, 2012, 6:52 pm

The border guard pictured above was sh** with an ak47 That doesn't sound like friendly fire to me.
SethMythrax - October 9, 2012, 6:31 pm
Too bad the berder cop was sh** & killed by his own buddy & nothing to do with Fast & Furious.....

Hillary Chastised For Lying About Another Video!! -

TAGS: hillary clinton liar untrustworthy hildabeat rotten klinton traitor treacherous killary benghazi butcher libya failure duplicitous backstabbing chris stevens tyrone woods glen doherty sean smith
Rating: 5/5

More politifakes by TheConservativeInsurgent

calron - December 21, 2015, 5:53 pm
Remember those that speak out against Islamic extremism are the biggest cause of Muslims killing others. 0-o

GREAT SPIN - One cost of living increase in this your 4th year (a reelection year) and you profess support for the elderly on Social Security

Hildabeast Rotten Clinton's Abhorrent Claim -


MICHELLE : "THIS MAN DOESN'T TAKE A DAY OFF." - 11 weekends in a row that Obama has gone golfing.His 14th outing this year and the 72nd of his presidency.

THE 1970'S - It had it's own artificially created crisis ...


Hillary the "Fighter" -

PERCEPTION - Others don't always see us as we see ourselves.


IS THIS ALL BUSH'S FAULT TOO? - When is this President held for his own actions or inactions? See you in November


GEORGE MEANY, LABOR LEADER - "government is a monopoly... workers..already protected by... law ...organize and bargain collectively might ultimately give them power to hold politicians & taxpayers hostage."




THE SHEEPLE - Even though the emperor is naked, he still has his followers!



"...on the issue of the Trayvon Martin ruling..." -

Year-two sign up -

" THIS MAN DOESN'T TAKE A DAY OFF." - First lady Michelle Obama: “I see the sadness and worry that’s creasing his face,”

Scientific discovery -

WAITING FOR WEINER TO FALL - Resignation to come in 3..2..1...


EVENT HORIZON - Where everything gets drawn into the imploding, collapsing star.. in this case unsustainable $14 trillion dollar debt

EVEN DEMOCRATIC GOVERNORS - Make better presidents than former community organizers who vote "present" as state senators and like to hold fancy dinner parties while the economy tanks.



Squarrack Parrobama -

Bruce Bartlett -

thank you -

Lying Old Witch -

13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi -

Obama Has a Way With Words -

Hillary Clinton -

The Butcher of Benghazi -

AGW and heliocentrism -

Killary Klinton -

under surveillance -

climate change natural cycles -

TAGS: global warming climate change natural event
Rating: 4.11/5

More politifakes by OTC

Dwydwyyr - March 14, 2015, 6:43 pm
Thank you,Ron,for having accepted our invitation and TESTING your hypothesis that you have any scientific credibility TTFN http://www.thescienceforum.com/trash-can/48703-why-does-scientific-community-continue-promote-consensus-man-made-climate-change.html
Dwydwyyr - March 14, 2015, 6:18 pm
I'm your huckleberry. Just say when.
calron - March 14, 2015, 5:11 pm
So basically you just admitting to not debating honestly.
fauxnews - March 8, 2015, 11:18 pm
...that said, uh, thank you for the interest in my opinions?lol Have a good night, mate. Cheers
fauxnews - March 8, 2015, 11:16 pm
But the real error in your argument is you think I care what you think. I dont. Not sure what you want from me. Sorry, I will never agree with you. Not sure what else to tell you. I get u want my attention. I only have so much to give you...
calron - March 8, 2015, 10:53 pm
d***, where did half my last comment go. I mixed up zimmerman and Anderegg studies flaws earlier.
calron - March 8, 2015, 10:52 pm
Anderegg number comes from leaving out those that do not publish enough and the undecided.
calron - March 8, 2015, 10:17 pm
And more from the study, " 9798% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change," disagreeing with NASA's spin. Thus NASA is biased.
calron - March 8, 2015, 10:12 pm
Here;s a statement directly from the study, "Though our compiled researcher list is not comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire climate science community," Unrepresentative sample by their own admission,
calron - March 8, 2015, 3:30 pm
And once again Ad Hominems in the place of facts and reason.
fauxnews - March 8, 2015, 3:30 pm
fauxnews - March 8, 2015, 3:28 pm
Ah, I love the sound of deniers lying and whining in the morning. Sounds like...victory.
calron - March 8, 2015, 3:25 pm
And once again, a link the points out the problem clearly. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/expert-embarrassment-in-climate-change/ Also note how what the paper itself says is different from the headline NASA gave.
calron - March 8, 2015, 3:18 pm
Those are not NASA'a numbers, they are Anderegg's. The numbers come from a poll of 75 climatologists out of 3146 where the questions asked did not match the conclusion. I gave the evidence of this recently, and you choose to ignore it.
fauxnews - March 8, 2015, 3:12 pm
So a reputable organization like NASA, and every major scientific organization in the states they list as backing them, are lying? Again, NASA has no problem listing this? So.....are they lying?
fauxnews - March 8, 2015, 3:11 pm
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ "Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree" So, again, if this is SO ambiguous...then why is NASA advertising it as fact?
fauxnews - March 8, 2015, 3:09 pm
So NASA is lying?
calron - March 8, 2015, 3:08 pm
I see you are still throwing around those false numbers. The vast majority of scientists have not given an opinion. And if you only include those that have you still wouldn't get numbers that high. Instead many opinions are ignored.
OTC - March 8, 2015, 1:29 pm
So their 2013 report will be a follow up to their 2011 report which is a follow up to their 2009 report (and peer reviewed)
OTC - March 8, 2015, 1:24 pm
And you do realize that the 2011 report was an update to their 2009 report they published, right?
fauxnews - March 8, 2015, 1:07 pm
...So, again....visiting some old friends on mountain BIKE (lol) to thank them. One of them is named Mike. Funny.Anyhow,off to enjoy this beautiful day while it last. Hope you can do the same wherever you're at. Have a good one, mate. Cheers =)
OTC - March 8, 2015, 1:07 pm
Actually they will release an updated report soon
fauxnews - March 8, 2015, 1:06 pm
...this bombshell you think you are dropping was a pebble that made no waves. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
fauxnews - March 8, 2015, 1:05 pm
...their peers would find to be unacceptable. Which is why they don't push too hard. Also, they point out their studies are in some sense being taken out of context for political purpose. All in all, just a big bag of s'uck. Which is why...
fauxnews - March 8, 2015, 1:04 pm
Also, those scientists have failed to follow up on their studies, allowing their work to remain discredited when other REAL scientists would've re-attempted a study. That, and two of them acknowledge they receive funding for their work that...
OTC - March 8, 2015, 1:03 pm
Lol, you had me wondering about those friends you were going to see
fauxnews - March 8, 2015, 1:02 pm
Already looked into it. Their peers reject their work because they don't follow through on proper methodology and their evidence was borrowed from elsewhere and long since debunked, hence my 2011 objection.
fauxnews - March 8, 2015, 12:50 pm
*mike? lololol.. *bike
fauxnews - March 8, 2015, 12:50 pm
I was on mountain mike actually. Doh! Cheers indeed.
OTC - March 8, 2015, 12:43 pm
By the way faux, how are you going to visit those friends? A fossil fuel vehicle? cheers mate
OTC - March 8, 2015, 12:40 pm
And here's the bio on those three ju.k scientists http://climatechangereconsidered.org/lead-authors/
OTC - March 8, 2015, 12:35 pm
Thanks for showing your ignorance. The Heartland didn't write that report, but here are more reviews of that report http://climatechangereconsidered.org/reviews-of-climate-change-reconsidered-ii-physical-science/
fauxnews - March 8, 2015, 12:22 pm
...okay, visiting some old friends to thank them. Off to enjoy this beautiful day while it last. Hope you can do the same wherever you're at. Have a good one, mate. Cheers =)
fauxnews - March 8, 2015, 12:21 pm
...you can't have it both ways. Just like, you can have your OWN list of junk scientists, but in this world there is only one list of real, reputable mainstream scientists and nearly 97-99% of them have concluded man-made GW is real....
fauxnews - March 8, 2015, 12:19 pm
...yet, with that logic you shouldn't trust organizations like the Heartland institute since they ARE paid by conservative donors. Yet you were doing cartwheels when someone listed the biased liberal skepticalscience as a source who has liberal backers...
fauxnews - March 8, 2015, 12:17 pm
CORRECTION OTC (Said.No.real.scientist) You list biased junk scientists hired by conservative thinktanks. Gee, and yet you accuse NASA of being a biased source? lololol.. Last I checked, NASA works for governments conservative AND liberal...
fauxnews - March 8, 2015, 12:14 pm
*yawn* 2011- outdated. Those 'real' scientists are not considered real by their peers. The Heartland Institute is an American conservative thinktank. Nope, you confused more biased junk scientists for real - like Wei-Hack Soon. Next.
fauxnews - March 8, 2015, 12:12 pm
...again, whatever political motivation you have to refusing to acknowledge the work and consensus of these scientists is, at best, philosophical in your unique interpretation or, at worst, pathologically contrarian in nature.
OTC - March 8, 2015, 12:12 pm
3 real scientists report https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/climate-change-reconsidered-2011-interim-report
OTC - March 8, 2015, 12:09 pm
“the net effect of continued warming and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is most likely to be beneficial to humans, plants, and wildlife.”
fauxnews - March 8, 2015, 12:09 pm
And copouts like "everyone knows the guvmint lies" or "everyone knows scientists are liburls" are just redherrings. The widely accept work of scientist worldwide are not going to be disproven on a messageboard here or elsewhere lol
fauxnews - March 8, 2015, 12:07 pm
..Why does every single reputable mainstream scientific organization in the states and elsewhere still say:"MMCC is reality,is human induced,and unequivocable"? What do you know that they dont?lol Or are you gonna put the tinfoil hat on and cry CONSPIRACY
fauxnews - March 8, 2015, 12:05 pm
...now they have to prove you wrong. No, the burden is still on you to prove you are right. The near unanimity of papers, studies, and climatologists in the world have already weighed in on this.For instance, why hasn't NASA changed it's mind about this?
fauxnews - March 8, 2015, 12:03 pm
...There is little to no evidence for a supernatural Jesus or a magical Santa Claus. So it is generally accepted by science that they don't exist. However, just because a handful of junk scientists come forward with 'evidence' doesn't mean that...
fauxnews - March 8, 2015, 12:02 pm
..by every major reputable scientific organization in the world, etc. The burden is not on them to prove you are wrong. The burden is on you to prove you are right. The figurative a***ogy on this in logic is Jesus or Santa Claus...
fauxnews - March 8, 2015, 12:00 pm
So I get what you are saying OTC. You are just wrong. The fallacy you are committing is called an appeal to ignorance - a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false. MMCC is generally accepted as true by NASA, by....
fauxnews - March 8, 2015, 11:58 am
You are being misleading again. No one said CO2 is bad. Just too much of it added to what is normally a normal cycle.
OTC - March 8, 2015, 11:32 am
OTC - March 8, 2015, 11:27 am
CO2 has an aerial fertilization effect, so the more CO2 there is, the more robust plants get and the more robust plants are, the more CO2 they absorb. More of that 'junk' science called "CO2 sequestration" in the "bioshere"
OTC - March 8, 2015, 11:05 am
Crops don't grow in the winter, so they are doing fine with all this added CO2, but a cooling will shorten growing cycles aand create a food shortage as it did during the LIA.
OTC - March 8, 2015, 10:59 am
The MWP lasted about 300 years followed by a Little Ice Age. Since then there has been warming for almost 250 yrs and global temperatures are starting to plateau. History of the LIA shows we should be more worried about cooling, not warming
OTC - March 8, 2015, 10:48 am
Interestingly, during the Medieval Warm Period, CO2 was about 280ppm and sea surface temps. were a lot higher than they are today with 40% greater CO2 at about 400ppm. Shouldn't SST be higher today with more CO2?
calron - March 7, 2015, 8:50 pm
As can see, most took mo position and the second biggest is a**umption rather than proof and that and the third biggest are added to the top column to create and impression that is not warranted by the evidence.
calron - March 7, 2015, 8:47 pm
http://i2.wp.com/www.realsceptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/agnotology.png?resize=481%2C273 and https://jaffijoe.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/table-21.png
calron - March 7, 2015, 8:41 pm
Repeating a claim over and over doesn't make it any more true. Actually polls of scientists and multiple studies that you have been shown before show that the consistence that claim to exist doesn't really exist at all. That facts are against you here.
fauxnews - March 7, 2015, 8:13 pm
Says you.However,the mainstream scientific community is almost unanimous in its conclusion that CO2 induced man-made CC is a reality.At best you're disagreement is philosophical in how you view that.At worst,(and more likely)you're being contrarian.
calron - March 7, 2015, 5:11 pm
Actually no they do not. The majority haven't stated an opinion and of the ones that did, you need to lump two or more of the things I mentioned in on group in order to get close to 50%.
OTC - March 4, 2015, 5:09 pm
Your welcome. And thanks for clarifying you being a sheeple. Later mate
fauxnews - March 4, 2015, 4:53 pm
Agreed, since non-mainstream science is junk science, that certainly explains you and your views. Thx for the clarification, mate. :-) Have a good day. Cheers =)
OTC - March 4, 2015, 4:34 pm
The key word was 'mainstream', not news or scientific
fauxnews - March 3, 2015, 1:23 pm
Anywho. Not sure what that red-herring about my "The Guardian" post from two weeks ago had to with what we were speaking about now. But gotta run anyways. For now, maybe we should just agree to disagree. Have a good day, mate Cheers =)
fauxnews - March 3, 2015, 12:59 pm
Not at all. Apples and oranges. Comparing the news media to the scientific community would be like comparing a circus to an accredited University. The scientific community is not the news media, though they are misrepresented by them all the time.
OTC - March 3, 2015, 12:54 pm
I'm guessing you believe the mainstream news as well
fauxnews - March 3, 2015, 10:18 am
The truth is I cant accept your opinion-based interpretation of science. But I accept(just fine)the widely-accepted mainstream views of the science community,which's held by virtually every climatologist worldwide.Not sure what else to tell u, mate.Cheers
fauxnews - March 3, 2015, 10:13 am
Science indeed shows many causes. But their conclusion is all that matters on this debate: that man-made contributions of CO2 are disrupting the natural CO2 cycle so badly that they are causing GW which,in turns, contributes to catastrophic climate change
fauxnews - March 3, 2015, 10:11 am
Accept? Every major scientific organization in the states and world wide agrees with my stance. Visit their websites if you doubt that. Science doesn't show "other causes", just junk science blogs from political sites.
OTC - March 3, 2015, 10:03 am
No, it's political to you and zeit who think its my political belief when science shows other causes to climate change that you just can't seem to accept
fauxnews - March 3, 2015, 9:40 am
You say affecting, I say causing. *cue song* "You say "potato" I say Potato.."
fauxnews - March 3, 2015, 9:39 am
Misleading. The final one is what the scientific data is telling the scientists. It's political to you, not them. To them it's just science.
fauxnews - March 3, 2015, 9:38 am
Misleading. The near majority believe "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal,and is human induced."
OTC - March 3, 2015, 8:16 am
No calron, that last one is a 'political belief' while the two in the middle will get you ridiculed, so that just leaves one belief, you know, that 97% thing
calron - March 3, 2015, 2:25 am
No, their are at least four different scientific opinions on this subject. Some belief that most is man made, some believe that just some it is man mad, other believe that the warming is not serious and a few disagree that no warming is man caused.
OTC - March 3, 2015, 1:26 am
"Affecting"? I thought it was "causing"? Did they change their stance again?
Zeitguy - March 2, 2015, 10:12 pm
Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein don't care either.
Zeitguy - March 2, 2015, 10:10 pm
Current science demonstrates that man made greenhouse gases are unequivocally affecting the earth's normal cyclical gradual climate change by a level that needs to be recognized. Science doesn't care about your political beliefs.
Curlyrocks - March 2, 2015, 4:00 pm
Well to be fair, they also blindly follow evil villains who want to block out the sun (the main source of climate change), they just don't mention it in the brochure as it will scare most people off.