Crop failure by 2030!?….oops, try 2022.
Unprecedented drought and unheard of global temperatures right now. Massive crop failures worldwide, and more just not being planted for lack of water.
We aren’t on the road to global catastrophe, we are knee deep in one. Thousands if not tens of thousands will die This week in Europe as a direct result of human caused climate change. Over 1500 died in Spain and 1000 in Portugal from heat just in this one event, over 4200 across Europe….so far. Crop losses will multiply that exponentially.
We are on the downhill ride into mass extinction and we already ripped our brakes out and pulled the steering wheel off and are arguing over how hard to stomp on the accelerator.
If the ecological cost of burning gasoline was included in the price, it would be well over $10.

Haha, I KNEW you're gonna say that. I replied it that way because it reminds me on an argument I had with a math teacher way back when which I want to tell.

It's was a math question but the answer is in multiple choice. The (simplified) question was like: What's 10-11? (I remember the exact answer is -1) but the choices were:

a) 21
b) < 10 c) < 0 d) none of the above

I chose b) because you can't lose against c) & d) right? WRONG! According to the math teacher, c) is the right answer because "c) is closer to -1"... I was in no mood to even argue with her on the conundrum of including d) in the choices by her logic, so I just sneered and slowly moonwalked away...

Incorrect, as pointed out above. Some second hand accounts of tantrums, and many first hand accounts of criminal activity like knowingly inviting heavily armed thugs into his crowd to prepare for his planned attack of the capitol building and saying Pence deserved to be lynched so Chump wouldn’t make a statement telling his people to stop as his thugs actively hunted the Vice President in the halls of Congress. She witnessed those first hand. I know, you’re just repeating what some liar told you, and you have no first hand knowledge of her or anyone’s actual testimony because you aren’t allowed to watch the hearings….so your arguing over your own second and third hand accounts filtered through biased liars.

Note, the secret service was so in Trump’s camp that Pence refused to get in a car with them because he believed they would murder him or deliver him to the murderous crowd….the one allegedly denying it, Ornato, still works for Trump today (and hasn’t actually denied it, there are just reports claiming he WOULD….and Ornato has been accused of lying for Trump repeatedly including personally telling the blatant lie that Lafayette square wasn’t violently cleared for a Trump photo op at a nearby church….


Get his denial under oath then try again.
Edit: today the story from Trump’s team became “Trump was too fat and out of shape to lunge for the steering wheel.”, which if true made him too fat and out of shape to reach out <3ft, which makes him far too fat, feeble, and near death to be president.

Keep your head up your ass if you wish. You’ll find yourself alone in there.
Why not call them to testify? Because that bit, while salacious, is hardly the main point or even a crime that might be prosecuted, so why waste time on red herrings. I know you wish they would focus on his infantile tantrums, they distract from his treasonous terrorism.

This woman worked 10 ft from Chump. She was a personal assistant for his chief of staff, you would expect her to be about as loyal as they come to be in that high position with direct access to the president ….and his behavior was so intolerable and anti Democratic she tanked her career and personal life to expose it. Do you have any reason why she would lie? There are many reasons why she wouldn’t have testified, including the death threats against her if she did. She’s clearly from team Trump, not an anti or never trumper.

Fools like me, and around 70% of everyone else….everyone not in the cult with full blinders on, and even some who are. Your little world is crumbling, your great leader exposed for the petulant child and treasonous terrorist leader he is, publicly. Fox is running away, republicans are running away, independents are flying away at supersonic speeds.

You would know about drinking bath water. How does Trump’s ass crack taste?

Edit: You know this is the Trump methodology….
1) deny you did “it”
2) equivocate, claim “they do “it””
3) still deny, but insist it would be fine if you had done “it”
4) admit you did “it” just a little
5) revel in the fact that you can now admit you did the evil inexcusable thing and more without your base caring

Not everyone is in the industry. CGI is used as a layman’s term, although the professional definition still fits.

Um…”they” who? what sales pitch? WTF are you talking about? I used it as a tag. WHAT!?! Are you on crack, sir?

If it’s an image of reality altered digitally, it’s not purely cg, it’s cgi…

SFX is the overall category, not a sub genre of CGI.

Yes, their three examples of well known blockbuster CGI films were pure CG images…they were not an all inclusive list, they weren’t even varied examples of all different types of CGI, they were three of the best known examples of pure CGI in main stream cinema.

OMG, that WAS your argument. LMFAHS!!! Feel shame. So incredibly stupid. That means absolutely nothing beyond those were the three movies they chose as well known examples. It in no way argues that the rest of the definition they gave is in any way incorrect. Derp!

Like saying the article on dogs had a pictures of a poodle, so all dogs must have curly hair. Just silly.

ok, you're right. everything is CGI. i definitely don't know what i'm talking about. i defer to you, king of "mount stupid". long live the king.


"If the term is so meaningless, why argue against it?"
because it is the source of so much confusion and stupid opinions by laymen. see above.

Lol.

Tell that to the makers of “a scanner darkly”.

This wasn’t a color corrected crop of a still photo, it was a complete change of a short film.

Technically any digital photo is cgi, but that’s a red herring…this was digitally altered video, a much higher bar.

If the term is so meaningless, why argue against it?

You exaggerate to the point of hyperbole, which indicates you know you’re wrong. This argument isn’t about any still image ever digitized, it’s about a video digitally altered so much that it no longer resembles the original. Just because it’s a simple process doesn’t change that it’s an image generated by a computer.

HA!

this img wasn't generated by a computer. altered [slightly], yes, but filters ≠ CGI. blurring an img, using a blue filter, or cropping an image does not make it "CGI". you can argue the semantics of if it being "generated" by a computer, but arguing it is means all digital photos, images, hell even text of any kind are "CGI". "CGI" is already a stupid, near meaningless term and pushing the definition to "any image that appears or had appeared on a computer in any way" makes it even less useful. [generally VFX/visual effects is the umbrella term people are looking for. CG is the term if they're referring to rendered assets. this is neither. this poor use of language is a huge pet peeve for me.]

imma ignore the "art" argument because that is regularly a black hole of silly and i don't feel the need to engage that but those painted potatoes more effort than this.

More pure projection.

The right is screaming about the leak and not their theft of women’s rights by hook and crook because they don’t want the credit for this horrifically unpopular power grab by a severe minority, because it will lose you the midterm by a landslide, and for no other reason.

Hilarious you try to argue it’s because you strong gun toting Mericans are terrified of some soy boys standing on their sidewalks and chanting “no”. Cowards.

The left doesn’t try to kidnap representatives to blackmail the government into change, they don’t harass school shooting victims until they have to move a dozen times because a gay frog opponent told them it’s a lie.

The right are purely criminal, uncivil, racist, and completely insane liars that commit ACTUAL violent crimes constantly, like bombings, shootings, kidnappings, government building takeovers (not just surrounding them, but breaking in intending to hurt the occupants), false flag murders (even of police), (fake) terrorist anthrax attacks, mail bombings, ransacking, sometimes kidnapping officials, etc.
point to some current Democrats convicted…even just charged with armed kidnapping of a governor, or seditious insurrection. You can’t unless you make them up.

The left is civil, far too civil with the cheating treasonous violent racist thugs that comprise the right. We should be shooting you in the streets like republicans do to protesters. We should be holding closed door sessions with no republicans to write laws and pass them with no bipartisanship, like Republicans. If we didn’t have a 48-52 minority, maybe they would.

When have Democrats had 60% of both houses and the presidency? Never, you bold faced liar and loud know nothing fool.

Yes, when those 2 seats were STOLEN bu Republicans they saw this day coming, so asked each nominee about it, and they all indicated they had no plan to change the law, it was settled, reaffirmed precedent, the strongest kind of law besides an amendment, with constitutional interpretations supporting them. With no new evidence, no new science, based on religious misinterpretation, they tossed that in the garbage for politics…the respect for and honor of the court went with it.

Democrats do not have a majority because Manchin and Senema aren’t Democrats, they are bought and paid for Republicans. It’s shocking they haven’t been thrown out of the party…a true shameful mark on the Democrats.
I would point out, when Republicans had a majority in both houses and the whitehouse, they didn’t fund Trump’s fence.

They should remove (with extreme prejudice) Manchin and Senema, replace them, remove the filibuster, then add 5 seats to the courts…next month….republicans had control fully in 2016 and failed to make that illegal, major error of the Republican Party, totally fair play. No whining like a bitch when they do.

No, we didn’t lose any argument, nor was it fair and square. Republicans abused their power to steal the court control, installed multiple activist judges who rule based on religion, not law or science, and its going to cost them.

Such lies. You really have severe brain damage and zero honesty. List where you can get an abortion until birth. *crickets*.
Republicans just believe their right to kill you begins at birth.

Again, despite Republican representatives being actual murderers, terroristic anti American seditionists that tried to burn the capitol, and many are actual charged child rapists and sex traffickers, you call Democrats those things with zero charges filed, no instances to point to, no pending investigations, nor any evidence….because you are nothing but an insane liar, Bob. A worthless treasonous liar and likely child abuser based on what you’ve told me about your alleged children (but you’re such a liar I don’t believe you actually have any because you said you do…and if you do, you admitted that they have serious mental issues from living with you)

You’re just a liar spouting nonsense bob. Why are you so dishonest and uncivil?
I’m uncivil with you because I can’t stand liars or insane narcissists.
Eat a bag of baby dicks you constant (but not consummate) liar.

“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.” ― Thomas Paine

I would argue that the man who killed the most human beings in history is Fritz Haber. Between breaking the Malthusian Bargain (leading to a massive population explosion and everything associated with it) and creating the means by which high explosives can be created on an industrial scale (and everything associated with it), he's pretty much the single most influential person who's lived since the establishment of agriculture.

Bonus points for: creating the first "true" chemical weapons (in WW1) and his encore, Zyklon B (yes, he created the precursor, not the final product).

Right, then you go on to argue that they have good reason to exclude these people. Pretty much negated your first statement….or indicates that you agree with denying them rights, but not with using that as a political wedge (on either side?), possibly because it paints those denying others rights as evil assholes that would deny rights over ignorant and false equivalencies. Hard to tell since you won’t answer any questions.

If you believe that, why have you spent an entire day trying to get me to admit women couldn’t ever compete fairly with trans women? Because you have done exactly that.

Your position, that genetic male athletes are always better athletes than genetic women athletes …and trans women are the same as genetic males…is exactly the false and ignorant position and argument used to deny trans people their rights to participate. It’s just like you were using the old trope that black people aren’t actually humans so often used to deny them rights and opportunities….then claiming that just because you argue that doesn’t mean you think they should be denied opportunities. WHAT?!

Finally you admit males aren’t always better athletes. If genetic women can be better, there’s no reason to deny trans women their rights at all. Ms Macho Man is hyperbole, not reality. Men can’t put on a dress and claim trans status.

Pointing to two athletes that are excelling as proof that trans women will crush genetic women if allowed to compete together, to say trans women always have advantages, is also a red herring. That’s the “evidence” anti trans people use to prove that they can’t fairly compete. You may not have done that exactly, but you seem to use the same positions people who do say that use to imply it.

Really? And describe again those standards of fairness….because what I read was a ridiculous conflation between allowing trans people to compete and removing any gender separation….you pretended that’s the same thing.

Yes, because pretending trans women are the same as athletic men is hateful, malicious, and denying trans women’s rights to exist as women.

When I hear/read someone trying to give excuses for denying trans people their rights, I see a villian. How could you not?

Discussion? LMFAHS!!
Excuse me….when did you answer ANY of MY questions? You decry being called a villain, but in what way did you explain how your position isn’t dehumanizing, dismissive, and aimed at denying one group of people their right to participate in public events based on assumption and ignorance? Absolutely none. You moaned that I didn’t answer one of your questions the way you expected….but cannot answer any of mine. Try it, you might learn something.

ONE LAST TIME…HOW DO YOU EXCUSE DENYING TRANS PEOPLE THEIR RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN PUBLICLY FUNDED SPORTS? If you don’t support that, you have certainly hidden that fact with all your arguments supporting doing that, so you might want to ANSWER THE QUESTION…..unless you just love to argue, then we’re done.

You got a very straight answer, you just didn’t like it. Ironic to claim something you don’t like doesn’t exist while arguing that something that doesn’t exist bothers you.

I’ll try again, but I can only explain it to you, I can’t understand it for you. Women can outperform men, so clearly there’s more to it than just gender, more than just the shape of your 23/24th chromosome. If there wasn’t, the worst man would always outperform the best woman. That being the case, discriminating based on gender is not just wrong, it’s illegal. That goes for trans people too, they aren’t excluded from having rights just because you seem to want it that way.

I note there’s no answer at all about excluding a group of citizens from publicly funded events. Don’t like that question I guess. No answer for it, I guess. Straight or otherwise. Last try to get anything resembling a answer at all.

Absolutely a blatant Red herring. I refuse to cooperate with your ridiculous loaded cherry picked false premise fantasy.
Try asking a realistic question on point instead of a loaded, ridiculous fantasy hypothetical you think makes your point. Your question implies that you believe trans women are just ordinary men.

If we pick the 100m sprint and had the two categories and trans people were allowed to compete with their current gender (with specific requirements, like they are), would you expect the trans athletes to always dominate?
Same question, but 50k race.

If so, why?
If so, explain why that hasn’t happened even though they’ve been competing in the Olympics under those rules for near 20 years now.
If not, what’s your point? I think I know, your point is that trans women are men, an ignorant, inflammatory, intentional insult to them and what they go through to be comfortable in their own bodies.
No surprise since you support just excluding them because you assume wrongly that a trans woman is a man in a dress. It’s ignorance and intolerance dancing together in your mind, making false assumptions and attempting to deny rights to others based on them. I might note, sexual orientation and gender are two categories that in America we are barred from using to discriminate against someone. I must assume you aren’t American, so what’s your dog in this fight? Just trans hatred?

Now explain why trans kids shouldn’t be allowed to compete in school competitions. Last try to get an answer.

Now explain how this is different from the racist arguments for excluding blacks from sports.

Edit: now explain why women like these need protection from other women….

have to say, that's spot-on.

"adults in the room"?

best curse could imagine would be to cast a spell that these candidates can only argue with reason and logic (turn campaigns into debates on ideas and solutions).

then this show would resemble cctv of a laundry mat's lounge area. nothing being said, and most folk would find themselves watching the dryers than the canidates.

saw this https://tinyurl.com/yu22kfd6 and might be the under-lying reason why these little men are so testy.

You’re arguing with the mirror, buddy. There’s one anti American, anti democratic, anti fact, delusional cultist here. ROTFLMFAHS!!! You’re so silly.

Whine some more, kiddo. More sour grapes from infantile sore losers. You only insult yourself with these kindergarten insults. Your opinion is less than worthless. You calling me a “Tool” for the left only verifies I’m on the right path, if you had something nice to say, I would re-examine my position immediately. You are such a ridiculous full fledged cultist in a failed cult of personality. Keep screaming into the dark.

You CLEARLY hated Obama because he was black, you liar. Called him a Kenyan (as an insult), a Muslim (as an insult), a thug, and in private much much worse. Lie to yourself, we know the truth, and you are a well known verified racist liar no one trusts to ever tell the truth.

You also CLEARLY have problems with strong women too. Hated Clinton for being a woman in power. Pretend you aren’t sexist, it won’t fool anyone, you are a well known constant liar, who would listen to you complimenting yourself?

You hate Harris for the same reasons. Being black, and being a woman. Her being intelligent, professional, knowledgeable, reasonable, level headed, well spoken, and accomplished only pisses you off, doesn’t it?

I and really totally disagree, but after Trump, leadership skills aren’t a prerequisite, and you have no leg to stand on. That’s it.

We’ve never had a leader with less, worse leadership skills than Trump, who never led anyone who wasn’t willing to follow him literally anywhere. Jim Jones was a better leader, he actually cared about those he misled….Trump doesn’t care one whit about anyone not named Trump, and when the chips are down, only people named Donald John Trump. That’s it.
Her leadership skills are infinitely better than her MIA predecessor, Pence, his were non existent.

Obama led conservatives from depression to a healthy economy. True, they obstructed him for the entire 8 years, but he was leader enough to make serious progress anyway, including growth that eclipsed Trump’s dismal 1% gdp growth per year, and health care for all Americans.

Woefully diminished is still exponentially better than his predecessor, whose cult tried to overthrow the government and make us a dictatorship. I still blame him for Trump, if he had run in 2016, the nation, probably the world, would be in such better shape it would be unrecognizable.
I wanted Butigieg, a super smart, knowledgeable, thoughtful, disciplined, younger president, but Biden kicked Trump’s ass despite multiple massive Republican fraud schemes, so he is a major success. That’s it. Nothing can change that…just like no attempted rewriting of history can make Trump anything but a massive failure on every front.

Go pander your idiotic cultist babbling somewhere else. You only come here to troll, no one ever agrees with you besides your sock puppet accounts, you just enjoy being a nasty liar, trying to trigger libtards with nonsense and prejudice. Here’s the problem, Bob. It doesn’t work when you have no real gripes to complain about and no one cares what you think.

I note you still can’t say who she slept with or how that got her elected….I did explain the top two in Trump’s administration got their positions by sleeping to the top, they had zero leadership skills, zero experience, and zero accomplishments. Harris is overqualified if Trump was only underqualified. He also had no leadership experience or skills. He didn’t run the companies he owned, those he tried to failed miserably, and no one goes to work for Trump twice.

Lots more whining and crying, but not a single fact in your posts, Bob. You seem allergic to fact. I understand, they tear at your fantasy world and, when you’re forced into reality, you must live with the piece of excrement you have become.

Yes but to converge the two sides have to acknowledge the arguments of the other side, unfortunately I am probably not arguing well enough and Im perfectly willing to just give up.

Anyway you seem to be able to research complicated topics well, you can read up about the history and end of the gold standard and about deflation for your own sake in your own time :-)

Fighting against fiat money, reserve banks, inflation and national debt is like fighting against democracy or free speech.
Sometimes democracy gives you Trump, sometimes free speech gives you porn (or worse, Fox news), sometimes the economy gets out of hand, but mostly these things work better than their alternatives and prevent or minimize crashes, based on the experience of the last 200 years. Every time someone thought better, they made things worse.