Total posts: 4,363
-->
@dustryder
per definition, exoneration is not necessarily predicated by crime.
I agree with that statement, however, it is a good start. Moreover, an exoneration statement is not legally, nor syntacticly a necessary follow-up statement to the declaration that there was no crime. As said, it is a non sequitur. Therefore, Mueller's exoneration statement is the opinionated statement, not mine. Opinionated, because Mueller's entire investigation of Trump was backassward. One initiates a criminal investigation by first identifying that a crime absolutely was committed, and then begin a pursuit for suspects. In this case, Trump was assumed to have committed a crime, but no one could pinpoint what, exactly, it was. It was an investigation for a crime that Mueller admitted, ultimately, and to his shame [the Congressional testimony in July was evidence of that], was not found.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
<br>...the majority of the American populace agree that Trump did something wrong.
Have a care to understand who your "majority of Americans" really are. Political polls almost always make registered voters their target audience for polling. Who are registered voters? In 2016, there were 250M of them. Only 51%, 127M, of them actually voted, split between Trump and Hillary. Meaning 123M of them never bothered to vote, having no will to make their voice, and opinion, heard. They are included in your "majority." In fact those 123M ARE your majority; people who have no valid opinion. You trust them? You want likely voters, not just registered, but you won't know who they are for another 6 months, minimum.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
<br>he's done some pretty shifty things that sit in a grey area within the law that he cannot be exonerated on.
If, by the law, there is "gray area," then you'e going to have to cite what you're talking about, specifically. The law, my friend, appears to you to have "gray area" because the law is pretty black regarding what is not legal, leaving plenty of white that is. If you want to call some white gray, that is your privilege, but don't expect the court to necessarily agree. Loopholes are what satisfies the public in their ignorance of the law as that which should be closed, made black, but currently is not. Since not everyone who identifies loopholes agrees by what shade of back to fill them [i.e. by definition of severity in terms of negative effect on the public and commensurate punishment], violà, the acceptable to the public, but legally unsupportable gray.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
From the OED: Exoneration "The action of disburdening or relieving, or the state of being relieved from a duty, office, obligation, payment, etc.; also, from blame or reproach; an instance of this, a formal discharge. Const. of. In Scots Law: "
2. Mueller did find crimes
According to the above definition, if Mueller found crime, why didn't he indict? He didn't need DOJ to do it for him. Therefore, as he stated unequivocally that
"…this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime"
the statement
"..., it also does not exonerate him" - Mueller Report, "Conclusion," Vol. 2, pg 182
is a legal and syntactic faux pas by virtue of the previous claim of a non-crime. The latter statement is, as is your argument, superfluous by non sequitur. By concluding there is no crime, it does not follow that there is no exoneration. What precedes, moreover, is that Mueller found himself at the end of a two-year, $30M-plus investigation of having to inflate a bozone-filled wish balloon of what might have been. Sorry.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
2. Mueller did find crimes
"Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election." - Mueller Report, "Executive Summary to Vol 1," pg. 9
"…this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime" - Mueller Report, "Conclusion," Vol. 2, pg 182
Yes, Mueller ended with 30+ indictments, and some convictions, but the target of the Mueller investigation was Trump, and not a single indictment names anyone wearing the Trump name. Other targets do not count as none had a farthing of relation to the subject of a favor requested by Trump on 7/25 to President Zelensky. You cannot broaden the scope of this string just to justify your opinion. As its instigator, I declare your entire commentary in this post as superfluous. Stay on point. I'll allow you discussion of Mueller as relevant, because the president mentioned Mueller in the 7/25 conversation, but your conclusion about the Report is demonstrably wrong. Mueller did mention several areas of concern, but defined none of them as indictable crimes, and he did not indict on their suggestion.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
I'm happy to discuss the merits of my correction
Then make your case and stop ragging on mine. I've explained the merit of my case, and why it is merited. Time you started yours.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
In a corrected version of your parody,
Correct according to whom? By what perspective? I'll throw ethang's argument to you, even though not directed to you:
You place your assumptive interpretation on what Trump did, and this in itself is fine, but then you proceed to treat your assumption as if it is fact.
Have you allowed Trump to crawl deep into your head such that you know his intentions? If that, then why are you not using his name? And allowing his intent to be in your head, rent-free? It'd either, or, my friend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
If you [sic] clueless on why republicans are more immoral,
Clueless. perhaps, to your definition of morality. Do that, and the answer may be forthcoming, and not what you think. I can show you clueless as regards Progressives, but if our definitions differ, can you just agree to disagree and stop making your argument? Your argument is only that someone else is insane, and that is not argument. It merely demonstrates your assumed superiority, but there;'s always someone who trumps yours.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
I maintain that the favour was composed of multiple parts.
Using your suggested "multiple parts" - "Do us a favor. Buy some apples for me at the store. Apples are wonderful to eat fresh, they're great in pies, and sauté well with salmon. You saw yesterday a very poor effort to use apples in a cake, and the guy who did that ended with a very poor recipe. But, they say the idea came from your kitchen. What ever you can do, like suggesting oranges, instead, would be great. Why don't you get some oranges, and try it. We need a good dessert tonight."
There's just two examples of eight from the 7/25 transcript that demonstrate that Trump was not following a compounded string of related parts, leading to a favor of several parts, all dealing with a singular request to investigate Biden. Simply put, yes, they are discussing, in my parody, different recipes in which apples can be enhancing, but, yesterday, in a completely different exercise, in a completely different kitchen, cake and apples were combined resulting in a failed recipe. It was not a single composition of multiple parts, but different compositions employing separate parts.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
What off course? The origin of this string is to identify what favor Trump was asking for in discussion with Ukraine's Zelensky. You maintain it was a Biden investigation, and can see no other possibility. I disagree, and it appears neither will convince the other. No off course, at all, just an inability to convince.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
In a vacuum, I don't actually care that Barr appears to be a Trump sycophant because, as you say, appointees tends to be sympathetic towards their appointers
Then tell your right brain to tell your left brain that that is exactly the case, vacuum, or not.
No, because this is a topic about Trump's dealings not Biden's.
And Trump's dealing was not a dangle; not a quid pro quo. Not that there is anything wrong with a quid pro quo in government as long as there is not person profiting from the deal. Trump did not personally profit from delaying payment that was, in the end, paid on time, anyway. So, what, exactly, is your problem with Trump's negotiation with Ukraine, because this isn't it.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
this would've been a non-issue if Trump hadn't been dangling military aid as a bargaining chip
You are confusing Trump with Biden. Biden dangled $1B to Ukraine, saying, on video, that Ukraine had six hours to fire their prosecutor, or the $1B would be withdrawn. Trump put a temp hold in $139M, about ten X less than Biden's play, but released it well before the deadline for that payment, 9/30/2019. Paid on 9/11. Anything strike you as coincidental about that date, 9/30? No? It happened to be the end of fiscal 2018, and intended for use by Ukraine beginning fiscal 2019, on 10/1. So, the argument that Ukrainian soldiers were endangered by the delay is also a crock of shyte, because earlier payment in fiscal 2018 took the neds of those soldiers to end fiscal year 2018.
Rather the DoJ headed by the man appointed by Trump and generally seen as biased towards Trump affairs.
Oh, for the shame! A president appoints an A.G. who is agreeable to Trump policy. Can you just imagine how unique that is. Face it, bud, you hate everything about Tump and will complain that he brushes his teeth.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Exactly my question, and concerned because he had proposed an interesting debate. Oh, well.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Trump:
"I would like you to do us a favor though..."
"I would like you to find out what happened with... CrowdStrike..." [not Biden] "The server, they say Ukraine has it." [favor?]
"I would like to have the Attorney General call you, or your people..." [favor?]
"That whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller" [not Biden] "...they say a lot of it started in Ukraine. Whatever you can do." [favor?]
Zelensky: "I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation" [which investigation? Biden? No, he has not bee mentioned yet] "..and all the investigations will be done openly and candidly." [not Biden; he's not mentioned yet, but Trump has already mentioned CrowdStrike, and Mueller] [favor?]
Trump:
"...the way they shut your very good prosecutor down..." ['they,' who? Well, who fired the prosecutor? Not Biden; he's not a Ukrainian with the authority to do that, is he? That action was done by former Ukrainian leaders.] [favor?]
"If you could speak to him," [Giuliani] "that would be great." [favor?]
"The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news, and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know about that." [favor?]
How many favors are you going to pass over just to get to Biden? One favor. Apples and oranges, and a map of Ukraine, and party favors [no pun intended], and a box of Depends, and toilet paper, and cough syrup."
Add more items to the list; I don't care.
"If you can look into it" is Biden's time in the sun, but the sun rose on other favors first. So, which was the ONE favor? It wasn't a shopping list, my friend.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
So, you're describing two separate favors; CrowdStrike/Burisma [the latter never mentioned, by the way], and looking into Biden. But the request was for "one" favor, so you're going to have to parse the single favor. You didn't. Not to mention repeating that seven degrees of separation exist between CrowdStrike and Biden. Why should you suppose that the last is the favor requested. IUs tat how you ask for favorts? I don't.
Created:
Trump did what on 7/25/2019? Based on the released 7/25 transcript, He asked Zelensky for a favor. One favor. Then he asked about CrowdStrike, not Biden. He asked about Mueller, not Biden. Then he asked about Ukraine issues, not Biden. Zelensky spoke for a bit, without mention of Biden, then Trump picked up with Giuliani, Barr, and Yovanovitch [not named], but not Biden. Finally, the eighth discussion point between them. Trump mentions Biden. So, that's the opposing rationale. There are seven points of separation between the ask and mention of Biden, but the whole is to be deleted [as Schiff did in his parody], and we go direct to an ask about Biden? In what universe? Not in my republic. Sorry about yours.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I'll wager it was both. But then, I start by making the ice cream myself, and I have a personally developed dark chocolate recipe that is so rich you can eat about a cup of it, and your sweet tooth is positivity orgasmic. Though my wife disagrees, if you can do it, it ain't bragging [the ice cream, not necessary the orgasm]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
No prob. Still friends. We'll carry on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Nope. I've been high enough in the air to know it is not. And I've been long enough distance in the air around the world to know it is not.
Seems to me, a round earth will contain more crude than a flat earth of the same area as the sphere.
Created:
I have a real treat of a freeze-dry recipe that can be duplicated in a dehydrator. I call them herb-crusted tomato chips. I slice tomatoes about 1/4" thick, lay the slices in my trays, and top with a few drops of olive oil, then a mix of grated parmesan cheese, a dash of onion and garlic powder, chopped parsley, basil, thyme, and sprinkle the mix on the oil, press it into the oil with a finger [or the vacuum will pull it off during processing]. The result is 100x better than potato chips.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Volume is about 102 cu. in. in each tray x 4 trays; about 400 cu in.. in a batch. For example, I can process about 160 apricots, halved and de-pitted in one batch. Or, about 12 servings of spaghetti [noodles and sauce]. 4 10-in bags of frozen peas. 8 cans of 10-oz soup concentrate.
A dehydrator [I have one, too, but almost never use it anymore] does not have the advantage of sublimation, i.e., the removal of water in a vacuum state, which allows the water transition direct from frozen to vapor without passing through a liquid phase. The result is virtually complete water removal [a dehydrator cannot do that], and, a more concentrated flavor.
I've found the cost of use is barely measurable relative to energy cost.
The con argument? There is a vacuum pump involved, and that needs bi-annual partial tear-down maintenance [about an hour's time] and it consumes a quart of pump oil every dozen or so cycles [batches] [~$8 ea.], but I have devised an oil filtering system that extends that usage to about 30 batches before I must change the oil. There is an innovation of an oilless, embedded vacuum pump that is now in use to eliminate all of that, but I've chosen to keep what I have for now. Being retired, I have time for the maintenance.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Nonetheless,the greater need is the reduction of carbon emissions.
Is it? How about the fact that, by geologic record, there have been periods in earth's existence of greater CO2 in the atmosphere than now.
"The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now." https://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938
There are several other sources wth the same conclusion. So, if not man, what other sources of CO2 were spewing, then? And still may be contributing? Climate science is 200 years old, at best. And yet, it claims the science is "in." Physics, astronomy, geology, etc, are thousands of years in existence. Thaey don't claim "in." Why does climate? BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN AGENDA. You money, mostly.
The earth is bombarded with free energy from the Sun on a daily basis
Yes, it is. But what, pay tell, is used to convert it to electrical energy? Petroleum. I have 39 solar panels on my roof. There's a lot of plastic up there. There's a production line of raw materials produced by..., and machines that are lubricated by..., a production plant powered by.... and production workers wearing clothes woven with... petroleum. Right now, turn a complete 360, and tell me that wherever you look, you do not see product that follows the previous sentence's list of petroleum involvement. All that is going to be net zeroed in ten years? A wish balloon, my friend, of the fullest order.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
The Earth is not creating new deposits on the timescales that human civilization exists in.
How many billions of years of years, or even just hundreds of millions of years of life on earth before humans existed has the earth been producing petroleum crude, never used until our rudimentary discovery of ground-exposed pitch was discovered to be a fuel? Human life is less than just 100M years. That leaves billions of years; more than 3B, and change, when that crude is entirely unused, but increasing in volume.
If it takes a million years to produce petroleum crude from the moment of death of every living thing, plant and animal, on earth, all over the earth, that's a lot of crude produced.
Do you really think we've depleted the supply? Let alone continuing to add to the supply ever since, and evermore. That's a windbag suggestion that might illuminate a lightbulb for a while.
The alternative, what is really going on, as I suggest, is a continuously renewable supply to be tapped. 2.9B years of production before we ever began to use it, and that's a maximum suggestion of when our use began. We haven't scratched the surface of the crude available in reserve. And it continues to produce even as we are using it. That's called renewable. The orginal renewable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
In the US, among hundreds of other places. Everywhere there is a pocket underground into which organic material can decay and seep. The earth is not a solid mass of rock and molten rock; that ought to be abundantly clear. It's swiss cheese. Think about how planets are formed. The asteroid belt is a good example of the raw material used. Creation was not an event of zapping nothing into existence; it was organizing a chaos of raw material together.
As long as there is life on earth, there will; be petroleum crude.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
As for my motivation to store food and supplies, I'll admit that it started as religious, but I thought about the rationale, and the first thought that occurred to me was the possibility of a protracted truckers' strike because food retailers are entirely dependent on the continuous delivery. The original suggestion of my church leaders was a 2-year supply of not just food, but other essentials: TP, toothpaste, medicine [at least OTC], but also cash. Recently, that has been reduced to one year, but the principle is the same: be prepared for anything. Having a two-year supply is a storage space challenge for some, but I was never hindered by that restriction. IN fact, I continue to freeze dry, mainly because my annual garden produce exceeds what we can possibly eat fresh. I share it with our daughter's family, and others as the need arises. In fact, I have committed to my bishop [the leader of our ecclesiastical unit] that I would be willing to donate all, if needed, in case of emergency for someone else, such as losing a job. I Figure if I can help bess others in need, I, to will never want.
You raise some interesting points about eating-out habits. Eating out the equivalent of once a day, and more, is a complete waste of money that could, for example, be used to invest. People are not rich are angry at the rich, but don't do what rich people do. Silly in the extreme. Why complain? Join the club. Dues are simple. Invest on one's self instead of making restaurants, boat dealers, skidoo dealers, etc. rich. learn to cook, and rent the other stuff as needed, and invest. Simple plan. It's what I did; it works.
Created:
Posted in:
I get the routine. Green energy, at a basic level, is considered renewable because all of its sources are naturally recurring energy sources: the sun, wind, water, and geothermal.
However, what is not renewable about petroleum, clearly, not what one would define as green energy?Or is it? What is not natural about petroleum? We don't make it. We process it. However, don't we do the same with wind and water, et al? Which of all those natural energy sources is not processed to convert the energy from whatever its original power to electrical power?
What is not natural about petroleum? It's even organic. How natural is that?
In the 50s, King Hubbard announced that within 20 years, we wold reach a criss mode because that future would signal our peak available crude source. From then, on, our available quantity of oil reserves would begin to deplete. He was wrong, but not without causing a simulated oil crisis in the 70s. At the time, I was feeding my 6.5-litre, 350 BHP 1968 GTO with 42-cent premium petrol. By the time the "crisis" concluded, it was near a dollar, and it never looked back. However, today, our reserves are bigger than ever. The fact is, we don't know how much of the stuff we have in reserve, because the earth keeps making it, 24/7, and has ever since organic creatures, animal and plant, began dying and decomposing, and it will continue as long as there is life on earth. So, what's not renewable about petroleum?
Created:
I'm all for green energy. I have a 39-panel array of solar energy that dropped my power bill to 3% of its monthly charge, by annual average before I had therm mounted on my roof. So, the money I'm saving is obvious. However, wind, tidal, hydro, geothermal, and even nuclear energy turbines are not completely "green" as long as they use petroleum to lubricate their moving parts and to fabricate their plastic parts. And this is the condition of every turbine on earth. Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me that someone will start marketing AlGoreGooeyJuice before we reach AOC's deadline, now less than ten years out.
Until AlGore's juice is a product, green energy turbines are not green, any more than an electric car that must still use petroleum to lubricate its moving parts and to fabricate its plastic parts. Again, tell me I'm wrong.
So, how green is green? Looking awfully crude to me.
Created:
Three-plus years ago, I purchased a freeze dryer, expecting mostly to freeze dry my own produce of fruits and vegetables from my garden. Quick lesson on freeze drying: Food is cut/sliced to thickness not to exceed 0.5", put on steel trays and into a vacuum-sealable cylindrical chamber, which pulls a vacuum while also reduced in temperature to -40 degrees for a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The process is call subduction, in which, under the conditions of vacuum and temp noted, virtually all water is extracted from the food in a direct-phase transfer from liquid to vapor, leaving the food size intact. There result is a pleasantly crunchy texture that melts in your mouth. When the food is subsequently sealed in a mylar bag with a desiccant pouch, it remains edible for 25 years. I've found that vacuum-sealed bags are also a good packing technique if you have one of those devices.
However, virtallyany food can be freeze dried with little excption: a butter stick, for example, even sliced, may explode. A block of cheese, the same. However, with either frozen, then shredded, it's freeze-driable. Ice cream, when sliced into small bars, is fabulous. Casseroles, entrees, mashed potatoes, canned soups and vegetables... you name it, as long as cut t size [or liquids just poured into the trays, are all freeze dryed easily. One benefit: all flavors are wildly enhanced because water dilutes flavor.
I may be preaching to a choir among a few of you. If you've ever eaten freeze died, you're missing a treat. Casseroles and such merely have to be reconstituted with oiling water and stirred to restore to your familiar casserole condition, but just eating it in the freeze dry condition is also very tasty.
The point is, I've found that a freeze dried storage is made to order for this current shopping crisis. I highly recommend the purchase, anywhere from $2,000 to $4,000. It paid for itself inside of two years of use. That's a valid return on investment.
Created:
With about a week into the social-distancing result of Covid-19, I observe that the popular items that reman on shelves, are somewhat unexpected. I can understand the lack of toilet paper, although I'm not sure why. TP was gone long before our local fresh veggies & fruits were, although they, too, were soon depleted. I already have an 8-month supply of TP, and almost 3-years of personally produced freeze dried, veggies, fruit, main course entrees, deserts, and powdered drinks, plus two freezers [not including the freezer portions of two refrigerators] so food is not critical to me, either.
However, I am somewhat surprised that items like candy remain plentiful; cookies, too. Still a variety of chips. Ice cream stock is lower than 50% of normal-stocked condition. I have two separate stores which remain open 27/7 within reasonable distance, and I shop at about 2 AM to avoid significant social contact. What are your observations?
Created:
-->
@Alec
You keep raising the age in your argument. Tell you what, if you don't want to vote for someone who is 102, don't. What else can I tell you?
Created:
-->
@Vader
Bombing should not have been the only option.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I don't know. All I know is that Trump is the first President in decades to recognize that trade is in the pits, and he's doing something about it no President in my lifetime ever bothered to address.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
There was very little public pressure from the American people...
What research did you do relative to Roosevelt, himself? He was the subject of my criticism, not the people or Congress. Stay on point. Roosevelt knew there were horrific crimes being committed by the Nazis in death camps. What did Roosevelt do about it? Not a bloody thing. In this regard, he was just doing the bidding of his Party, and it hasn't changed since. Kind of like what the Democrats thought about civil rights a generation later in the South, which the Democrats controlled, then. Why do you think they lost the South? Look at the voting record of 1964's Civil Rights Act. Were it not for Republicans, it would have never passed. Democrats are not the tolerant people they like to sell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
As you get more people, you gain more expenses
By that argument, both China and India should have a greater economy, and, therefore, more tax revenue than ours. Neither do. So, there's something else involved, isn't there. Think it through further. You'll find the answer.
I'd want to abolish the income tax
You've completely ignored my comment that a sales tax could replace income tax. You claim only half the country invests. I'll wager that it's less. The answer is not to devise another tax method. The answer is to encourage more people to stop buying so much and invest in themselves instead. Not completely, just a percentage. That's not not buying stuff, that's buying a future. What's wrong with that?
Created:
-->
@Alec
Why not? What makes you think that an 80 year old cannot be as vital as 70, or 60? Not all, no. Biden is absurd at his age. Bernie is not, and he's older. Look, when James Madison established 35 as a minimum age to qualify running for president in the latter quarter of the 18th century, he happened to be 35. What do you think the average life expectancy was in the latter 18th century? 37. Think about that, and extrapolate what that means to the 21st century.
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
In that case, you contradict yourself.
As if Christians were supposed to be at odds with judaism. They are of closer relationship than the two are with Muslims, although all three claim Abrahamic origin. There is not the schism between the two as you suppose, and here's why: "The Law," as understood by Judaism, is more than just the 10 commandments of Exodus. Indeed, a full read of Exodus beyond the 20th chapter reveals more than strictly "the ten commandments." Ancient Jews considered the entirely of the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses, as "The Law." In later years, Judaism accepted not just the Pentateuch, but "The Prophets" - the later books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc, as "The Law." AS a whole it cmprised not just 10, but over 600 commandments. However, by the early first century, "The Law" was dwindled to acceptance of just Mosaic Law of the Pentatech again. So, when Jesus taught concepts outside of Mosaic Law, they rebelled against him. For example, while "The Law" taught that the act of adultery was a sin [Exodus 20: 14], Jesus taught that the very thought if the act, looking upon a woman in lust was as if committing it [Matthew 5: 28] Consider Matthew 5: 17: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am come not to destroy but to fulfill." Jesus is declaring that the Prophets are to be accepted, which the Pharisees and scribes had dismissed. And, "For I say into you, That unless your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter the kingdom of heaven." [Matthew 5: 20] In Jesus Christ, not in the Law of Moses, or the Prophets added to it, is the fulfillment, by righteousness to the Law as decreed by Jesus Christ, which is greater than "The Law" of all the Old Testament, of the kingdom of heaven. It requires more than devotion to 600 commandments. It requires a broken heart and a contrite spirit, being poor in spirit, mourning, meekness, hunger and thirst after righteousness, merciful, pure in heart, peacemakers, persecuted for righteousness, love your enemies. More than that, even. I am not belittling the Jews, here. I'm only saying they do not yet accept the fulfillment of Jesus Christ. However, in many respects, they are more dedicated than a lot of Christians in following their law, and blessed are they for it.
I don't think you understand the technology behind nuclear if you believe that nuclear energy automatically opens up the potential for nuclear weapons.
As if Iran is NOT pursuing nuclear weapons. I did not draw a distinction between energy and nukes; you just did. Don't accuse me of your distinction. Perhaps the beginning of your charge in three words ought to suggest the relevance of what follows.
No sh1t dude, the rich have more money
More complaining. I repeat: instead of complaining, be rich. I repeat: what's stopping you? Stop complaining, get to work. Are you stuck in a loop working for money? Put it to work for you. Break the mirror.
Lol. Don't tell me I'm dealing with a boomer here.
Lol? We didn't use that excuse, bud. Your generation seems adept at it, but not much else. We appear decadent, etc, because you don't seem to get the paradigm I just described above. We put our money to work, and you feel entitled to it. Make you own! Money is not made by entitlement, and those who believe it is are just socialists who don't get it that Marx left you nothing but. You complain that SS and Medicare are just socialist programs. Ever hear of FICA taxes. Do you have a clue what they are? It's on your paystub. It's your money paid on every paycheck to fund you SS and Medicare. You employer matches your payment; money you never see, but it's yours. By the time you have worked a full career, you've paid enough to fund over 90% of your SS and Medicare, Your money. Not anybody else's. The balance of of the ~10% is earned interest on your FiCA account. Not socialist. A capitalist investment plan. of curse, you're meant to invest more of your money so that by the time your retire, you have a nest egg to depend on so you don't have to be entitled. Get t? Nope. Not yet. You're not finished laughing and complaining, yet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Do you have any other original swipe at anyone? Brain dead is getting a little old, don't you think? You use it so often, one wonders if it isn't self-directed. It's like the people who use some derivative of Trump's name as an avatar, thinking it a swipe at Trump. No, it's just admission that Trump has occupied a deep place in their head, rent-free. What? They lost their own name? Pity.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
And so you have answered the question you raised first about Trump's tariff policy. A short-term rough patch, a long-term gain in a growing export ratio, which has been lacking by presidents for 40+ years, and finally will turn around by Trump.
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
Done something for an apartheid state that disenfranchises and steals the land and property from Palestinians?
I will have you recall that II Samuel and I Chronicles chronicle the story of David's purchase of King Araunah's threshing floor and surrounding land [Araunah was a Jebusite - look him up] for 50 shekels of silver. The land belonged then to David, and on that threshing floor his son, Solomon built the Temple. No one has ever purchased the land from David's descendants, but occupied it all the same, so let's not quibble over who owns the land.
Kennedy could have made the largest tax cut in history
Yes, Kennedy did, but it was not largest. And so you complain that Trump's tax cut favored the rich. Who pays more in tax volume, forget percentage. You want to complain about the rich? What's stopping you from joining them? The mirror is your answer. Change that.
Black unemployment has declined under several other presidents.
Not under Johnson. Don't read more into what I write than that. He signed the Civil Rights Act under duress of historic perspective, not because he supported it. I'll wager you were not alive then. I was, and was well aware of who favored civil rights, and approved it, and who merely usurped it as a political ploy.
What has Trump done positively regarding Iran?
Trump cancelled the deal. Too bad Oba'a was afraid to make it a treaty - far more difficult to erase a treaty, isn't it? Oba'a was not after a long-term deal; just to get through his presidency, and I'll guarantee he didn't care a farthing after that. But it was a pathetic deal that would hand nukes to Iran in ten years. That's a deal? For whom? What did WE get out of the deal. Its a figure south of one. Actually, given the cash given to Iran, it's south of zero.
The economy recovered in 2008.
The economy crashed in 2008. Get your history straight. And, no, it did not recover in 2010, either, although Biden proudly claimed it the "Summer of Recovery." Well, it recovered so well, we lost our AAA credit rating in summer 2011, costing us billions in added interest debt. Don't forget Q.E., either. That was artificial firing of the economy. lLook at the results, Every boost the market had by Q.E. was followed by a spike down, because you don't stimulate an economy by artificial flooding with cash, every dollar of which raised the debt. Sure, you look at where the market was in 2017 when Trump was inaugurated, at 18,800. Fine, but lets recall that the market rose 1,000 points within days of Trump's election, so give that 1,000 to Trump. You're down to 17,800. Let's look at the market losses after each infusion of Q.E,; three of them. The total of losses against the gains amounted to almost 7,000 points. You're down to 10,000. Before the crash of 2008, and what Oba'a inherited was 8,000. So, what Oba'a managed to raise in 8 years was not 11,000 points, which it should have been without Q.E., if Oba'a financial advisors had a clue what they were doing, because Oba'a was dumb as a post on such matters, but the real Oba'a economy raised it 2,000 points. let's be generous. 3,000.
They are all fair points.
Created:
Posted in:
I hear there's a movement to print TP as waffles, apply a warm, amber syrup, and eat up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Thought crimes. Yep, the criminality of a tyranny.
My republic is doing just fine, and me in it.
Sorry about yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I trust you do not use the same brush with which you paint others to brush your teeth; otherwise, your teeth are turning orange.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I conclude: You have wandered so far afield in your accusations that you have forgotten the original proposal of this string: that you ignore and have defrocked Saint Darwin because you ignore that he gave the answer to your problem in the principles of his tome, On the Origin of Species.
Adaptation.
But you'd rather ignore it, ridicule it in a song:
Seasonomy
Climatio
Temperasus
Meterolasty
Father, why do these words sound so nasty
Adaptation
Can't be fun
Join the greenie orgy
Clima Sutra
Everyone!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
We clues and facts to 7.5 billions impact on Earth
And you accuse that I'm brain dead???
"And this above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man." - Shakespeare, Hamlet, I, iii
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Duhh, you apparrently missed the late 80's and 90's
Did you miss the 50s, when King Hubbard proclaimed "peak oil," and that the decline from the "peak" [of production of oil due to a depleting raw material supply in the earth] would occur in the 70s. We have reserves, still, of monumental increase over what Hubbard predicted.
Did you miss the 60s when it was declared we were over-populated in earth's human population, and the crowd proclaiming it was encouraging people to stop populating, or even existing. I note, however, that none of them were wiling to join the extinction line.
Did you miss the 70s, when, as predicted, oil production declined; not because of any natural condition of raw crude depletion [it was still there, and increasing, and still does], but because the government forced lower production, and the whole was later proven to be a hoax.
Did you miss the 80s, when Al Gore produced an inconvenient documentary that a climate disaster was coming in the guise of sea level rises to inundate NYC in 20 years, and a scorched earth from petroleum use, etc? Well, now, tell me how many of your green energy turbines in the world [hydro, tidal, geo-thermal, wind and even nuclear] that do not use petroleum for lubrication, and to manufacture plastic parts. Same for solar panels and electric cars.
Did you miss the 90s, when "global warming" decided that was not a proper term [mainly because "warming" was not the effect the global temperature monitors were reporting]?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Never made any such comment.
No, you didn't. Have a care to understand what I wrote: "You can claim..." not that you did. A future potential, because we do not yet, and may never bottle cow farts. It's not a present fact. Get it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Walking talking brain dead
When we land on Mars, [hasn't happened, yet, so don't get all huffy about my making "false narratives'] we will discover the ancient ruins of a once intelligent civilization that became obsessed with a concept they called climate change. We will witness the vast wasteland resulting from their solution: net zero emissions. To accomplish it, they eliminated all sources of GHG emissions, meaning they eliminated all lifeforms that lived, died, and decomposed to an organic petroleum crude. Thus, the achievement of net zero. However, as we learned from Jurassic Park, life finds a way, and the cycle begins again. Net, plus. Congratulations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
One might think you think you created science! So why, pray tell, have levels of greenhouse gasses been higher in recorded geologic history prior to man? You can claim anthropogenic effect until cow farts are bottled, but theory is just theory. Sure, there probably is anthropogenic effect, but what is its tipping point of criticality? How does it compare to completely natural effects like vulcanism? Do we have a clue what an ideal climate should be, and by what measurement? Is there a single, ideal climate the whole earth should have? Is there a scrubbing mechanism the earth naturally has to cleanse itself, because it has been observed to do that, such as by the observed natural reduction of the ozone hole crisis a few decades ago, but which has not yet kicked in because critical phase has not yet been reached for your GHGs? Climate science, with all its claims of being "in" [while being barely a science at 200 years of age] has not the longevity of experience of physics, astronomy, and geology, none of which claim "in."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
For the benefit of Mister Mag
There will be collection bags to see his show,
The bag’s to spill your guts so full,
His game is not so wonderful, shout hurrah!
The DA clan begins to grin
As Gami burns his ticket /in by real fire,
In this way, Mr. Mag will challenge the world!
The celebrated Mr. Mag
Performs his feat by telegram, a no-show man,
The members will all sing and dance,
As Mag sets fire to his pants; don’t be late!
The gamers will for sure assure
That this production will be second to none
And of course, Mr. Mag is playing a nun!
The game begins at six to six
When Mister Mag performs his tricks in absentia.
An empty stage will be ablaze
While everyone begins to taze the mafia!
Having been some days since being tazed
The Magi’s game will fall just flat on face.
And tonight, his game will fall under the world!
©2020 by fauxlaw
[all credit of inspiration to The Beatles]
There will be collection bags to see his show,
The bag’s to spill your guts so full,
His game is not so wonderful, shout hurrah!
The DA clan begins to grin
As Gami burns his ticket /in by real fire,
In this way, Mr. Mag will challenge the world!
The celebrated Mr. Mag
Performs his feat by telegram, a no-show man,
The members will all sing and dance,
As Mag sets fire to his pants; don’t be late!
The gamers will for sure assure
That this production will be second to none
And of course, Mr. Mag is playing a nun!
The game begins at six to six
When Mister Mag performs his tricks in absentia.
An empty stage will be ablaze
While everyone begins to taze the mafia!
Having been some days since being tazed
The Magi’s game will fall just flat on face.
And tonight, his game will fall under the world!
©2020 by fauxlaw
[all credit of inspiration to The Beatles]
Created: