Look, 99% ARE NOT denying the "hiatus, pause, no warming in 19," etc.  That's why I am saying this.  The reasons these words and this concept exist is that it is well understood and discussed by those in the field. 

I mean, think about it.  If I reference the actual data and state the issue accurately, "No statistically significant warming in 19 years," please explain how you can get around that data set and that claim. 

By the way.  It's OKAY if you are a Denier.  I don't mind.  Really I don't.  Nobody here is going to fire you, throw you out, or even make fun of you. 

The only way what you have said is true is if the republican establishment lines up with Trump, which I think they will.  Because Cruz is a Tea Party guy and they are really his enemy.

Or are they the enemy of Cruz and Trump equally, from their leaking lifeboat where they argue?

I don't even know any more.

What the pink mafia wants is overt representation of their lifestyle in the media.  That means that they want guys kissing, guys dancing with each other, on and on.  So yes, you think it should stay behind closed doors and they want the opposite.

Then again, any typical cop/drama/shoot it up usually has nearly nude sex scenes. 

THOSE ARE NOT IN STAR TREK EITHER!  So why does the plot and the series have to be sexualized at all?  In any direction?  Isn't a large part of the problem the sexualization of any and everything?

There's an odd seriousness about the fact that Trump has made a joke of the parties and the political process.  It seems like after listening to him, another politician comes on and you hear the dude, and it's like "Oh, another politician."  Does not matter which party or slant.  It's like you are just hearing a sales pitch.

Trump is just saying, well, we can work and create jobs and fix things.  There's no magic platter.

It's true that other politicians have tried to say this and it rang flat.  Not sure I know where the difference is or why. 

But he has definitely brought out the joke, that was politics.  Thing is, it was there all along.

Looking through a number of those, I don't think they are realistic assessments of "true or false."

Not in the least.

You didn't and have not raised any correlation.

If you want, go ahead and compute the variance and show the correlation.  Be my guest.

Let me guess.  And it's the "hottest year of the century?"

ROFL...

You misrepresent the facts, which are clear right in the pages of this thread.

I provided direct links to the scientific data.  The only reason I did that is because you didn't seem to know where or how to find it it.  I explained, also, about the exact meaning of significance in trends as used by scientists. 

And I stand by my assertion.  If you DENY the hiatus, pause, "no warming in 19 years" in any fashion whatsoever,

You are a Denier.  

A good movie to use as a measure of these critical standards is Casa Blanca.  There's a great plot, a "save the world" plot.  There are dedicated-to-the-cause characters.  Cutting through the middle of it all is a romance plot.  There isn't a single line of dialogue or a single scene that isn't tightly bound to the plot.

Contrast that with Avatar.  There is nothing but PC crap in Avatar.  Military who are mean, sadistic and who do the bidding of the Greedy Capitalists.  Aliens who are bad renderings of North American Indians.  A primary character who is a cripple-wheelchair-boy.   After all this crap is pushed in and explained, there's no room left for plot.

I can't see the issue with gays as being any different than any other kind of plot or movie revenue destroyer.

Final scene of Casa Blanca.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G62tkd2t7qk

You going to substitute boy-boy-boy there and have the plot work?

ROFL...

No, some pages back I referenced for valta the actual sources for satellite data sets.

Last I heard people at topless beaches, strip clubs and such were not showing "God is the Greatest."

But people slaughtering innocents in the name of Islam seem to have an "Allah Ackbar" fixation (translated, god is the greatest).

Likely because I showed you the actual data behind the claim of "no warming in 19 years," and you simply ignored it, going on to other sources that (you thought) supported your claim.

Like it or not, whether you call it a pause, slowdown or "no warming in 19 years," you look like a fool to try to cover up or ignore such things as actual temperature trends, when you stand on a soapbox and claim certain trends exist.

I know that true religious Warmers will find this test of faith a challenge, but what is, is.

Actually, fair's fair.  Throw in some racists and some bigots into the fucking plot while you're at it.

No, they won't.  You're just repeating PC shit.

Go look at what has worked in movies, what characters have been gay.  There have been a few.  It's always been a minor theme of no importance, sometimes of comedy.  Here's one that worked rather well - in the Jersey Boys, director Clint Eastwood, the character of the music producer was a flaming gay.  Worked well, looked real, provided contrast to everyone else who was straight.

But for the most part, injecting gay into a character is simply a negative. 

What a character should be is someone you empathize with, someone you care whether they survive, die tragically, or whatever.   If not the plot fails and the ratings and income fail.

Two more recent movies with gay was DiCaprio in J. Edgar, and I think this movie was PC propaganda mostly.  But it failed to make me care at all about the main character.  Let him get shot, blackmailed, killed, I couldn't care less.

The other was the production of The Imitation Game, about Turing.  I've got mixed feelings about this one.  First, I believe almost anyone would empathize with the character of Turing.  A large part of the credit for the West winning WWII goes to him.  However, he was an open, unabashed gay, and the movie portrays him as a closet gay.  So it makes no sense in numerous ways.  Several aspects of his life are mis represented.  Also, the movie does not go into the likelihood that he was murdered, and presumes that he committed suicide.  All in all though, I think anyone would like the movie.  It's main focus is not Turing's personal lifestyle, though, and that may be the main reason.

Not the point.  If they try to push the 5% to the 95%, they are just plain stupid.   Which they are, by the way.

Not that it's not POSSIBLE to push the 5%, 5% of the time.

Look at Marilyn Monroe in Some Like it Hot. 

Anyway, the movie industry slumps about 8% a year, soon it won't exist.

Bull.  Nothing you have said is true.

Denier.  Admit it, you denier.

How about instead of asking the question (bolded) YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION?

And please do a little better than saying he made mistakes.

If 95-99% of the consumer base is interested in boy meets girl, you simply cannot expect them to buy product which is boy-boy shit.  That's the business reason that it's totally stupid to go PC in movies.

Really that's what it all adds up to.  Business.

What the hell are you talking about, used for propaganda.  You got to have some good guys and some bad guys.

You have to have plots.

Dr. Strangelove has a twisted, sick plot but it works very, very well.

Where's the propaganda?

If you want to see propaganda, go back to actual propaganda movies.  Look for the key structural points of the propagandic method.  Don't dilute the issue and just call anything with "our side" and "their side" propaganda.....