Just one more thing: the article from the Executive Director at International Energy Agency (IEA) was about Russia’s blame on the energy crisis thanks to its invasion of Ukraine, not about global warming. It is very, very important for Sam to ignore that and declare that it was just “global warming glurge” and ignore the blame Russia deserves for the energy crisis, besides the invasion.
Oh, I agree that I did too, which is why I said we should stop and move to another thread. But I was replying to Gigobuster. I didn’t think my post that he responded to was a hijack. Maybe it veered off a bit from the main topic, but it was all related to the geopolitical situation around the war, and I was responding to another post in the thread.
My response to Gigobuster was definitely off-topic, though, as was his. I should have just responded in a new thread, rather than responding there and telling him to open one if he wanted to continue. My bad for that.
So, what you meant was “Wow. I was the one that hijacked that, buddy.”?
Don’t knock it. Pat Nixon’s cloth coat, and the cocker spaniel Checkers, were two emotional symbols that Nixon successfully used to appeal to the more ignorant sector of the American public and turn around his political fortunes, and thus to stay on Eisenhower’s VP ticket and eventually become president himself. You can always appeal to Republican voters with maudlin stories of cringe-inducing triteness, which are second only in effectiveness to scare-mongering about gun-grabbing unpatriotic socialist Democrats.
Dog-lovers, apparently 
.
Well, the ignorant notion that being fond of dogs is an indication of good character. Kind of along the lines of christians are de facto good people. Or that laissez faire is sensible socio-economic policy.
Or the reverse: that earning a dog’s affection is somehow a signal of good character. But dogs are not exactly selective in the company they keep.
Now, if a cat is willing to hang around you, that might be a sign of something.
Probably a sign that the cat thinks you’re a witch. 
The cat considers you a useful patsy.
I have always preferred the old standby:
Owners of dogs will have noticed that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they will think you are god. Whereas owners of cats are compelled to realize that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they draw the conclusion that they are gods.
So now that the Durham farce has completely imploded, how long before his biggest fanboy acknowledges he is full of shit?
Durham rebukes his own witness at trial
Judge drops charge against Danchenko in blow to Durham case
Closing arguments are on Monday but it appears Durham has a zero chance of conviction here. Will the dipshit acknowledge this or pretend it never happened? Odds?
I asked this same question of Our Friend from the Great White North a month ago (to the day, in fact) and got a double-dose of his usual Uriah Heep doubling-down against the Evils of the SDMB Hive-Mind (yes, I know, that’s the other guy’s shtick).
Another Durham conspiracy masquerading as an indictment has gone down in flames.
Sam was actually referring to the last trial in this post. but has declined to answer if we found out how weak the case was.
I believe he, contrary to facts and evidence, still believes that the Clinton campaign was behind the Alfa Bank story and that Sussmann was acquitted narrowly because Durham couldn’t prove materiality beyond a reasonable doubt. None of that is true. 0%.
Sam had this to say about the Danchenko indictment…
…and this…
…among other things.
Some of these things were obviously false when he originally posted them, but, after the Danchenko laid the facts bare, we can see that pretty much everything in those posts is completely false.
Will Sam acknowledge the reality of the situation now, or, like in the Sussmann case, will he choose to continue to believe lies?
I’m certain our friend will double or triple down. Acknowledging reality really isn’t his forte when it comes to this matter.
Of course, I don’t know when we should expect his reply. I’m not sure how long it will take for the news to reach Saskatoon by carrier elk.
In the Canadian politics thread, he recently said that bat-shit insane premier Danielle Smith wouldn’t be his first pick but is better than the (provincial*) NDP. In her first week in office, Smith said that the unvaccinated in Canada are the most discriminated people in history (she later reversed that to just the most discriminated against by the government), and that the Ukraine should remain neutral (implying in a way the invasion is somewhat their fault). When pushed on this she lied and claimed her family fled communism after WW1. Yes, this is her first week in office. I wonder if based on this alone Sam would like to reverse his statement that the NDP would be worse than Smith or does he maintain that a DeSantis/Trump style loony is still a better premier? Note, this is a rhetorical question. We already know the answer that the “MAGA supporting (but I swear I’m not MAGA!) Sam” would give.
- Provincial and federal parties are not the same in Canada even if they have the same name, although they are often somewhat similar.
wtelf is wrong with these people – are they, like, American Republicans?
They read/listen to the same crap propaganda.
you may have inadvertently coined a most excellent term, “crapaganda”
(oops, sorry, already in UD)
Darn!
Is “plopaganda”? I’d like to coin that.
(Plop of course being the onomatopoeia of shit splattering on the ground.)