"Europe has a bleak future ahead of it thanks to Biden and his energy sanction push, and no one seems to have a clue what to do about it."

*sigh*

Either you have absolutly no clue about the thing you are talking about or you lie. Mostly to yourself.

first: take the 'example' w/a grain of salt. many folks of all ilks would be in the same waters.

second: the knowing sigh speaks volumes 'tho. 'cause there are forty years (that I know of) of bad stuff if one looks. I'd be overwhelmed too...but certainly not speechless.

third: the 'sheep' thing could be used as a defense but just read all the comments here! they appear to be thought out and varied. step into a 'red' conversation is like walking into a shop full of parrots. *AWK! AWK!*

fourth: if you believe the 'blue' is programmed - then why are the 'reds' tardy in their opinions when unexpected events happen? when this FBI bust went down, even Fox was befuddled - and many other times too.

five: I put forth the theory that the 'red' can't speak for themselves because it's foreign to them. (see above)

six: when it was Hillary w/less - it mattered. now that it's Upset Catsup w/top secrets, leading a coup, etc, etc, etc (see other comments) - it's just opinions. right?

the cultism is real and in your neck of the woods.


but for me, the first thing that made me anti-orange was him and the USFL. forty years ago!

'indoctrination'?

you were told that. you believed. you speak it. 🦜AWK!

AND THE LIES!!!!!!!!!!!


BTW: credible news (or reality) that one fears, dislikes, or is disillusioning isn't a choice. one doesn't get to say the dam didn't break when the town is flooded and the dead are floating by. ones that do...well...

The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender. The 14th amendment “due process clause” has been interpreted to also affirm a right to privacy.

https://www.aclu.org/other/students-your-right-privacy

Sure sounds like rights to privacy are right there in the bill of rights though, an addendum to the constitution, as explained in numerous Supreme Court rulings.

<SIGH>. I thought you said “Pedantry is tiresome. Tell your friends.” Maybe take your own advice?

Some light reading…. In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in McCorvey's favor ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion. It also ruled that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against governments' interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life.[4][5] The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother.[5] The Court classified the right to choose to have an abortion as "fundamental", which required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the "strict scrutiny" standard, the highest level of judicial review in the United States.

* sigh *

The results were verified repeatedly, the court challenges were shot down like my chances with Judy Hopps, and there's never been a single shred of evidence that anything untoward happened.

Where's your evidence that it wasn't above board?

Isolated to just this bit of work, it's funny to hear him sighing the few times he does, given that it looks like fun.

"<SIGH> Here I am, just shoot-chopping my way through another car. Ho-hum."

Sigh.

*sigh* *promote

Haha. I have had this brat get killed by enemies and yet he comes back later on. [sighs]

This is now Logan's Run *dead


Come away, come away, Death,
And in sad cypress let me be laid;
Fly away, fly away, breath,
I am slain by a fair cruel maid.
My shroud of white stuck all with yew, O prepare it!
My part of death no one so true did share it.

Not a flower, not a flower sweet,
On my black coffin let there be strewn:
Not a friend, not a friend greet
My poor corpse, where my bones shall be thrown.
A thousand thousand sighs to save, lay me O where
Sad true lover never find my grave, to weep there!
- Act II Scene 4

Sigh
So accurate.

Hey that's great.......

Unless you live in the US, Canada, or Japan.

>sigh<

*long sigh* Jennifer Connelly, the ultimate babe!

*Heavy sigh*
No. They don't say that. The science has evolved in the last 5 years. (Edit: Might check how old and out of date that ipcc report is, btw. Please note you ignore all science done since the 2014 IPCC report you reference that used melting equations and extrapolated rather than measured data sets, data and models they admit are incomplete. They have not updated their sea level estimates since the fifth assessment, which itself raised them approximately 60% over the fourth, which raised them significantly from the third...... Other nonpolitical scientific groups have adjusted the findings to include up to 6.5' or higher rise by 2100 under worst case conditions, the path we're firmly on today.)

Even if you were correct, and I don't agree one bit you are, is just under a 3' rise not bad enough for you in the next 70 years? That's at least 140 million people and all coastal habitats displaced, with more to come. I and others expect worse, but surely that's disaster enough for you, isn't it? The world couldn't deal with one million Syrians, 140 million coastal refugees, and whatever number of non coastal climate refugees fleeing drought or flood sure seems an unavoidable planetary disaster. That doesn't consider the two billion people who rely on Himalayan glaciers for their water, glaciers in rapid retreat.

I guess you dismiss the science from NOAA based simply on it being presented in Forbes without reading it then....so I should just dismiss the IPCC, another non scientific economically focused group discussing science?

Here's some more science then. Edit: Seems most CURRENT projections using up to date data are more in line with my expectations than yours.

https://phys.org/news/2019-05-metre-sea-plausible.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48337629

https://time.com/5592583/sea-levels-rise-higher-study/

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5056

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/sea-level-in-the-5th-ipcc-report/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
Note the updated chart near the top showing more current projections compared to ipcc predictions.

*my content?*