More lies from the Kremlin tied OAN, who hires current Kremlin propagandists to spout this kind of divisive lie/smear campaign that people like Bob then spread.

Biden has never been implicated in ANY actual wrongdoing associated with Burisma. Not one smear the Republicans come up with is supported by fact. Now they're trying to say he was paid with stolen money for his work....by saying all Burisma money is stolen money without any proof or convictions to back up that meaningless smear.

It's moronic anyway, Trump tarnished and sold out the presidency to dig up and create dirt on the son of a political rival, arguably committed treason to sully the family name of his political rival who was never going to be his opponent. Derp.

@newtboy But.....Bcglorf said: Capitalism (or many unrelated civic freedoms) made science and progress possible. The implication is that without capitalism, science and progress are impossible.

I never said that. Don't go putting up quotes like I said something when I didn't.

Clearly you don't need me here. If you just want to invent arguments for both sides while ignoring everything I've actually said you can do it on your own.

But.....Bcglorf said: Capitalism (or many unrelated civic freedoms) made science and progress possible. The implication is that without capitalism, science and progress are impossible.
Edit: my mistake, vil said that, not bcglorf.

Also, the video is about contradicting that exact contention.

No they aren't, because America isn't just "an economy based on capitalism", which you yourself pointed out. They all come from innovations in systems and inventions created through American socialism.

Again, pre '68, before America went the socialist route to advance computer sciences, not after. Yes, after we used a combination of socialism and capitalism, we were more successful. That's my point.

China is working on 6g, and nearly ready with 5g. America isn't. That cannot be simply because China stole our advancements since they're ahead of us. They also, as you've admitted, developed better (cheaper/faster) manufacturing methods both because of technological advancements and few or no regulations (which have caused them horrendous issues). Funny enough, removing the regulations for more profit at the expense of the workers/environment is capitalistic, not socialist.

Their 5G is better because it's 1)almost ready to deploy and 2) cheaper. Ours isn't ready for prime time yet, and has used billions in public funds to get where it is. The FCC also proposed a $20 billion fund to expand broadband (5g)....that's not capitalism.

Ahhh, switching topics, eh? I thought the topic is capitalism vs socialism as it relates to invention, not fascism. I'm not going to bite.

Ok, personal enrichment is one of many incentives that drive invention, but invention happens without that incentive daily.

Once again, necessity is the mother of invention, not capitalism or profit.

You miss the point if you claim he contradicts that conclusion, because the systems invented that the examples require were ALL publicly funded. Without the socialist inventions, there would be no capitalistic innovations. No internet=no world wide web. No WiFi means no WiFi. No displays=no mobile computers/phones. No access to phone lines=no data transfers, so no internet, www, etc.

If his numbers are correct, 72% of research spending is public funding, not private. Nuff said.

The document is in duplicate. Literally in the link. Yes, fingerprint card also. The cost is low. The cost of the firearm is a separate issue.

Yes, the background check. The "process" I'm referring to has context, i.e. the background check process. Obvious really.

"No one asked you that."

You asked me.

"So [do] you think machine guns aren't firearms...or do you think they aren't really illegal? Edit: What about bazookas, grenades, mortars, etc.?"

"Which you begrudgingly".

What language made it begrudging? I stated it was the case without any issue. Stop making stuff up.

I didn't say they can't be regulated. I said that they can't be "effectively regulated". I also stated that there are many regulations that are probably illegal (waiting for supreme court challenges). And I said that there are some regulations that do exist because the supreme court debated it and came to the conclusion that it was within the scope of the 2A.

"especially when you can verify by just scrolling up"

Yeah, exactly, so what are you on about. My comments are literally above you. Why distort them? Do you have comprehension issues? No shame if you do.

"This is a paranoid delusion."
You're entitled to your opinion. History supports their argument though.

"Your argument was there are better issues to throw money at, bucketloads you said, now you admit it takes no money and declare yourself correct"

Yes, there are better issues to throw money at, but the issue is they don't want to throw money at anything when there is a low cost red herring issue they can use to gain public standing instead.

"Then don't be dumb and fuck little kids.
Don't be dumb and rape random women.
Don't be dumb by getting caught in the Jr high locker room filming.
Don't be a snarky tool who hides from what he said by doing mental gymnastics to pretend their warnings aren't implications.
See how giving these warnings imply you needed warning? That's how warnings work."

Yes, they are all warnings. And valid ones at that. The issue is context. You don't put a "warning strong current" warning in the middle of a desert because there is nothing to warn about.

Likewise making those warnings here makes no sense. Ergo, no, these warnings don't imply anyone needs warning. They are just random warnings.

Otherwise we could continue on and I could say:

Don't be dumb and fuck your mother's dead body.
Don't be dumb and fuck animals.
Etc., etc., warnings that are truly good advice but make no sense in the given situation.

On the other hand:
"Danger, high voltage wires" on a cabinet that holds a large transformer makes sense.
"Do not dig, high pressure gas lines buried here" above buried high pressure pipes makes sense.

Do you see the difference?

"Everyone is welcome, welcome to post as much or little as they choose"

Well, everyone is welcome until they're not. And they're not welcome pretty quick here.

"but if I see lies, misstatements, abuse, or insults when none are called for, I'm going to say something, just like I do in person"

Funny about that, that's what I'm doing.

Not in my experience. I've known many people who tried in Texas and Nevada, all failed. They said it was about 3 pages in triplicate (4 with cover page, totalling 12), fingerprints, photos, a pristine criminal record, chests of cash (the guns cost thousands or tens of thousands), a Class 3 FFL dealer willing to sell to you, 9 months to a year waiting for approval, and no local ordinance against it (local police will be notified).

I said the background check is similarly difficult to pass, not the entire process.

No one asked you that. We balked at your claim-
"The 2A specifically says "arms". There is plenty of debate and case law regarding what arms they meant. Suffice to say there isn't a shadow of a doubt that it means firearms (long and short) of all varieties commonly available."
...and I then gave you the federal definition of "firearms" which you begrudgingly admitted trumps yours, but still cling to the concept that firearms can't be regulated (even though they clearly are). I'm surprised you recall it so differently, especially when you can verify by just scrolling up.

This is a paranoid delusion. Because that's a possibility in a future where the 2a is repealed, they think that's enough reason to ignore any positive uses, like knowing if the person just diagnosed with schizophrenia has an arsenal, or the person who's stalking your 15 year old daughter, or the man who beats his wife. Also, taken to conclusion, that argument is basically "It might make it harder for me to break the law. That's unacceptable." Hardly a reasonable argument imo.

? Your argument was there are better issues to throw money at, bucketloads you said, now you admit it takes no money and declare yourself correct?!

Then don't be dumb and fuck little kids.
Don't be dumb and rape random women.
Don't be dumb by getting caught in the Jr high locker room filming.
Don't be a snarky tool who hides from what he said by doing mental gymnastics to pretend their warnings aren't implications.
See how giving these warnings imply you needed warning? That's how warnings work.

Because I post here doesn't make me the big dog...I'm not even top 20. Everyone is welcome, welcome to post as much or little as they choose, but if I see lies, misstatements, abuse, or insults when none are called for, I'm going to say something, just like I do in person. That's called being an upright citizen. I guess you prefer those who shrink away from that obligation....so hit ignore. That's what I'm doing.

@newtboy,

If North America is to adopt the Amish lifestyle, how many acres of land can the entire continent support? The typical Amish family farm is something like 80 acres is it not? I believe adopting this nationwide as a 'solution' requires massive population downsizing...

If you want to look at the poorest conditions of people in the world and advocate that the poverty stricken regions with no access to fossil fuel industry are the path forward, I would ask how you anticipate selling that to the people of California as being in their best interests to adopt as their new standard of living...

You mention overpopulation as a problem, then invent the argument that I think we should just ignore that and make it worse. Instead I only pointed out that immediately abandoning fossil fuels overnight would impact that overpopulation problem as well. It's like you do agree on one level, then don't like the implications or something?

The massive productivity of modern agriculture is dependent on fossil fuel usage. Similarly, our global population is also dependent upon that agricultural output. I find it hard to believe those are not clearly both fact. Please do tell me if you disagree. One inescapable conclusion to those facts is that reducing fossil fuel usage needs to at least be done with sufficient caution that we don't break the global food supply chain, because hungry people do very, very bad things.

Then you least catastrophic events that ARE NOT supported by the science and un-ironically claim that it's me who is ignoring the science.

You even have the audacity to ask if I appreciate the impacts of massive global food shortages, after having earlier belittled my concern about exactly that!

The IPCC shows that even in an absolute worst case scenario of accelerating emissions for the next century an estimated maximum sea level rise of 3ft, yet you talk about loss of 'most' farmland to the oceans...

Here's where I stand. If we can move off gas powered cars to electric, and onto a power grid that is either nuclear, hydro or renewable based in the next 50 years, our emissions before 2100 will drop significantly from today's levels. I firmly believe we are already on a very good course to expect that to occur very organically, with superior electric cars, and cheaper nuclear power and battery storage enabling renewables as economical alternatives to fossil fuels.

That future places us onto the IPCC's better scenarios where emissions peak and then actually decrease steadily through the rest of the century.

I'm hardly advocating lets sit back and do nothing, I'm advocating let's build the technology to make the population we have move into a reduced emissions future. We are getting close on major points for it and think that's great.

What I think is very damaging to that idea, is panicky advice demanding that we must all make massive economic sacrifices as fast as possible, because I firmly believe trying to enact reductions that way, fast enough to make a difference over natural progress, guarantees catastrophic wars now. Thankfully, that is also why nobody in sane leadership will give an ounce of consideration to such stupidity either. You need a Stalin or Mao type in charge to drive that kind change.

Lol.

Trumps are being named and taking it in the ass in the courts.

Donny ate everything burgers during the Mueller testimony that implicated him in multiple high crimes and misdemeanors yesterday.

Republicans predict that Dems will [lose] by [a] landslide in 2020....a repeat of that red tidal wave that they believe took out the Democratic party last year.

FTFY

How could you lose? With stellar candidates like Danielle Stella (felony thief, proud Q conspiracy fan, confessed drunk driver, alleged ptsd sufferer who can't be in public without blacking out and stealing, not to mention felonious fugitive) taking on the rights biggest target, Illhan Omar, clearly the Dems have no chance.

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.

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.

Not my hatred.
My hate is born from a disgust of those who gleefully obfuscate fact and truth.
You go ahead and love the unloveable lying shit bags. Catch them, leave me be.
I'm not becoming a retarded ignoramus idiot who contradicts fact with made up nonsense. If I did, I don't want anyone to catch me. Let me fall, crash, and burn, that's what liars deserve.

I will never become them, I care about fact and truth and I am not a liar, and I'm insulted by the implication. That is a fact.

Can we change "nsfw" which implies it's OK to watch videos on company time as long it doesn't offend other employees watching videos on company time?

The other implication is, "Don't bring that crap you watch at home to work."

How about simply, "MC" for Mature Content?



Ahh..
I feel better now.

Oops....they caught another admitted witch!
Today it's revealed Manafort is pleading guilty and cooperating with Muller.

It's pretty ridiculous to pretend the crime here is that Clinton bought a report from the Republican party that implicated Trump and the DOJ used said report as the sole basis to begin an investigation that actually began as long as years earlier.

It's also utterly ridiculous to pretend that investigation has found nothing, it's gotten convictions or admissions from every administration member that's been investigated. Most of them have publicly pointed fingers directly at Trump and are cooperating with the investigation.

But yeah, @bobknight33, the walls are closing in on the investigators and President Obama because President Petulance says so, but not on the subject of the actual investigation, an admitted and convicted fraud with a cabinet chock full of undisclosed foreign Russian agents. #derpstate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cieve1PakKI

I think the intricacies of the arguments and the moral implications were best put in song form:
*related=https://videosift.com/video/Pope-Song

I completely disagree with you about being inspired by her is like being inspired by Hitler. Hitler's philosophy was a complete sham on every level, and contradicts itself numerous times. Objectivism's foundation works well on many levels. Personal aspiration, bettering yourself, valuing logic and knowledge over emotions, those types of things are valuable to an extent.

Objectivism is ultra-logical in the end, very much the same as Social Darwinism. Fundamentally, those ideas have value in some situations and settings. A business for example, in the end, if an employee is not doing his or her job, it's not necessarily the business's job to figure out why unless it's within their self-interest to do so, and they shouldn't have to think that stuff through in every single instance. They should have the flexibility to fire someone in that instance without a second thought about the social ramifications.

It ultimately is a societal problem though that this employee be taken care of as a member of society, which is where Objectivism falls on its face, among other areas. Another one is Objectivism really has terrible implications in many aspects of parenting, to put it mildly.

I was personally inspired by Ayn Rand in high school quite honestly. She made me care about philosophy, about achieving the most I could achieve via hard work and self-determination, to learn how to critically think and use reason, to be OK to not conform necessarily to group think, etc. Just like every ideology, it's not perfect, and following it to a T just doesn't work, just like any other ideology and philosophy we may encounter and blend into our own as we age and grow. But it made me want to learn more, achieve more, and think more.

You can do a lot worse than that, IMO, you know, like Fascism. :-)

*doublepromote exposing how humans have spoiled one of the most remote and beautiful places on earth. Notice how hard it is to differentiate between plastic bags and jellyfish. That's why most sea turtles have a stomach full of plastic bags.
As a species, we should really *fear the implications of the ocean food web collapsing but, clearly, arguing about politics, guns, welfare, collusion, trade wars, and pussy grabbing comes well ahead of actually working towards planetary survival on most people's agendas.