You're fucking dumb. I'm not a hypocrite. Do you know the details of withholding aid in Ukraine?

Do you remember when obama was president how the republican congress and senate was stonewalling everything he wanted? Do you remember complaints about executive orders?

The Ukraine Support Act proposed in 2014 did not make it out of committee in the house of representatives https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_Support_Act

THEREFORE

Obama issued two executive orders as part of a national emergency

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/17/executive-order-blocking-property-additional-persons-contributing-situat

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-presidents-continuation-national-emergency-respect-ukraine/

There was a separate bill that guaranteed loans that was later passed but distribution of funds was done mostly through executive order in accordance with The International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

THEREFORE

Obama actually had prerogative and liberty with which to distribute funds and Biden was acting as his surrogate at the time.

In other words, the law was not broken because there wasn't a law to break that existed.

----------------------------------------------------------


THIS IS DISTINCT AND DIFFERENT FROM WHAT DONALD TRUMP DID IN SEVERAL WAYS, BUT DISTINCTLY THAT HE SIGNED A LAW SAYING THAT HE HAD TO DISTRIBUTE THE MONEY

In 2019, the appropriations committee passed this and made it a part of an appropriations bill which the president (Trump) signed as part of a budget regulation

That is the difference

And it's why Biden can use those funds in a discretionary way and have it be legal, and Trump can use them in a discretionary way and have it be illegal (not just because he's investigating a political rival, because he fucking signed the law that said that he had to do it).

---------------------------------------------------


The retort is "what about Obama" but the circumstances are different and as much as, and as simple as, it was not against the law for him to do that because the house and the senate didn't pass a law saying he had to do anything with money for Ukraine, that was part of an executive order which gives him that discretion. Donald Trump could have issued an executive order rather than sign off on that budget And it would suddenly be legal.

^^^^^^^^ Don't misunderstand me. ^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^ Don't misunderstand me. ^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^ Don't misunderstand me. ^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm not saying he's doing something illegal and jumping up and down and squealing and shitting myself like a housewife discovering daytime television.

I'm making an observation about how he doesn't care about what laws are passed or not in a more general way.

>>>>>>>>>>>>He just doesn't care about following the law.

Still, that's a separate issue from rooting out corruption overall versus bringing the entire weight of the federal government, not to mention the government in Ukraine, on Joe Biden.

Last I checked no executive order no bill no resolution said "Target Joe Biden specifically" And on the phone call released from Donald Trump in the White House there's only one name that's mentioned.

My takeaway from the video is not about Capitalism vs. Socialism that brought about the root of those innovations (i.e. the internet), but the direct, initial involvement of the education sector, military and/or government, NOT the "free market".

No? what? how the hell did u get that from this?

The president of the United States issued an order making it a crime to do this for the purpose of interfering in an election.


The Obama administration, along with a slew of our allies, wanted that prosecutor out because he was NOT prosecuting corruption. They wanted someone who would prosecute corruption more aggressively. I fail to see the problem.


Furthermore, Hunter Biden was not under investigation for corruption from the prosecutor who was let go. According to the company Burisma Holdings claimed at the time (and still say now) that they brought H Biden on to improve their company image and root out shady business practices. The name probably helped that, but it's apples and oranges.

If there were really something shady going on, why fire the person who is NOT investigating your son's company? Regardless, per the new law under the 45th, it's improper and illegal for someone campaigning to engage in this kind of conflict of interest. If he had a legitimate concern, he should have let an appropriate agency within the state department handle it.


BONUS apparently he's also done this multiple times with the likes of Australia and whatever else is behind the code worded files.


On another note, it's illogical and stupid that i have to keep reading about the credibility of the whistleblower. THE FUCKING WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT IS 100% CONFIRMED BY THE RELEASED TRANSCRIPT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

HE COULD BE THE MOST DISCREDITED PERSON IN THE WORLD BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN HE PROVIDED FALSE INFORMATION HERE.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-transcript-read-ukraine-president-phone-call-transcript-pdf-released-today-joe-biden-crowdstrike-2019-09-25/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/09/26/whistleblower-complaint-against-trump-read-full-declassified-document/3773047002/

What's left to debate about this? the report filed matches the transcript put out BY THE WHITE HOUSE. It's beyond me why I even have to explain that.

I think you are rooting for a winner. Seems the ants are doing quite well.
https://videosift.com/video/The-Billion-Ant-Mega-Colony-and-the-Biggest-War-on-Earth

Rooting for the ant

@newtboy,
"Actually, I'm selling their audience short. When real scientists present the real data dispassionately, I think the average person gets quickly confused and tunes out."

I'd argue bored maybe more often than confused. Although if we want to say that most of the problems society faces have their root causes in human nature, I think we can agree.

"I had read the published summaries of the recent U.N. report saying we had 12 years to be carbon neutral to stay below 1.5degree rise, they were far from clear that this was only a 50% chance of achieving that minimal temperature rise"

Here is where I see healthy skepticism distinguishing itself from covering eyes, ears and yelling not listening.

Our understanding of the global climate system is NOT sufficient to make that kind of high confidence claim about specific future outcomes. As you read past the head line and into the supporting papers you find that is the truth underneath. The final summary line you are citing sits atop multiple layers of assumptions and unspecified uncertainties that culminate in a very ephemeral 50% likelyhood disclaimer. It is stating that if all of the cumulative errors and unknowns all more or less don't matter. then we have models that suggest this liklyhood of an outcome...

This however sits atop the following challenges that scientists from different fields and specialities are focusing on improving.
1.Direct measurements of the global energy imbalance and corroboration with Ocean heat content. Currently, the uncertainties in our direct measurements are greater than the actual energy imbalance caused by the CO2 we've emitted. The CERES team measuring this has this plain as day in all their results.
2.Climate models can't get global energy to balance because the unknown or poorly modeled processes in them have a greater impact on the energy imbalance than human CO2. We literally hand tune the poorly known factors to just balance out the energy correctly, regardless of whether that models the given process better or not because the greater run of the model is worthless without a decent energy imbalance. This sits atop the unknowns regarding the actual measured imbalance to hope to simulate. 100% of the modelling teams that discuss their tuning processes again all agree on this.
3. Meta-analysis like you cited usually sit atop both the above, and attempt to rely on the models to get a given 2100 temperature profile, and then make their predictions off of that.

The theme here, is cumulative error and an underlying assumption of 'all other things being equal' for all the cumulative unknowns and errors. You can NOT just come in from all of that, present the absolute worst possible case scenario you can squeeze into and then declare that as the gold standard scientific results which must dictate policy...

Edit:that's very nearly the definition of cherry picking the results you want.

@newtboy,

"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."

Obviously agreed, exactly what I was saying.

"if the facts are presented clearly and in totality, which she does better than most if not all professional scientific lecturers....sadly"

I think here you are selling scientific lecturers short, or at the least including folks I wouldn't consider scientific at all in the group.

When I think scientific lecturer, I think an actual scientific researcher giving a lecture related to their field of expertise. That even excludes scientific researchers giving lectures outside their field of expertise. I've seen how badly interdisciplinary study types can misjudge their own knowledge of a field. In the hard sciences they can get rooted out faster, but in softer sciences and humanities it's easier for them to keep finding a niche that hides their ignorance.

If you get the CERES team to give a talk on the global energy budget, they will give a lecture a thousand times more complete and accurate, than you, I or Greta ever could. They will confirm the planet is taking in more energy than is leaving. They will confirm their data is corroborated between satellite and ocean heat content measurements. They can say with authority how much energy is being gained, and can even confirm it largely corresponds to what we'd expect from the increased CO2 contributions. If you asked, they would even also admit that the uncertainties on the measured imbalance are larger than the imbalance itself.

Ask them about mating habits for European swallows and you, I or Gretta might well know better than them.

Congratulations Jigga!

Level up for you! I never knew that about you. If you've mentioned it in the past, I missed it. You should speak about that more often. It gives more answers about how to not be a racist rather than convincing someone they are.

I'm glad were joined in the conversation together.

I'm not asking you to keep your mouth shut. I'm saying you're not being heard. Racism is symptom of a much deeper problem. If you don't get to the root you will always be pulling weeds.

Yes, you can act alone.


All alone, or in two's
The ones who really love you
Walk up and down outside the wall
Some hand in hand
And some gathered together in bands
The bleeding hearts and the artists
Make their stand
And when they've given you their all
Some stagger and fall, after all it's not easy
Banging your heart against some mad bugger's wall

Isn't this where -Pink Floyd

--------

There is magic at your fingers
For the spirit ever lingers -Rush

Yes, yes and no so much anymore. The delamination / damage from bumps and potholes have been pretty much resolved in the Michelin and Bridgestone designs (according to Michelin and Bridgestone - ahem...) Haven't seen any reports on whether running temps are worse lately, but hard to make the comparison (the #1 root cause of tire failure today is under-inflation so tires running hotter than design). Now with 10 or more of the big boys in the hunt for the best airless design, will be an interesting ride. The concept out of SciTech Industries in Florida is neato, but they are a (relatively) smaller startup, so might get lost in the scramble, though producing a lighter tire with less heat build (quite a different concept compared to Michelin). cheers

Hardly.
Yes, it's membership might be shrinking slightly in some places, growing in others, but it's powers to divide and destroy have never been stronger.
I think as those in control see their religions dying they'll see it as a challenge to be sure everyone else dies first...last one standing wins is a common mindset.

"Let it be" are not words of wisdom, they're words of the kind of people who might not be the root cause of our predicament, but have done absolutely nothing to stop it, making them complicit. When you see something that's hurting everyone, don't just let it be, change or stop it.

Yeah, not coming back. Just found out one of my dogs has epilepsy.. seizures... As much as I'd love you kick your butt ant, you are welcome to be the new #1 =) Tho I am rooting for eric!

Just what I would have expected. Blonde hair, black roots.

Is this the wrong place to point out a pet peeve with groups like 'secular' Satanists? The origin of the idea of Satan is clearly rooted in Abrahamic religion, and as the embodiment of all things evil. When I see self identifying Satanists upset that people presume that Satanism is the worship of the Abrahamic Satan, I lack any sympathy. The name, language and definitions already have existed for a long time, namely:
Satan: The embodiment of evil in Abrahamic religion
Satanism: The worship of the above

Defining your world view as a secular atheist and then labeling that as 'Satanism' is just deliberately communicating badly. I can understand the angle where people want to use it to provoke, but at some point you've gotta step back and acknowledge that yes you were just miscommunicating things badly to draw attention to something.

If the root canal involved nitrous i would choose that experience (done that) over car shopping easily. I found it quite pleasant actually.
I'd also take the flight, as it means i'm going somewhere fun probably*. Making it extremely easy to deal with any discomfort.
Any dinner party, regardless the food, seems quick and painless enough.
New car shopping on the other hand seems horrific regardless of manufacturer (only done it once 25 years ago). I don't believe Hyundai would be any different.
Fun commercial though till the reveal

*A six hour flight would be Hawaii or Central America for me

Indeed, your ratio is basically the opposite, even with the pills. But perhaps it will improve over time.

(often though these drugs don't fix the root cause, they address the symptoms which means you'll be on some form of pills forever, until you fix the underlying issue, which the doctor should have mentioned, but a lot of doctors are so disheartened these days because their patients rarely listen, or are scared of being called 'fat shamers' so they don't bother with the speech anymore)

Take a look at the success stories on ForksOverKnives.com we aren't exactly miserable.

When you feel for yourself how good life is when you are the master of your health and therefore fate, life becomes far far better. It's powerful, your whole perception of the world will change, and the fleeting pleasure you get from Butter or bacon doesn't compare, and of course we're eating cusine from across the world. We've given up nothing, just changed the ingredients.


I know yall think im a biased vegan, which is why I like to refer people to the success stories on plant based websites. You can see the life and passion return into people's eyes, there lives are transformed. The weight-loss is a mere side effect of being healthy.


https://www.forksoverknives.com/the-10-most-popular-plant-based-success-stories-of-2018/