search results matching tag: examining

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (522)     Sift Talk (21)     Blogs (12)     Comments (998)   

Black Man Gets Pulled Over For Doing 65 in a 70

bcglorf says...

This is really about as bad as gets.

Tyranny 101:
1. Setup laws such that EVERYONE will inevitably break some of them.
2.Selectively enforce those laws

Now your law enforcement can use discretion to not enforce the letter of the law on some folks, while putting others beneath a microscope where you examine them for even the smallest possible infraction.

Now, it may be possible the overcompensating officer in the video pulled our guy here over randomly. However, you can't ignore what a great poet of my generation has also observed:
Some of those that work forces, are the same that burn crosses

Barr Tours Protests Before Ordering Their Removal

Drachen_Jager says...

I appreciate now why you use a cartoon image as your avatar.

You, and your president share the same depth of thought. You are both two-dimensional characters, badly out of place in a three-dimensional universe.

I hope one day you'll find the ethical backbone to examine his actions and your own with a modicum of effort and integrity.

bobknight33 said:

Liberal news sowing the seeds of discontent.

Police Who Murder Man In Public On Camera Fired

newtboy says...

The family's autopsy results are in..."asphyxiation from sustained pressure, homicide". No underlying medical conditions caused or contributed to Floyd’s death, medical examiner Michael Baden said at a news conference.
These findings directly contradict the preliminary findings from the county medical examiner.

That means the two officers with their knees in his back crushing his lungs, not the one on his neck, were the direct cause of his death....not that it should matter, all 4 actively participated in his murder.

Again, it's looking like they're intentionally misrepresenting the crime to throw the case against what they'll eventually say is the wrong defendant, and I fully expect they will never charge the "right" defendants.

surfingyt said:

the autopsy showed no evidence of strangulation. almost like they were setting up to brush this under the rug, but had to stop once people started rioting.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

No standing? Lol. According to who? Trump? Giuliani?
Technically speaking, once the house votes to impeach, he's impeached.

She's holding them back because Senate Republicans have stated clearly they intend to ignore their constitutional obligation to be impartial and will simply pardon Trump with no examination of the evidence, no witnesses, no trial. It's proper to wait until McConnell publicly retracts his unambiguous public statements that he's not going to have a fair (or any) trial, he's not going to be impartial, and that he's simply going to work for and pardon Trump. If he was on any jury, he would be dismissed for those statements. As it stands, unless he recused himself along with all the others who have said the same thing, the trial is a blatant sham because jeopardy isn't attached, and if that happens it will be relitigated after the Republicans lose control of the Senate, which they will if they follow McConnell's lead.
Perhaps that's why they didn't include the multiple impeachable crimes he's admitted to under oath, they need proven crimes to impeach him a second time in case he's reelected, but this time with a Senate that's not his bitch.

Why is Trump whining about it like a spoiled infant?
Why is he really whining and crying about it?

Because he needs the Senate to quickly rubber stamp his pardon, not be forced into an actual trial, not expose the evidence, and certainly not convict. Funny, until seconds before they knew she was withholding them, they all whined about the process moving way too fast, then instantly flipped and cried that it's going too slow now. *facepalm

Treason, giving aid and comfort to the enemy is certainly worthy of impeachment, taking foreign donations in trade for policy that benefits them and not the U.S. is impeachable, so is perjury (which you admit he's done), so is felony fraud (which he admits he's done repeatedly), so is ignoring the emoluments clause of the constitution, just to name a few.

bobknight33 said:

Technically speaking Articles of impeachment have no standing till given to Senate for the trail.

Why is Nancy holding them back?
Why is she really holding them back?

Because there is no crime worthy of impeachment.

Once again Dems have nothing.

Dr. Bart Ehrman Historically accurate criticism of the Bible

newtboy says...

"Fables aren't history" is a lesson that shouldn't take an hour and a half to teach.
I'm actually incredulous that 45 people watched the entire thing.....oh, on closer examination 16 people upvoted it, and Sifty voted 29 times? Whaaaaa?

Langur monkeys grieve over fake monkey--Spy in the Wild:Ep.1

#MAGACHALLENGE TRUMP SUPPORTERS

newtboy says...

So, we're up to at a minimum of 4 impeachment investigations now.
1) publicly asking and privately extorting multiple foreign powers to investigate American citizens to help his campaign, with mountains of evidence, including direct quid quo pro that isn't a necessary component of the crimes but compounds them.
2) a second whistleblower report from the IRS accusing multiple appointees of interference in the audit of his taxes.
3) hostile foreign powers bribing him directly through his properties by booking and paying for hundreds of rooms at multiple properties without even staying in them, or violating the emoluments clause if they're found to not be bribes..
4) multiple unequivocal obstruction charges, born out by both his statements and the administration's flat refusal to comply with subpoenas.

These almost certainly aren't the only investigations into his increasing criminality, but any one is more than enough for removal and prison.

There's a new move to push for anonymous ballots if it gets to the Senate. Without fear of reprisals from Trump and his cultists, up to 35 Republican senators have already privately indicated they would impeach today, but they're terrified he would ruin their careers, which they put ahead of their nation, or that his zealous followers might try to murder them or their families.

But that doesn't matter because some of the 4%(+-2% margin of error) of support he has in the black community made a rap.

Edit: Oops! Another report this morning indicates Perry, along with Giuliani and multiple Trump officials and Trump himself were pushing Ukraine to install Trump's friends on the board of a huge Ukrainian natural gas company in an unsurprisingly strikingly similar fashion to what they falsely accuse the Bidens of doing (it is his MO to accuse his enemies of the crimes he's involved in). That makes impeachment path #5 to be exposed, and explains the missing 18 minutes of the transcript of Trump's extortion call with the president of Ukraine. This is why we need the full, word for word, unredacted transcript of the call that Trump, in his idiocy, has already admitted exists.
Sorry @bobknight33, it's looking bad for daddy Donny. He also lost his case trying to block New York from his taxes this morning by claiming absolute immunity from prosecution, and claiming even a private examination of his tax returns would do him irreparable harm. Wonder why that would be.

Grreta Thunberg's Speech to World Leaders at UN

newtboy says...

Ok, but don't discount the factual arguments because they are presented with passion. Ignore the emotion and focus on verifying or debunking the facts presented. Because someone on Fox presents their denial argument flatly and dispassionately doesn't make it more correct.

Yes, I agree, but the point was getting people to listen, read, and fully examine the facts rather than accept the, also emotional, arguments without fact or with incorrect, cherry picked, or misrepresented facts that dominate the discussion on both sides, but mostly on the denier side since facts and data do not support them.

That line isn't blurred, it's been pressure washed away. The emotional arguments are nearly all that's out there, the facts are so misrepresented by both sides...oddly both sides minimizing the problem, the right to ignore it for profit, the left to not overwhelm those wanting to make progress by admitting it's too late.
Note, she mentions the thoroughly reported study that said we must stop emissions in 12 (now 10?) years to stay below 1.5c rise actually said we must make that sacrifice to have a 50% chance at that (and goes on to explain why even that is outrageously optimistic since it doesn't take feedbacks and other factors into account and relies on future generations to make not only the sacrifices we aren't willing to make, but also to clean up/sequester the emissions we continue to emit at faster rates daily).
I have zero problem with the emotion of the delivery if the facts are presented clearly and in totality, which she does better than most if not all professional scientific lecturers....sadly.

bcglorf said:

I'm just saying I like being clear/careful to distinguish between emotional, moral and factual argumentation.

If the subject were instead vaccinations, you could as easily have a child pitching an anti-vax message and pleading with the world to listen to the 'facts' that they present. It might make people more willing to listen, but it should NOT change our assessment of the accuracy of the facts.

Supplanting argument from emotion, authority and various other subjective/flawed approaches is THE defining advantage of the scientific method. Blurring that line is damaging, regardless of the intentions or goals.

Why Shell's Marketing is so Disgusting

newtboy says...

Care to retract now that even the new U.N. report (along with all the other studies I linked) reportedly says almost exactly what I suggested....faster and higher sea level rise than previously predicted, likely above 3 ft by 2100, hundreds of millions of refugees, massive loss of sea life, loss of water for billions, droughts, floods, and diseases expected to drastically reduce the amount of food production world wide, etc....or are you going to continue to, head in the sand, ignore the scientific consensus to stand on the 5+ year old report that was lambasted by the scientific community as unbelievably optimistic when it was released?

Had you read the Forbes article (or the other links provided) you would know it was reiterating NOAA data and predictions, not making it's own.
But it's a waste of time to point out the science if you aren't willing to examine it.

I'm still in.

bcglorf said:

@newtboy said:
“i should have said "all but guaranteed under all BUT the most wildly optimistic projections". Got me”

Sigh, no. All but the most extreme end of the most pessimistic projections are for under 3ft by 2100. That is the science.

Each of your earlier claims can be demonstrated to be equally contrary to actual scientific expectation. Regrettably, your content to refute the IPCC with a link to a Forbes article...

Its a waste of my time to point out the science if you aren’t willing to. I’m out.

How to Solve a Rubik's Cube!

BSR (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

I feel no need to lambast (criticize harshly) anyone just for getting something wrong.

It's those who are wrong but refuse to examine evidence or even consider they might be mistaken that deserve a hearty scourging (whipping).

Saved you some googling

BSR said:

OK dick, you found me out.

I DIDN'T WATCH THE VIDEO! I CONFESS!

I now stand corrected in my orthopedic shoes.

Ya happy now?

SORRY EVERYONE! I'M AN ASSHOLE!

figured since you went easy on me I'd be rough on myself. I know you would respect that. ; )

Denied!

BSR says...

I've driven on the shoulder like that many times. All I have is a sign I put in the front window that says MEDICAL EXAMINER and hazard lights.

Mueller Explains He Was Barred From Charging Don

newtboy says...

Trump's presidency? It certainly is a sham.

No surprise you can't understand plain English. Being in a cult of personality has destroyed your less than stellar brain.
You describe Trump lying under oath as him being smart to not implicate himself but don't realize that means you admit the truth is he's a criminal.

Mueller said exactly what he means, DOJ rules did not allow him to even consider criminal charges, but congress can...here's 400 pages of evidence about multiple high crimes that does not in any way exonerate the president. Congress has a duty to examine and act on that evidence. You hear that as "total exoneration, case closed".

What about the other three scandals that were exposed today? How will you excuse today's undeniable criminality, unpatriotic incivility, and his admission that his presidency is illegitimate?

One, perjury by dozens of official Trumpees about the racist census changes that prove they were designed to give "Republicans and non Hispanic whites an electoral advantage" and hurt the Democrats, and would have that effect according to studies they also hid and lied under oath about. Proof of the racist conspiracy going back to 2015 was uncovered, contradicting their testimony that the order came directly from the DOJ based on questions first raised in 2017. Gonna just wait until 10am to hear the party line in court, then whatever new lie they tell will be your answer I expect.

Two, the constantly shifting denial of the official Whitehouse orders to hide the John McCain and barring of sailors from the ship from events because the Biggest Loser throws a childish temper tantrum when he hears or reads the name. Gonna blame that on a subordinate and deny responsibility for those under him acting incredibly, offensively unpatriotic and disrespecting the military on his behalf in his name purely to stroke his ego...."with good intentions" (keeping Trump's ego unbruised), and just ignore the reason they had to do it too I expect.

Three, the accidental admission that Russia actually got him elected. That you'll call an intentional misunderstanding of a poorly worded tweet by the fake news lefty media not a Freudian slip or confession I expect.

Thanks for the opportunity to shine more light on more daily proof he's illegitimate, unfit for office, and surrounded by unscrupulous and lawless sycophants.

bobknight33 said:

What a sham

What kind of person would say it like this

Muller: “If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

What he really said ..we do not have any evidence to charge Trump.

This was just a ploy to push the ball back in Nancy Policy lap to try to get her to push forward impeachment proceedings.

What Happens To Good Cops?

newtboy says...

So, you think, with no training, no equipment, no pay, and no oversight, I should become an armed vigilante, a punisher, and that somehow addresses police corruption? What?
Edit: I already do that when reasonable....when I see something I DO something. Where I live we have highway patrol and that's it. They don't show up when people are reported detonating huge explosives or shooting their guns rapid fire in the neighborhood, so I and others must investigate ourselves.

Police don't do those kinds of studies, why should I? They don't address corruption a bit.

Why?

Not a bit motivated to do meaningless busy work at your whim.
You do a study, it has nothing to do with solving police corruption and abuse, why would I?

Since it's your field, how about you do a study on how often police are given a pass on felonies that would put anyone else in prison. Then do another showing how often they get away with crimes that would cost anyone else their net worth. Then do one examining what happens to cops that turn in criminal cops. Then do a study about what happens to cops that threaten other cops off the force. Have your studies verified, repeated, and published, then if you aren't in prison on trumped up charges I'll give you that atta boy you didn't offer me before explaining what a waste of time that was.

Not a bit sure what your point could be. Cops do some needed work, so give all their crimes and abuses a pass?
What are you saying? Nothing rational or helpful that I discern.

Sounds like ' You need farmers to feed us all, so let them use deadly poisons and sell deadly, contaminated, even fake food without repercussions, or consider the implications of having no farmers.' Deep.....to a gnat.

Sniper007 said:

Well newtboy, how about this? Start promoting the concept of taking action on your own behalf and on behalf of your fellow man in situations that most would normally delegate to the police force.

Start first with listing every situation that would cause someone to call the cops. Be comprehensive. It might take several days or weeks. You may even want to interview subject matter experts to help with this ideation phase.

Then, come up with 3-5 alternative courses of action for each situation that don't involve a police force.

How motivated are you? I organize these types of research projects for a living. Heck, even without you I might undertake this project. I have many others higher on my list though.

Once you are done, it's a matter of publishing and promoting your research. I do all that as well.

Why This Anesthesiologist Quit

newtboy says...

Know who you take advice from....
Just gonna leave this here....

Wiki-
Dr Michael Klaper-In August 1993 Klaper issued a medical certificate for the insurers of two movies that River Phoenix was working on at the time, Dark Blood and Interview With the Vampire. The certificate was signed by both Klaper and Phoenix and stated that Phoenix had never used "LSD, heroin, cocaine, alcohol in excess, or any other narcotic, depressant, stimulant or psychedelic. At the time Phoenix was deeply into the drug scene and died from a drug overdose two months later on October 31, 1993. Phoenix's death resulted in Dark Blood being scrapped, and his role in Interview with the Vampire being replaced by Christian Slater. A total $US5.7 million was paid out by the insurers of both movies as the result of Phoenix's death. Since Phoenix's death, insurance rates have increased significantly, medical certificates are no longer accepted, and actors are required to undergo more rigorous medical examination prior to being insured. [23]

According to oncologist David Gorski "Klaper subscribes to the all-too-common claim that a vegan diet is better than any other and supplements that claim with a belief that undergoing fasts, in which one consumes only water, is a major part of the path to health and wellness". He supports multiple pseudoscience medical claims such as acupuncture, chiropractic, naturopathy and border-line "germ theory denialism". Klaper also gives "highly dubious advice for cancer patients, even claiming that fasting can shrink malignant tumors. Klaper claims that fasts will clear up inflammation, eczema, arthritis and other issues. "The situation" according to Gorski, is "way more complicated than Dr. Klaper paints it". As a surgeon himself, Gorski is appalled that Klaper claims that fasting encourages "faster wound healing" a statement that Gorski calls "Bullshit!". Magician Penn Jillette reported on multiple podcasts that he has lost over 25 pounds on Klaper's water fast diet, Gorski responded that of course he will lose weight on a water-only diet. In Gorski's opinion as a medical doctor himself, "Jillette has fallen "hook, line, and sinker for a whole lot of dietary pseudoscience and promoting it on his show with a credulous interview with someone like Dr. Klaper". Gorski hopes that Jillette will eventually realize "that Dr. Klaper is peddling highly dubious claims (at best). Basically, the product Dr. Klaper is peddling in terms of science is a massive exaggeration based on dubious science, cherry picked cases, and bad evolutionary analogies. Worse, fasts, even when supervised by a physician, are potentially dangerous"



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon