search results matching tag: rejects

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (275)     Sift Talk (28)     Blogs (31)     Comments (1000)   

Names

newtboy says...

It's a nice thought, but I think we really you don't need to remember them at all, just their party. It's much easier to just remember Romney, the only remaining Republican who didn't sell out completely.
With luck we can soon forget the party's name too, remembered only as a historical warning to future political parties to reject the politics of fear, hate, and division or perish.


The CDC today recommended not having in person voting at all if possible due to continued, worsening Covid outbreaks, with the only alternative being vote by mail. Request your ballot, don't just assume you get one automatically...don't think you can get one last minute...they WILL be overwhelmed, they WILL fail to get ballots to every registered voter, they won't be able to accommodate last minute requests. This will almost certainly be by design in some areas, and will not be the case at all in others. It will be politicized and taken advantage of for political gains.

Don't be duped out of your vote. Request your mail in ballot today, site the CDC guidelines if your state requires a reason.

Police: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

So....Trump committed voter fraud.

Moron that he is, he registered to vote in Florida in September using an out of state address (for tax evasion purposes). When that was rejected, he just changed it to a Florida address....but you have to have lived there for some time (6-12 months in almost every state) and between September and November was not 6 months, yet he voted there in November, even though he wasn't qualified to do it. Is this why he calls it fraudulent? Because the way he does it, it is?
Remember, his other gripe is people registered in multiple states who might vote more than once.....like his entire family who are registered in New York, D.C., and Florida that we know of, possibly more.

Also remember every voter fraud case found in 2018 was a Republican committing fraud, from voting for the dead, voting in multiple states, to campaigns collecting absentee ballots from the elderly and changing their votes. 100% republicans. Meanwhile Trump's multi million dollar voter fraud investigation looking for his fantasy of millions of illegal (democratic) voters found nothing....just another campaign ploy at tax payer expense like his church photo op.

Lawyer's Reaction to Carnage at Lafayette Square

Why The Right Wing End Game Is Armageddon

newtboy says...

That depends on which bible you mean....there are many.

Really? Lost to history?! Hardly....lost to the ignorant and uneducated maybe, but even atheists like me know full well Jesus the man was a Jew, and definitely not a European or "white". Roman/Italian artists knew this, but worked for a Roman church so portrayed him in their image.

Genetic purity?! Lol. I guess that means no one has EVER become Jewish, you're either born one by two pure Jewish parents or not. Hardly reality, and would reject nearly every person in Israel (or elsewhere). Just because there is a long standing religious/cultural taboo against marriage outside the culture, it still happens, as does conversion. Racial/genetic purity is a fallacy debunked by genetic testing.

Prophecy is a leap. No prophecy has been correctly interpreted until AFTER the events supposedly prophesied occurred. It's ridiculous to go back after the fact and claim "see, now that I know exactly how to interpret the unclear prophecy I couldn't decipher before, it's a 100% perfect prediction" but never be able to predict the future. That's the same nonsensical logic mediums use.

The second temple was also the third, since the true second temple was originally a rather modest structure constructed by a number of Jewish exile groups returning to the Levant from Babylon under the Achaemenid-appointed governor Zerubbabel. However, during the reign of Herod the Great, the Second Temple was completely refurbished, and the original structure was totally overhauled into the large and magnificent edifices and facades that are more recognizable. Logically, the third temple was the one destroyed by Romans, the second replaced by Herod but the new one was still called the second temple anyway. (To avoid contradicting prophecy? ;-) )

If the dome of the rock, the second most holy place in Islam, is destroyed, expect Jerusalem to follow soon after, as that will definitely start a religious war between nuclear powers.

Herodotus is credited with using the term Palestinian first, in the 5th century BCE as an ethnonym, making no distinction between Arabs, Jews, or other cultures inhabiting of the area. Romans adopted the term as the official administrative name for the region in the 2nd century CE, "Palestine" as a stand-alone term then came into widespread use, printed on coins, in inscriptions and even in rabbinic texts.

I think you are confused about the history, here's a primer...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel

The area was populated by various people's including Jews until the Jewish–Roman wars of 66–136 CE, during which the Romans expelled most of the Jews from the area (well, really they arguably left voluntarily because they refused to be second class citizens barred from practicing their religion freely) and replaced it with the Roman province of Syria Palaestina, the Arabs were already there, not invaders or immigrants. When Assyrians (Mesopotamians) invaded in circa 722 BCE, they ruled empirically, meaning only the Jewish ruling elite left, returning in 538 BCE under Cyrus the Great....so no, the Arabs didn't just settle after the Jews were dispersed.

It's patently ridiculous to say the Arab nations were unprovoked, Jewish illegal immigration led to a hostile takeover of the region by illegal immigrants with rapid expansion of their territories into their neighbors continuing through today. The Jews defeated the Arabs thanks to American backing and exponentially better hardware. It was only their right if might makes right, and the Arab nations are under no obligation to let them keep what they stole any more than the Jews were obligated to let the Arab nations retain control in the first place. If Iran, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or any combination can take it, by your logic they have every right to do so.

I do agree, in the end there will be more conflict until the area becomes uninhabitable....largely because every religion's prophecies end with them in control, and no one wants to admit it's all nonsensical iron age tribalism at work.

Why The Right Wing End Game Is Armageddon

shinyblurry says...

The bible was written almost exclusively by Jews, both the Old and New Testament. Jesus was a Jew and so were most of His apostles. The events of the majority of the books in the bible happened in Israel. Christianity is a Jewish religion. So, it shouldn't really surprise anyone that the bible has a lot to say about the Jews. Where they came from, how they got there, and what happens to them in the future.

Christian support for the Jews is a relatively new phenomenon. During the reign of the Catholic church, Jews were persecuted by Catholics and forced to convert to Christianity. The Jewishness of Jesus was lost to history; this is why you see much of the art during the middle ages depicting the Lord as a European man.

What changed is that the Jews returned to the land of Israel in 1948, something that many scholars of time past assumed was impossible. The general teaching was that God had broken His covenant with the Jewish people because they rejected Christ and that the church was now the new Israel. This is called replacement theology.

Yet, the Jews did return to their own land, a unique event in all of history. Never before had a people group been displaced from their own country, scattered all over the world for thousands of years, and then regathered to their original land with their cultural and genetic purity intact. This is a true miracle which anyone can plainly see is evidence of the hand of God working in the Earth on behalf of His chosen people.

The video makes it seem like the idea of Israel being integral to end times prophecy is some kind of leap, yet anyone who has studied the bible seriously knows that nearly everything predicted about the end times revolves around Israel, and particularly Jerusalem. There are numerous prophecies in the Old Testament stating plainly that God will scatter His people and gather them back to Israel in the last days.

The scripture predicts that the Jews will build a third temple. At this moment the Dome of the Rock, the golden domed building you see in photographs of Jerusalem, stands in the place where the third temple must be built. You could sum up the entire tension in the middle east in two words: "Temple Mount".

Not only are the Jews ready to rebuild their temple in a moments notice, they have created all of the implements of the temple and have been training priests to serve in the temple. The scripture declares that for end times prophecy to be fulfilled there must be a third temple. I can confidently predict that this will happen sometime in the future and the Dome of the Rock most likely be destroyed.

I also wanted to mention one other thing. The name "Palestine" was given to the area by the Romans. The Palestinians are not a people group, they are Arabs who settled in the area after the Jews were dispersed around the world. The video really does you a disservice by neglecting to mention the fact that it was the Arab nations that attacked Israel unprovoked on multiple occasions and the Jews against all odds defeated them. It was their right to take that territory and they are under no obligation to return it.

In the end, there will be much more conflict in the middle east, all revolving around the Jews and Jerusalem in some way. You may doubt the scripture but you will see this unfold with your very eyes. One day a charismatic man will come on the scene who will negotiate a peace in the middle east between the Jews and the nations of the world. He will seem at first to be someone who can solve all of our problems but eventually he will establish a one world order and rule the world with an iron fist. He will go into the Jewish temple and declare himself to be God. This is who the bible calls the Antichrist.

So, if you want to know where we are at in the end times, watch Israel and Jerusalem. Jerusalem is Gods prophetic time clock. When you see the Dome of the Rock being replaced by the temple, know the Lord is near, even at the doors.

REJECTED by DON HERTZFELDT (Blu-ray restoration)

Ginrummy33 says...

Well, from a commercial and corporate standpoint, I can see why they were rejected. Very odd and a bit counter to what they were meant to do. Some interesting stuff, artistically, though.

w1ndex (Member Profile)

Why Shell's Marketing is so Disgusting

newtboy says...

No sir.
I even mentioned one group in America that never adopted petroleum...Amish...and I would counter your assertion with the fact that most people on earth don't live using oil, they're too poor, not too fortunate. 20-30 years ago, most Chinese had never been in a car or a commercial store bigger than a local vegetable stand.

Both customers and non customers are the victims.
Using (or selling) a product that clearly pollutes the air, land, and sea is immoral.

Yes, it's like our business is predicated on rebuilding wrecked cars overnight which we do by using massive amounts of meth. Sure, our products are death traps, sure, we lied about both our business practices and the safety of our product, sure, our teeth and brains are mush....but our business has been successful and allowed us to have 10 kids (8 on welfare, two adopted out), and if we quit using meth they'll starve and fight over scraps. That's proof meth is good and moral and you're mistaken to think otherwise. Duh.

Yes, we overpopulated, outpacing the planet's ability to support us by far...but instead of coming to terms with that and changing, many think we should just wring the juice out of the planet harder and have more kids. I think those people are narcissistic morons, we don't need more little yous. Sadly, we are well beyond the tipping point, even if no more people are ever born, those alive are enough to finish the biosphere's destruction. Guaranteed if they think like you seem to.

Um, really? Complete collapse of the food web isn't catastrophic?
Wars over hundreds of millions or billions of refugees aren't catastrophic? (odd because the same people who think that are incensed over thousands of Syrians, Africans, and or South and Central American refugees migrating)
Massive food shortage isn't catastrophic?
Loss of most farm land and hundreds of major cities to the sea isn't catastrophic?
Loss of corals, where >25% of ocean species live, and other miniscule organisms that are the base of the ocean food web isn't catastrophic?
Loss of well over 1/2 the producers of O2, and organisms that capture carbon, isn't catastrophic?
Eventual clouds of hydrogen sulfide from the ocean covering the land, poisoning 99%+ of all life isn't catastrophic?
Runaway greenhouse cycles making the planet uninhabitable for thousands if not hundreds of thousands or even millions of years isn't catastrophic?
Loss of access to water for billions of people isn't catastrophic?
I think you aren't paying attention to the outcomes here, and may be thinking only of the scenarios estimated for 2030-2050 which themselves are pretty scary, not the unavoidable planetary disaster that comes after the feedback loops are all fully in play. Try looking more long term....and note that every estimate of how fast the cycles collapse/reverse has been vastly under estimated....as two out of hundreds of examples, Greenland is melting faster than it was estimated to melt in 2075....far worse, frozen methane too.

You can reject the science, that doesn't make it wrong. It only makes you the ass who knowingly gambles with the planet's ability to support humans or other higher life forms based on nothing more than denial.

Edit: We are at approximately 1C rise from pre industrial records today, expected to be 1.5C in as little as 11 years. Even the IPCC (typically extremely conservative in their estimates) states that a 2C rise will trigger feedbacks that could exceed 12C. Many are already in full effect, like glacial melting, methane hydrate melting, peat burning, diatom collapse, coral collapse, forest fires, etc. It takes an average of 25 years for what we emit today to be absorbed (assuming the historical absorption cycles remain intact, which they aren't). That means we are likely well past the tipping point where natural cycles take over no matter what we do, and what we're doing is increasing emissions.

bcglorf said:

You asked at least 3 questions and all fo them very much leading questions.

To the first 2, my response is that it's only the extremely fortunate few that have the kind of financial security and freedom to make those adjustments, so lucky for them.

Your last question is:
do those companies get to continue to abdicate their responsibility, pawning it off on their customers?

Your question demands as part of it's base assumption that fossil fuels are inherently immoral or something and customers are clearly the victims. I reject that.

The entirety of the modern western world stands atop the usage of fossil fuels. If we cut ALL fossil fuel usage out tomorrow, mass global starvation would follow within a year, very nasty wars would rapidly follow that.

The massive gains in agricultural production we've seen over the last 100 years is extremely dependent on fossil fuels. Most importantly for efficiency in equipment run on fossil fuels, but also importantly on fertilizers produced by fossil fuels. Alternatives to that over the last 100 years did not exist. If you think Stalin and Mao's mass starvations were ugly, just know that the disruptions they made to agriculture were less severe than the gain/loss represented by fossil fuels.

All that is to state that simply saying don't use them because the future consequences are bad is extremely naive. The amount of future harm you must prove is coming is enormous, and the scientific community as represented by the IPCC hasn't even painted a worst case scenario so catastrophic.

Why Shell's Marketing is so Disgusting

bcglorf says...

You asked at least 3 questions and all fo them very much leading questions.

To the first 2, my response is that it's only the extremely fortunate few that have the kind of financial security and freedom to make those adjustments, so lucky for them.

Your last question is:
do those companies get to continue to abdicate their responsibility, pawning it off on their customers?

Your question demands as part of it's base assumption that fossil fuels are inherently immoral or something and customers are clearly the victims. I reject that.

The entirety of the modern western world stands atop the usage of fossil fuels. If we cut ALL fossil fuel usage out tomorrow, mass global starvation would follow within a year, very nasty wars would rapidly follow that.

The massive gains in agricultural production we've seen over the last 100 years is extremely dependent on fossil fuels. Most importantly for efficiency in equipment run on fossil fuels, but also importantly on fertilizers produced by fossil fuels. Alternatives to that over the last 100 years did not exist. If you think Stalin and Mao's mass starvations were ugly, just know that the disruptions they made to agriculture were less severe than the gain/loss represented by fossil fuels.

All that is to state that simply saying don't use them because the future consequences are bad is extremely naive. The amount of future harm you must prove is coming is enormous, and the scientific community as represented by the IPCC hasn't even painted a worst case scenario so catastrophic.

newtboy said:

I think that, considering the long term massive if not apocalyptic damage done along with the temporary gains, it's undeniably a big negative for humanity and the rest of the planet. Groups like the Amish get along quite nicely without it.

Edit: Now will you please answer my question?

The Amazon isn't "Burning" - It's Being Burned

diego says...

good video but a rather important thing he missed is, that many governments DO pay brasil to maintain the rainforest-

"Norway has followed Germany in suspending donations to the Brazilian government’s Amazon Fund after a surge in deforestation in the South American rainforest. The move has triggered a caustic attack from the country’s rightwing president.


Bolsonaro rejects 'Captain Chainsaw' label as data shows deforestation 'exploded'
Read more
Jair Bolsonaro, whose move to meddle in the environmental organisation’s governance led to Norway’s decision, reacted by suggesting that Europe was not in a position to lecture his administration.

“Isn’t Norway that country that kills whales up there in the north pole?”, the Brazilian president said. “Take that money and help Angela Merkel reforest Germany.”

After weeks of tense negotiations with Norway and Germany, the Bolsonaro government unilaterally closed the Amazon Fund’s steering committee on Thursday. The fund has been central to international efforts to curb deforestation although its impact is contested.

Brazil’s environment minister, Ricardo Salles, said the Amazon Fund had been suspended while its rules were under discussion.

In response, Ola Elvestuen, his Norwegian counterpart, said an expected payment of about $33.27m (£27.36m) would not take place as Brazil had, in effect, broken the terms of its deal. Norway has been the fund’s biggest donor, and has given about $1.2bn (£985m) over the past decade.

“He cannot do that without Norway and Germany’s agreement,” Elvestuen said. “What Brazil has shown is that it no longer wants to stop deforestation.”

This week Berlin had said it would withhold an expected payment of about $39m. Norway and Germany questioned an initial proposal from the Brazilian government for the fund’s steering committee to be reduced in size, and had warned against any weakening of the structures of the fund.

Grave concerns about the rate of deforestation since Bolsonaro took power have been repeatedly voiced by the Norwegian government and others.

According to Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research, the government agency that monitors deforestation, the rate increased by 278% in the year to July, resulting in the destruction of about 870 square miles."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/16/norway-halts-amazon-fund-donation-dispute-brazil-deforestation-jair-bolsonaro


while I do agree that for 3rd world ex colonies it is extremely tiresome to hear lectures about ecology from the US and Europe, who tore up the planet to achieve their status and continue to consume far more than 3rd world people do, Bolsonaro is dead wrong here and sadly it has to be said this is what the democracy and capitalism produce: shortsighted win-now, defer the costs decisions.

The evolution of the cell phone

Meanwhile at a Democratic Socialists Convention...

bcglorf says...

I'm Canadian, so as much as American politics and media is pervasive up here, some of it still foreign to me.

That said, it feels like I'm observing a not undeserved observation that white-national and anti-immigrant ideologies are dominating mass shootings in the US. I guess where I get wary is with the sources most adamant about demanding that leadership on the 'right' acknowledge and address it as their own problem. Those same sources when discussing terrorism dominated by those claiming Islamic ideologies are adamant that Islam not be unfairly tarred by bad actors.

I'd have an easier time swallowing the line if either side were consistent in their approach. Either you blame BOTH Islam AND the 'right' for terrorist acts claiming common cause, or you reject BOTH Islam AND the 'right' being blamed for a few bad actors...

newtboy said:

I mostly agree, however when talking about political terrorism (edit :in the U.S.) there's little choice. Either ignore there are two different main camps and just call it domestic terrorism (something the right would never do with left wing extremist terrorism, and they shouldn't imo), or note it so you can better identify and target the problem.
We're all Americans, so there really is no "other guy"...but I take your point.

If you heard some of the ridiculous reasons I've heard for not voting Democrat, you would know your example is perfectly reasonable and logical by comparison. One spouted hatred for John Kerry because they preferred Hunts over Heinz ketchup so hated his wife. Seriously.

Meanwhile at a Democratic Socialists Convention...

bcglorf says...

"there's got to be more to the equation than just nuttiness times membership."

Absolutely agreed.

Regarding white supremacist killings and violence, and classing right/left and tada the left is less violent is something I don't agree on.

Now I don't say that to disagree with any particular fact you present, I just reject the methodology of creating 2 categories(left/right) and lumping everyone into one or the other and drawing conclusions. I think it oversimplifies things to the point of being a problem of it's own. It makes it easy to be apathetic(clearly the problem is the 'other' guys) and even dehumanizing("they" are clearly evil or in bed with evil).

The two camps thing is way too easy to get pulled into(I'm imperfect staying out of it too), but it just ends in horrible divisive garbage like refusing to vote Democrat because they are "left" and antifa is left, so can't promote them...

newtboy said:

Kinda gonna disagree with YOU here.

So, you think nuttiness directly correlates with violent tendencies? But you then admit the nuttiest Christian group is Westborough, who has not been violent, just outrageously disgusting. You seem to think these democratic socialist people are nuttier than the moronic right, yet you admit they have yet to become violent, unlike many on the right. Even if it's also a function of numbers, there should be some violent acts if not murders coming from both outrageously nutty groups, right? But there just isn't.
Remember, Manson's family only had a few members, but a ton of nuttiness. They murdered many trying to start a race war.

Today, the left has more members than the right. Why, then, is the right so much more violent and terroristic? Simply because the far right has more members than the far left? That still doesn't jibe.

Granted, the lunacy on display here is over the top, but less so than the disgusting and divisive dehumanizing rhetoric coming from the right's leaders, spokespeople, and splinter groups. Indeed, this groups nuttiness is based on not upsetting others, antithetical to mass murdering.

There's FAR more crazy anger on the right. For every triggered democratic socialist or ANTIFA there's a dozen seething right wing white supremacists itching for a race war. Look at the numbers here, 500-1000 active democratic socialists?...how many right wing neo Nazis were in Charlottesville?

It follows to me that group murder rates come from not just the level but the type of nuttiness, number of members, uncontrolled anger/rage/hatred, group acceptance of violence, and access to weapons capable of murder. The right is miles ahead on every count besides membership. That's why, imo, there's got to be more to the equation than just nuttiness times membership.

Mordhaus (Member Profile)



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