Total posts: 4,363
-->
@ethang5
congrats! and thanks. Though formal education is long in the dust, I believe one must continue education for a lifetime. It is an overwhelming love of learning, which I learned from my older brothers.
I'll tell you a story. My oldest brother is now dead. He was the only polymath I have ever known, personally, and among his library was a faded, torn, but meticulously annotated paperback copy of Plato's Republic. He was never without it, filled virtually every page margin with notes, and had enough added notes on slips of paper to make the pages side of the book twice as thick as the binding. It had to be held together with a rubber band. When my brother died, I couldn't stand to see him without it, so a put it in his hand in the coffin, denying me, and my other brother, of ever knowing the scope of his learning from just that book.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The U.S. did not "see" the folly of NAFTA only after the pharma problem was identified due to Covid-19. Plenty of us knew the folly of demand of product, any product, from a singular source in excess of 50% of our demand, before engaging it. We knew NAFTA was a short stick, becoming no stick in the case of pharma, to retain the negotiation rights we should have demanded instead of giving them away. No, NAFTA did not include China, but the philosophy of NAFTA certain did influence our trade negotiations with China, and the whole of our trade policy went into the tank. This is why we have such a negative export ratio against import, the one factor that denies our GDP from soaring, as it has for 40+ years.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
then we owe them a thank you.
Thank them? For our letting them have such a huge piece of our demand pie of pharma? Thank them for our stupidity? That was how stupid NAFTA was. You do NOT allow any one source of anything to dominate your purchasing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
<br>And offence is a data construct that has been recognised to have value.
That's about the only sentence that has value in your post. What's the rest all about? God's fault? What, that we take offense because we lack a backbone? If only we did, but everyone has one. Some, who take offense, in particular, don't recognize and don't use it. And, for that matter, what value is derived from taking offense? It's negative waves, man.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I observe that the US is now 2-3 days away from overtaking China in terms of total # of cases
What evidence is there to suggest China is telling us the truth in regard to their number of cases, particularly in light of
China has a larger, denser population and was unaware of the new disease for the first six weeks of spread.
That tells me that China has no idea of the numbers of their affected citizens. What we do know is that if they were caught unaware, it was compounded by holding a festival in Wuhan where conditions put thousands, and tens of thousands together in a frenzy of passage of the virus one to another to ten, to a thousand, to... China has yet to identify patient zero.
There's your crime: Indifference. Yeah, a collective indifference, compounded by laying blame on someone else; namely, the U.S.
the US has done worse with better data and resources (and therefore has done more to spread the virus internationally than China)?
How did we do more to spread the virus internationally when we imposed the first travel restrictions in the world? That was for outbound travel, as well. Yes, we allowed inbound travel of US citizens, but they were immediately quarantined.
Created:
Posted in:
In a period of over-indulged political correctness, there's a concept lost in the obscurity of discontent. It's presence is felt in almost every conversation on every subject; not just politics. It's a shame our society was ever saddled with this particular brand of censorship. What is it? Taking offense. Finding too many excuses to be offended by someone else's this and that.
"You offend me" has taken the place of an old public sentiment that used to be funny: "Where's the beef?" Perhaps the latter is an appropriate question for the former.
Yes, we have the right to be offended. We don't have a First Amendment without it. However. to dwell on being offended is merely to take up time and space complaining about it. It is the mark of Mark Twain's fool ["Better to close your mouth and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."]
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I have 25 years of business dealing with the Chinese. My experience is an overwhelming degree of observing that a nod of the the head as if saying, "I hear and understand you, and agree," is often just the heard, but none of the other. It took almost ten years of that before I really understood the lack. And when my suspicions were often fulfilled by subsequent action, or more, the lack of it, as well, was enough to convince me I'll never know about your first question, and, therefore, the second is open-ended. However, I have also learned that although Communist in ideology, the Chinese understand money very, very well and are avarists in its regard. What I suggest will have them understand in no uncertain terms that the world is pissed.
Created:
While this argument could be placed in a health, or political category, it is placed in economics because a meaningful penalty for a health crisis or political crisis cannot be adequately assessed, nor forced to pay to the world for the worldwide effect Covid-19 has had on the world in the frighteningly short period of three to four months.
Within the first week of outbreak, every affected patient in that short period could be traced to a potential patient zero, and there could potentially be a number of patient zeroes, but all were Chinese, and, are specifically, from Wuhan. That's not racism; that's science. It could have originated from anywhere. That's a recognized potential. But reality is that Wuhan, China was the source of Covid-19.
So, let's stop with the racist claim, as if that is the alleged root cause of every social issue we face. IT is a cop-out argument that has no relation to logic.
What's the value of a human life? I don't think that has a calculated number, and, there is more to the effect of Covid-19 than human life. It has caused health, economic, political, religious, and education consequences, and probably more.
The WTO [World Trade Org] names 140 nations in its membership, and all 140 are granted Most Favored Nation [NFN] status. China is currently listed. At the very least, China should be removed from WTO and MFN status. Now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
May you provide a name and description to these several?
As this may ultimately be a debate topic, I'm not into firing all my guns into space, so to speak.
Regarding right, or privilege, I distinguish between access to healthcare and outcome of healthcare as two separate concerns. In that respect, I consider a right as being ubiquitous in both. By that definition, outcome is most certainly NOT a right, and therefore, by my definition, not at all a right.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
RE: Your post #3, your alliteration so excellently exceeds the Censor's rap [RationalMadman], his is a swing and a miss. Yours needs no accompanying music; the music is in it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
<br>But there's only one consistent moral framework.
Which one is that? I know of several. And I do not argue that healthcare is a right. There are rights, and there are privileges. And the two elements of healthcare are access to it, and outcome. Neither are equal in their application, therefore, healthcare, in either case, is a right.
Created:
Posted in:
@RationalMadman, post #84. Note he is a coward to take my rebuttals. Censure [which he cannot achieve] is the act of a coward with no better argument.
Have you been completely de-coupled from the arguments in the Senate and House today and yesterday in which Democrats argue that the Green New Deal crisis is more important to address, right now, than addressing, by obfuscation, "what will be financially done to help the poor afford the rent as they can't work."
Yes, you're right; it is unbelievable. Just not in guise you assume it takes.
Created:
@RationalMadman. You may block all you wish, until cows fart more than rice paddies, but all it says is you cannot tolerate, let alone accept criticism from an opposing view. That's called a coward in my book. So be it.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Not once an ideal is reached, assuming it can be. But that is absurdity of their argument. There is not one, stable climate to be reached in the first place, as I've alleged in the title of this string, and I mock it by calling it a religion, which is a concept of a future stability by whatever brand you call it. Climate, by it's very nature, is unstable, always has been, and always will be.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Because the conditions of change you proposed, 1º/10M years, is probably not measurable by our current standards. Hell, they can't measure a 3º/10 years change accurately. And, you are correct; they don't want change. That's what "ideal" means.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
No, I don't think they'd be concerned by your suggested rate of change. But the mere fact that they [I'll point to TPCC] are concerned at all sufficient to effectively launch a 60-year effort [1990 to 2050, the latter being the target date of "Net Zero"] would seem to be the issue based on their predicted a 0.9ºC rise in global temperature average over 3 decades since 1990. Even when faced with a 33% error rate per decade after three decades into their six identified decades of research and response. At that rate, if considered consistent, their 60-year margin of error will be 66% [double the current error].
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
God i.e. the latter is a subset of the former ergo the former is the most wholistic set
It appears it is your introduction of the term, subset. I've merely offered a different paradigm reversing the order.
does not matter which of those two words are presented
which just proves the point of my paradigm shift.
This is clear as read the set just as your read the beginning of many educational books that have 'content'
Yes, it's clear that U & G may be interpreted in either order, as you agreed above. But if yu insist on your order, U & G, you must still know that by alphabetic sequence, even if only by that structure is the reverse is preferred.
That is subset of metaphysical-1.
i.e. the use of a Fibonacci sequence. By whose authority is Fibonacci a subset [you like that word, don't you?] of metaphysical? Your sock puppet?
You have not found any falsehood.
Did I say I did? I've merely demonstrated a wider scope of understanding than your metaphysical construct. "Argue for you limitations; they're yours" - Richard Bach
Please share when your ego is not creating blockages to truth and facts, as presented to you.
Is it ego to present alternatives, or is it ego to reject the possibility of alternatives?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
No, that was an attack on a similar nature as Nietzsche's "Madman" of "The Gay Science." That your avatar is "...Madman" is a complete coincidence. "...raving onslaught of a practitioner of the trade," i.e. progressivism/socialism, or, if you prefer, democratic socialism, is the mere description of a devoted person to the philosophy, again, a general charge to a group, not to a specified individual.
Whereas, ""you just talk" and "you don't understand" are personal attacks to an individual; in this case, WaterPhoenix.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
in general then they don't really have an "ideal climate".
As stated in the 1990 TPCC Report: "(ii) formulating realistic response strategies for the
management of the climate change issue." https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
page iii.
Forming strategies for realistic response for management of the climate means that they have a target climate they want to achieve; the target being something less than the current climate parameters.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
And I thought it might be difficult to demonstrate the logicless argument of a progressive scoialist, which reduces to nothing but a slugfest of personal attack, but here is the raving onslaught of a practitioner of the trade. No effort at all. I give you a Madman carrying a lantern, proclaiming "I seek Dog."
personal attack is the last argument when there is no other,
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
or just any temp raise that occurs
Seeing as how the tendency of TPCC to overshoot their predictions [because the same happened when the predicted excessive change back when alarmists called it "global warming," [they wewre not called TPCC, then] and the result was a cooling trend, hence the change in name of the religion.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
The whole man made climate change thing is a myth
To claim that there is no anthropogenic cause to change in our climates is as short sighted as claiming it is the only cause. I have no doubt but that we contribute an effect. However, I also argue that we are not yet at a critical tipping point, and I argue that there are, in addition to man, obvious other natural causes and effects. For example, if even we could eliminate all cows, and man, methane would still rise into the atmosphere from rice paddies, and all other cultivated and natural wetlands, rivers, lakes and oceans because ALL living forms, plant and animal, release methane into the atmosphere as a natural consequence of being alive, consuming food, digesting nutrients and expelling waste. If you're alive, you give methane. Period.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
The only research that remotely implies that is funded
<br>
Nope. I am funded by no one. I argue that just the measurement methods to argue climate change to the extent that we are at a threshold from which no return is possible are critically flawed. Just the argument made in the 1990 TPCC report that they predicted a rise in global temperature average of 0.3ºC per decade is already off by 33% in just 3 decades. Not in the report, but a phenomenon I've personally witnessed is the Bay of Fundy in Nova Scotia whose twice-daily tidal change is 56 feet, so, lets not quibble about a "crisis" of tidal changes of a few cm.
The measurement error in the TPCC "data," demonstrating their 33% error is easily pin-pointed. Does anybody take this phenomenon intyo account when making global averages of sea level? No. They do not use the same equipment, nor operators, and I question the calibration readiness of their equipment, and I see no data on the Gage R&R studies that should be available on their equipment. Until they correct just these flaws [and there are others], I take their "data" as opinionated guesses.
Consider this simple example that argues against taking global average measurements, and calling it accurate sufficient to make such predictions and call that "science." Suppose there are only three climates that encompass the earth, a desert, a tropical, and an arctic region. These three each do not exist as a full one-third of the earth, thereby making a global average a consistent measure. If one environment occupies 4/9 of earth, another is 2/9, and the third is 3/9 [or 1/3], you must first take those differences into account, and normalize the data, and then draw a grand average. However, all measurements must be taken by the same type of authentically calibrated equipment, with Gage R&R's demonstrating the accuracy of measurement regardless of the measurement operator, and regardless of their measurement method variations. Only then do you have a prayer of having accurate data. However, if its garbage in, then garbage out, and you have an error rate of 33%, or more or less, as has been demonstrated.
However, the earth has far more climate types than three, and they exist in unequal percentages of earth's surface, which just complicates the matter that much more.
No one pays me to know these facts. No one pays me to distribute these facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
" U "niverse / " G "od contains Universe / God i.e. the latter is a subset of the former
Subset? Only if one lists them in that order. What if the proper order is "G"od/"U"niverse? That is, after all, a proper order of the list of letters in the Roman alphabet to which the English language subscribes. Coincidence? For now?
Fibonacci pattern: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55...
See, I can do it, too. And this pattern applies the golden ratio of 1:1,618, to which subscribes a pattern used in the measurement of much of the known universe. But pattern is ill-defined, because patterns change. I have seen the visible northwestern sky, via planetarium manipulation, in which the constellation, Leo, which happens to be among the constellations on the earth-perspective zodiac [not a universal perspective, I'll remind], and therefore of some super-significance to some, who are also earthbound... I have seen this star-structure, Leo, with which we are so familiar in this era, as it will appear in 20,000 years [time, that is, of an also earthbound perspective not even shared by our closest planetary neighbors, let alone anywhere else]. In 20,000 years, son of a bitch, it no longer looks like Leo, a lion. It looks like a radio telescope. From our perspective, it does, anyway. Who knows what it will look like to people in that distant era, just on earth? Will they even know what a radio telescope is? Patterns change, my friend.
Meaning, your numbers mumbo-jumbo holds for now, but not necessarily in eternity. Which does wonders to 2D hexagons with 6 radii with prime numbers, except for 7 and 11.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
you have yet to address this point by describing what this supposedly advocated for ideal climate is.
Consult the Report cited. It's title is sufficient enough to get the idea: "Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment." "Change" is the operative word, in my assessment. Meaning that, at present, at least, as of the report of 1990, climate conditions, though on an alleged threshold, are sufficient for human existence. Proof: we are still here, and the incident of death among us, not including Covid-19, attributed to climate change, exclusively, has not yet reached the critical stage of inevitability of the change. That threshold is the issue of the claim of the report, which, though a "scientific assessment," has already proven to be faulty, since our rate of change is not the steep slope predicted in 1990. As I said in my post #17, our rate of change is 66% of prediction, in just 30 years. And we are still here.
Shall I spell it out? If our "ideal climate" is defined as the preferred climate able to sustain life on earth, allowing for the fact that extinction of life has occurred throughout the existence of life on earth and is a natural consequence of life on earth, the "ideal climate" is the current climate, or something less than current. How much less? Well, there is a conundrum, because life on earth has been around for an estimated 3.8B years according to https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/scientists-may-have-found-earliest-evidence-life-earth. However, we have also recognized wild fluctuation in climate over that 3.8B years. As a result, what is "ideal" to IPCC takes the same tactic as many here observe the duration of eternity: a single point of a beginning, and an infinite line in one direction from that point. Take your pick of where that point is relative to climate ideals. That I do not agree with the beginning-of-eternity claim, I make no claim of when the "ideal climate" began. Rather, I choose to say that there is not a single, ideal climate for the entire earth, but that it enjoys many climates; climates that accommodate the "grandeur in this view of life with its several powers..." [Charles Darwin, On the origin of Species]
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
<br>The Earth has one climate of variations.
That is a complete cop-out. If there are merely variations of a single climate, which cannot possibly meet a singular effort of achieving a singular global temperature or a singular global sea level, why does the IPCC insist on global data? The only way that functions at all is if every type of climate has an equal percentage of data volume with every other, and covering an equal percentage of territory as every other. The earth is not a six-slice apple pie, and no one can argue otherwise. If that is not just absurd, then, what is it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
It isn't my theory. The Greeks had a mathematic graphic symbol representing infinity, or eternity, though the symbol, itself, violates its own concept: ∞ - their letter, omega, although this is an implication of "the last," as opposed to 𝛂 "the first," and not necessarily infinity.
A möbius loop describes an infinite path, but its shape is finite.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
<br>There isn't any scientific consensus as to exactly what the ideal climate should look like,
We're waiting for the IPCC, Working Group III to make its final report, which is in draft form now, but not yet released as per the status report of 1990 that I have cited.
Also, we await IPCC AR6 Climate Change Report of 2021, Mitigation of Climate Change, currently in draft form.
Also see IPCC Scoping Meeting, 2017,https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/09/220520170356-Doc.-2-Chair-Vision-Paper-.pdf
Also see UN SDGs [Sustainable Development Goals], Goal #13 Climate Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_Development_Goals
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I am the only one that is actually trying to stick to the topic
My post #17, repeated in #36, were on point. My point, as it is my thread.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
The solution to income inequality and abuse of the poor:
Make everyone of equal temperament in ambition, planning, and execution. That will solve both issues. Good luck.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
"Based on current model results, we predict:
• under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of
• global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and VC before the end of the next century The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors."
- The IPCC Scientific Assessment, 1990, Executive Summary, pg xi, as quoted earlier in my post #17
A further explorative summary speaks to sea level rise as a global mean, even though 40 countries of 195 do not have a coastline [21% of countries]. However, this lack is not noted in the IPCC report.
There are other references throughout the report df 2365 pages, of a singular climate expectation.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
The name of the religion is "Climate Change" with a splinter sect called "anthropogenia."unnamed?
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
provide an example
The IPCC first report of 1990: "we predict: under [BAU] increase of global mean temperature during the [21st] century of about 0.3 oC per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5 ˚C per decade)" IPCC 1990 FAR - Working Group I: Scientific Assessment of Climate Change
Well, first, the predicted margin of error equals up to, and greater than the total amount of predicted change; a horribly inaccurate statement of margin of error, i.e., virtually 100% MOE. You might as well say Death Valley [-279 ft], and Mt. Whitney [+14.505 ft], one hundred miles apart, and an elevation change of 14,785 ft, are capable of equalizing within the decade.
Second, according to NOAA, the actual global mean temperature shift over the three decades since the first IPPC report noted above, has been 0.6 oC, a mere 66% of the IPCC prediction. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Your "social democracies" have what kind of longevity of operation before they fail? Even the term, "social democracies," is an oxymoron. As for their endurance? Let's first look to what the nomenclature really means. The best performing "social democracy" by endurance never pandered to its citizens by the term; it was full-tilt communism, the road to which is socialism, the road to which is "social democracy." The endurance of the USSR was 75 years. The average socialist jurisdiction endures 40 years; the best, most recent example being Venezuela. Meanwhile, the free-market capitalism of the USA has endured 230 years, even with its flaws.
And who said personal gain was an economic sin? What is the singular reason why, even in America, there are impoverished people? Because they have abandoned ambition, the will to make a plan, and to execute the plan. What is their nemesis? What holds them back? A mirror. Otherwise, how do you explain Abraham Lincoln? Thomas Edison? Nicola Tesla? Albert Einstein? Ben Carson?
As I first challenged; show me the economic system matching that endurance, even when the shyte hits the fan.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
What science? By what coordinated, calibrated measurement equipment, all tuned to the same calibration standards, taking just temperature measurements, let alone humidity, sea level, etc., from around the globe, then summarizing the temperatures, and other criteria, of varied climates as a global average? When each climate has it's own range of annual temperatures, and other criteria, and which data should not be summarized as a grand average, and expect to declare what the temperature range should be for a non-extant singular, ideal climate?
I know a thing or a million about measurement equipment, and the pitfalls of calibration of said equipment, gage repeatability and reproducibility, and interpretation of collected data. Measurement is a science that has effect on every science known to man, and with that science as uncontrolled as it is in your "climate science," a two-hundred year old science compared to sciences of a few thousand years of experience, the errors in data interpretation are many-fold more prevalent in climatology. Yet, your proponents claim your science is "in?"
And you wonder why I'm sardonic? That's your declaration of a "collaborated evidence" science, and my declaration of a whacko religion. Or is it only progs who are allowed to declare all God-fearing people as whacko?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Sardonic? Oh, we can wax poetic on that one:
Sardonomy
Forecastio
Carbolingus
Particulasty
Father, why do these words sound so nasty?
Climabation
Can be fun,
Join the holy orgy
GreenDeal Sutra
Everyone!
Forecastio
Carbolingus
Particulasty
Father, why do these words sound so nasty?
Climabation
Can be fun,
Join the holy orgy
GreenDeal Sutra
Everyone!
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Do you think that by calling it a religion and being so sardonic in tone, you have a shred more credibility or intelligence?
No.
Even if you were right and this was a hoax
I mentioned no hoax. That's your charge. I said religious zeal. Zealots are where there are found. If you want to go there, hoax-wise, fine. Let's start by:
So, argue, if you will, why making the claim of climate change would reduce our myriad of climates to one
Foolish move, if you ask me.
Who's asking? You.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's the same kind of question one may ask regarding art: What is it? Decent, understanding people will call it the highest expression man can give. Skeptics call it anything man can get away with. It is both sacred and profane.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
What variations are maintained in a single climate? The Sahara is a variation of a rain forest, just because the Sahara used to be a rain forest?
You accuse fluff, then offer nothing concrete. Typical prog.thinking.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
I'm quite sure at the very least that half of the senate agree that Trump should've been impeached.
You may be sure, but, apparently, more than half of the Senate does not agree with you, unless you believe more than half of the Senate violated their oath. Prove that. As you do not wear their knickers, I'll submit you cannot.
You're the one trying to expand the argument.
Oh. And you Senate accusation above is not expansion?
The inferences are based upon the thumbprints.
If that were true, you'd have more than inferences. But, if you want to argue that inferences are sufficient to convict, where's the conviction? You keep blowing bozone into your wish balloon, someday it's going to take flight. Bon voyage.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well, except for the flying bit, I agree. Nevertheless, I understand the fly point, I just don't use the language. Not complaining, mind you. Far be it from me to censor. That's not 1A comportment.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
All true, and nothing but. Well done.
Created:
I placed this forum topic in religion only due to the fact that progressives have a religious-like zeal for the subject of climate change. But their article of faith is a simple claim that there must be one, singular, ideal climate sought among the plethora of climates the earth has, and has had, and ever will have, worlds without end. This one single climate, like heaven, is sought at the exclusion of much else in their litany of cross-logic thoughts.
They have already changed their mind on a concept that is, after all, merely a few decades old; changed by virtue of the discovery that the name of god used to be "Global Warming," but it had the bad manners to exhibit a cooling trend. Well, we are in a phase of an ice age, after all, called, by real science, the Quaternary.
Speaking of science, this religion is based on a science of a mere 200 years of age, while real science, geology, astronomy, physics, are thousands of years old, and none declare themselves "in."
So, argue, if you will, why making the claim of climate change would reduce our myriad of climates to one, as if consolidating the body politick, or is that more appropriately called "a congregation of vapors?" [Shakespeare, Hamlet, II, ii]
Created:
Posted in:
I like how ebuc can toss out a word like "immoral" without offer of a single example of either what the moral miss is, specifically, and from what morality it originates. It is as if, like climate, there is only one morality that is ideal for ubiquitous consumption.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Off to the gulag with you, foul fiend!
Without a trial and conviction? Not in my republic. Sorry about yours.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
I believe he left the decision for congress.
"He," being Mueller. Why would Mueller, a professional prosecutor, and, then, a contract employee of DOJ, consider leaving a case for Congress to solve? He had the power of indictment for a criminal offense, and decided he did not have the evidence to do so, by his statements in his Report that I have already cited. Congress, in the guise of the House, has the "Sole power" to impeach, which, itself, is merely a political act. Note that Hamilton, in Federalist Paper #65, stated impeachment and conviction were merely political, not judicial acts. And, note that the result of impeachment and conviction is merely removal from office. Not to mention that only DOJ policy, and not the Constitution, says that a sitting president cannot be indicted. I refer you to Article I, section 3, clause 7, taking into consideration in that clause of the existence of the word "nevertheless." Know the meaning of that word as it is applied in its sentence. Knowing its etymology may be necessary to consult, but it is there, in 18th century syntax, and cannot be arbitrarily ignored, as A.G. John Mitchell did in creating the policy while A.G. for Nixon, but only after Watergate began to close in. Mitchell went to jail for his hijinks, so I don't consider Mitchell a qualified expert on the law sufficient to follow it.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Even assuming for your assumed poll methodology, this is a baseless assumption.
I happen to be a certified Six Sigma Black Belt. Look it up. In this arena of statistics, I have exceeding proof of capable knowledge, so your opinions fail against my steel wall. I don't care who operated the poll. I stated the facts of sub-standard political polling. The flaws of the typical political poll are:
1. Lack of a sufficient polling sample size. Hint, it's not a large number, but most polls, including yours, fall short of that number.
2. Lack of the correct sample group [registered v. likely voters in your example].
3. Lack of equal sub-groups within the sample.
4. Lack of a sufficiently low MOE to establish statistical accuracy within a 95% confidence level.
5. Too many questions [10 is the suggested limit. 40 is the typical minimum political poll number of questions]
6. Some questions are biased, leading to an expected answer to meet an agenda.
Created:
Only in a free society can one individual so change his paradigm of uselessness, poverty, and worthlessness as to prosper and enjoy the blessed rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The economy of personal liberty has no limits set upon it. There is no "there comes a time when you have made enough money." There is no "you didn't build that." The fact is, there is no limit on the money supply ecept as determined by individual declaration. These quoted ideas do not have root in a free-market capitalist system, except by self-imposition. These noted Obama quotations are abrupt limitations, and you are free to argue for these limitations, but they are yours if you share them. Put your money to work for you rather than seeking minimum wage to work for it. The latter is a loser's goal. Why be so limited? It is the curse of entitlement. You will find, my friends, that such liberty to invest is not avarice unless that is the intent, and there are a few who embrace that limitation. Nor is it a goal unto itself. It's blessings reach far and wide to improve self, family, community, and nations. It has worked for 230 years. Show me another system of economics with that success.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
how do the actions detailed in the report fit in with the law when they are both crimes and unactionable?
They [the actions] fit with the law because, though you claim otherwise [your opinion], they are not both crimes and unactionable. That's the point of Mueller's argument. They were not crimes, and therefore were not actionable. And this is why I maintain that adding the exoneration statement was a non sequitur. If the actions were not, in the end, actionable by indictment, from what is it necessary to be exonerated? Moral consideration, perhaps, but by what and whose moral standard? And can Trump be declared party to it by his own acceptance? There is no more a single moral standard in this country than there is a single ideal climate.
Created: