OK. I'll ask the question. Which one?

EIA Abbreviation for:

enteroinsular axis
enzyme immunoassay
Equality Impact Assessment
excessive inappropriate aggression
exercise-induced asthma
external iliac artery
extracorporeal immunoadsorption

What "facts"? Your opinion? That's just, like, your opinion, man.
Edit: Facts that Trump said aren't facts? That's the best indicator today that they are factual.
I'll take the dozens of convictions and guilty pleas based on those facts as proof enough they are true and well vetted. People don't agree to years in prison based on nonsense that's been proven false....especially not people with money like these people have.

As the exalted leaders #1 choice for (mis)information that becomes policy and platform for the right, and part of the right wing triad ministry of truth, you simply can't leave Jones out of any media discussion, particularly one where someone paints the BBC as having an (anti?)American political bias, and not just a bias for reality.

Yes, it's all fine and dandy. Any investigation of an investigation by the subject being investigated (or their proxies) is patently ridiculous and a clear political ploy to satiate your need for corroboration of what you want to believe, fact based or not. They knew they couldn't write the investigation's findings, nor could they accept the truth being made public, the only option left is to discredit the investigation, something they've been trying since before it began. I find it incredibly sad that so many are so thoroughly indoctrinated that you buy that obvious, self serving ploy to discredit the entire FBI and intelligence community in favor of a consummate narcissist and convicted fraud's self serving and baseless stated opinion about himself.
I guess you believe mob bosses who claimed they were framed and are just legitimate businessmen too, tapes and other evidence of them planning crimes and committing them are nothing in the face of their denials, right?

Yes...yes he did say that about central American immigrants....are you just parsing the fact that he didn't specifically say EACH AND EVERY ONE IS A RAPIST, while not acknowledging what he did say...."They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."? Strictly read, he's saying they're all rapists, but some are good people anyway....just like some Neo Nazis are good people in his opinion. You're attempts at rectifying oldthink (rewriting history) only work with people who have no memories. I watched him say it and I can remember yesterday without big brother telling me what to remember.

I can't dive into your paranoia to decipher what you're feeling. If you can't hear "accosted" and gather they likely arrested her aggressively and instead read that as some hidden agenda to.....well, you didn't articulate what the motive would be...., perhaps reading comprehension isn't a strong suit.

ac·cost. /əˈkôst,əˈkäst/ verb
past tense: accosted; past participle: accosted
approach and address (someone) boldly or aggressively.

I disagree with your characterizations. Considering the constant vitriolic, dangerous, demonizing, now blatant terroristic threats from Trump directed at all non right wing propaganda outlets that won't spread his propaganda and stroke his ego, amplified through his right wing minitrue and interpreted by his base that he's trained to hear his dog whistling, and in the face of the same, they display a mature, composed, restrained, unbiased, and inhumanly patient character, including the three you listed.
Yes, they are mature and reasonable adults under constant attack from a serial con man/cult leader and constant threats against their lives, not one Fox host, Jones host, or OAN host is 1/4 as mature, honest, or unbiased as the worst you can mention from CNN.....and no, CNN is not my preferred news source, but they are infinitely better than anything the evil trinity of right wing propaganda produces, including the totally dishonest smear campaign against all news organizations that you are part of now, willingly or not.

That's what the ministry of truth does. They get you to repeat their lies until you believe them enough to be the enemy of anyone still believing fact and reality. It clearly worked.

Btw, still waiting on the names of CNN reporters who have gone on the campaign to stump for the left, like Fox hosts did on the right. You insanely claim CNN is more biased than Fox, you should be able to name at least 4 off hand then.

Awesome. I like their take on the largely percussion section in the original that I see as a symbolic version of the evolution and industrialization of man (simple and free flowing to aggressive to machine-methodical). Cool to see that bit done with flamenco-esque percussion on the guitar resonating chamber.

Hard to beat the snarl-factor that ramps up in Maynard's original vocals, and I think I prefer those overall, but this style goes better with the acoustic instrumentation.

Great sift!

The simple point is that as soon as we realized the capability of the Zero we easily and quickly designed a plane(s) capable of combating it.

The Yak-3 didn't enter the war until 1944, at which point the war had massively turned in Western Theatre. For the bulk of the conflict, they were using the Yak-1.

The Mig 25 and Mig 31 are both interceptors, they are designed to fire from distance and evade. The Su 35 is designed for Air Superiority. We have held the edge in our capabilities for years compared to them.

Every expert I know of is skeptical of China's claimed Railgun weapon. As to why they would bother mounting it and making claims, why not? It is brinkmanship, making us think they have more capabilities than they do.

The laser rifle is a crowd deterrent weapon. It would serve almost no purpose in infantry combat because it cannot kill. Yes, it can burn things and cause pain, but that is all. Again, this was claimed to be far more effective than experts think during our diplomatic arguments over China's use of blinding lasers on aircraft. We have no hard evidence of it's capability.

Yes, Russia could sell such a missile to our enemies versus using it directly against us. The problem is that as soon as they do so, the genie is out of the bottle. It will be reverse engineered quickly and could be USED AGAINST THEM. No country gives or sells away it's absolute top level weaponry except to it's most trusted allies. Allies which, for all intents and purposes, know that using such a weapon against another nation state risks full out retaliation against not only them but the country that sold it to them.

Our carriers are excellent mobile platforms, but they are not our only way of mounting air strikes. If we were somehow in a conventional war situation, we could easily fly over and base our aircraft in allied countries for combat. Most of our nuclear capable aircraft are not carrier launched anyway. Even if somehow all of our carriers were taken out and somehow our SAC bombers were destroyed as well, we would still have more than enough land launched and submarine launched nuclear warheads to easily blanket our enemies.

My points remain:

1. It is in the greatest interest of our enemies to boast about weapon capabilities even if they are not effective yet.

2. Most well regarded experts consider many of these weapons to either be still in the research stage, early production stage (IE not available for years), or they are wildly over hyped.

3. There is no logical reason for our enemies to use these weapons or proliferate them to their closest allies unless the weapons can prevent a nuclear response. Merely mentioning a weapon that would have such a capability creates a situation that could lead to nuclear war, like SDI did. I don't know if you recall, but I do clearly, how massively freaked out the Soviets got over our SDI claims. For two years they started threatening nuclear war as being inevitable if we continued on the path we were, all the while aggressively trying to destabilize our relations with our allies. 1983 to 1985 was pretty fucking tense, not Cuban missile crisis level maybe, but damn scary. Putin has acted similarly over our attempts to set up a missile barrier in former satellite states of Russia, although we still haven't got to the SHTF level of the early 80's.

Ha! Thanks for the link.
So, it's total b.s. as I read it.

First, then he misstated, he thinks we could feed 3.5 billion more people if we converted all land currently providing food for animals into successful industrial human farmland, which is not what he said at all. He said "if we just eat what we feed to animals", which is impossible insanity.

Second, they extrapolated by determining the approximate number of hectares being used to provide animal feed (likely including natural grasslands that aren't and cannot be planted or farmed), then extrapolating again using a formula that tells them the maximum number of people you can feed with successful aggressive multicrop farming of the same number of hectares, as if you can get the same maximum yield from any hectare....and ignoring that it takes huge amounts of fresh water to farm industrially, water that native grasslands don't need or have available.

That's some pretty bad food aggression.

Can be misleading, or can be apt. In this case, this is just one of many times Israel intentionally attacked Americans, so it's not misleading.
Also, there was only one combatant here. *facepalm

This is about how someone we call allies have acted undeniably criminally by committing multiple war crimes against us that we conspired to hide for decades, not how we treated actively aggressive enemies that attacked us and our allies first. Also, we're talking about crimes delineated in the 1949 revision and ratification of the Geneva Convention, so WW2 isn't covered. Duh.

Facts, like multiple undeniable war crimes against America, crimes that directly led to American murders, you mean?
If I find you on my street and cover you with a tarp before I beat you to death to footloose at 120 db so you can't protest, "I thought it was a known terrorist....i didn't see or hear anything to indicate it wasn't besides my friends who told me it wasn't." isn't going to work as an excuse. That's basically what we have here.

Your"illustration" is not a bit on topic, and seems like floundering excuses for the indefensible war crimes of Israel.

This.

I get there is plenty of room to criticise Israeli actions and call them too aggressive. This is just not such an example, in any way, shape or form.

As vil said, this happened when Israel was actively at war. Nasser had blocked Israeli shipping and moved Egpytian forces onto the border. Israel then made a pre-emptive strike wiping out the Egyptian air-force, and then launching a ground offensive. The USS Liberty was running as an unmarked ship in the wrong place at the wrong time and Israel hit it too.

Israel knew it was a US military vessel or they didn't. If they didn't, it's highly possible they decided the unmarked military vessel was a threat and hit it. If they did, they decided it was a good idea to hit an American owned military vessel while starting/engaging a war with Egypt.

I can't reason out any situation where Israel thinks it's a good idea to deliberately kill and engage the US here, it's all bad for them. The most reasonable explanation is they attacked an unmarked military vessel in a war zone because they knew it wasn't their own.

I look at it this way....in the time they would likely serve in prison for aggravated rape and kidnapping, (that time likely made much longer due to the racial components), the likelihood they would both be raped themselves nears 100% (that likelihood also higher due to the racial components, racial revenge rape), assuming they survive. Add to that the 15+- years in prison and lifelong stigma of being a class 1 sex offender. Considering all that, the rape accusation carries far worse consequences than a one evening kidnapping and rape would, although both are excessively egregious. Also, keep in mind that every false accusation effects the likelihood of successfully prosecuting real rapists. I have no stats about that, but I would guess easily 5 rapists go free for every proven false accusation....to pull a number right from my ass. The consequences of the false accusations can easily be the more serious of the two, imo, when all is considered.

I see your point and agree, and I think there should be stringent requirements to prove an accusation was false before pursuing prosecution, but in cases where there's no question like this one, convict and send a strong message with a long....long sentence, not one year (in most places meaning no prison, local jail, and probably under 1/4 of that time actually served since it's considered non violent).
And yes, major compensation is in order. This accusation will follow and haunt them for life, even though it was retracted.

I agree, this is an outlier, but it's a devastating, life altering crime and needs to be treated as such when it's proven. Because rape is much more prevalent than false rape charges is not an excuse to ignore this or in any way hinder aggressively prosecuting it, in my mind it's a reason to go after it harder.

Edit:also, I'm completely irrational in my hatred of liars.

I'm not horrified by what was shown in the video. Not in the least. I'm just interested in the gender bias and how it affects application of the law.

With regards to your comment about physical size, what if a young (or just petite) male server weighing 130-140lbs, was groped this way by a heavier woman? Would he then be justified in throwing her down? I suspect the media outcome would still be different and result in the male server being charged. This is gender bias because men are supposed to "suck it up".

As I said, if a man grabs a woman or shoves another man, he should expect to get blasted in the face. I was brought up to never hit a woman (or anyone really) and do believe men need to show more restraint in confrontations with aggressive women because men are typically stronger and, probably on average, more physically capable in a fight.

Getting off topic a bit, but the problem I have with the modern feminist movement is that it is becoming much less about equality between the sexes and more about gaining an upper hand on men. Many modern radical feminists seem to want to be treated equally until it doesn't suit them. So I agree with you that modern society has gone a bit crazy trying to say that there are no differences between men and women. But that is getting off topic.

Aggressive 'roid guy got banned. Staffer got punted. What's wrong with people?

https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/montreal-gym-goer-attacked-because-his-weightlifting-was-too-loud

Slavery has ZERO impact to today's society.


Everyone has the opportunity to become what ever one desires.
To hang on to the past is nothing more than a self inflicted wound.

My GGgrandfather was a laborer.
GFather was a plumber.
Dad was first to finish HS.
I was able to finish college.


Each generation trying to make the next a little better.

Also Cubans flooding Florida over last fifty years doing better than black counterparts

Illegals traveling thousand of miles for a chance of making a better life for themselves and family.

Yet you give blacks a pass to hang onto the crutch of the past.

Micro aggression! Really MICRO. If you are offended by micro anything then you are too thin skinned.

More Black Men Are In Prison Today Than Were Enslaved In 1850.
Knowing the past is important to understanding the future. There have been improvements, but there are still disparities too numerous to list. The thought that blacks make up excuses is just ignoring present realities they have to deal with.

As for getting over slavery, well Blacks have been free less then half the time they were enslaved in this country. Studies have even concluded the stressful, violent and brutal traumas experienced over lifetimes of generations of enslaved people may even be pass down to there offspring.

Epigenetics, if one believes in that sorta thing, could lead to explaining why on top of current modern day racial based micro aggressions, bias and abuses of power things within the Black population as a whole in america are still broken. Neither political party is willing to address that.

Yeah that's complete bullshit. Hillary was no more aggressive than any past presidents on NK and advocated for sanctions. Trump was the one actively taunting Kim and comparing missile sizes.

"four and a half seasons of aggressively researched comedy . . ."