So again, that’s a “no”. You are not man enough to admit statements that are true. No surprise.

Instead you would prefer to make up some alternative facts that make you feel good.

Violent settlers (often Americans) forcing Palestinians off their land at gun point or just outright murdering them to steal their land increased exponentially during Trump’s tenure, as did IDF attacks on innocent civilians (often in support of the settlers, not counted in official IDF killings), they also increased the slow genocide of medical embargoes, intentional starvation, cutting off water and electricity, violent random attacks on mosques, all under Trump. They don’t count those as “IDF killings” either, but they are.

The IDF has been committing a slow boil genocide for decades, under both parties, a genocide they accelerated under Trump’s regime in many ways, and again under Biden when they used their (intentional?) abject intelligence failure in Oct. as an excuse for escalating farther to such an extent its looking likely they allowed the attack for that very reason, an excuse for escalating the genocide. It’s become clear they caused many of the casualties on Oct 7 and made false rape claims that have been debunked, also to excuse their escalation.

Netanyahu is a far right wing “leader” Trump still today lovingly calls Bibi who would have been out of office without Trump’s help and quite recently Don has voiced his FULL support for any lengths Netanyahu wants to go including taking the entire Gaza Strip and expelling the residents (into the sea because no country will take them, knowing if they do Israel will use them having a country to take refuge in as a pretext to take the West Bank too)…and you want to pretend Biden who has called him a war criminal is MORE complicit than Trump who backed his every genocidal move. 😂

At least you are consistent in your fantasy world…you never leave. Too bad it cost you your balls, spine, mind, and soul. I hope you like it in there up your rectum. 😂

Bwaaahahahaha.
You done fucked up now buddy.
Wrong account, that was for your sock puppet....You really shouldn't out yourself so blatantly....although it's obvious we all know about your other accounts, you aren't fooling anyone but yourself. Maybe next time spread them out a bit more when you create them, you didn't make it hard to piece together.

That young woman is ten times the adult you'll ever be, Bobby. 18 is an adult. She's valedictorian, so probably near double your IQ and educational level, or more.

Yep. Finally a generation that doesn't plan to coddle right wing nutjobs, and votes. That's going to ensure your floundering party dies a death by starvation....soon.

Congratulations! Your video, A bit like starvation-inspired hallucinations in cartoons..., has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 6 Badge!

Your video, A bit like starvation-inspired hallucinations in cartoons..., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

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
@BSR

Think of it a bit like this (quote from Wilde)

"...surrounded by hideous poverty, by hideous ugliness, by hideous starvation. It is inevitable that they should be strongly moved by all this. The emotions of man are stirred more quickly than man’s intelligence; and, as I pointed out some time ago in an article on the function of criticism, it is much more easy to have sympathy with suffering than it is to have sympathy with thought. Accordingly, with admirable, though misdirected intentions, they very seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see. But their remedies do not p. 3cure the disease: they merely prolong it. Indeed, their remedies are part of the disease.

They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor.

But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realized by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it"
--------------
And allow me to pop this out:
"the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves"
--------------


This is a stark/bleak example. I don't personally agree with it entirely. As I said, I bring cereal for my students and it's there and free and available unless I don't have time to get to the store or unless I myself am out of pocket change to buy extra food.


I don't ENTIRELY disagree though ----> Which is not to say that I agree.

I would say, YES there are structural changes that need to take place, but I also believe that assistance needs to be there to handle some kind of transition period while a problem is realized.

ALL of that being said

Here is a perfect example of a societal ill in our current system that needs to be addressed. It's a disgusting by-product of a structurally unsound student loan system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db9NaPDtAmU


Source: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1017/1017-h/1017-h.htm

Nope. I am implying that in the late 1700's, the wealth inequality in France was combined with widespread poverty and starvation, and such conditions do not exist today in the US. The suggestion (Newtboy's) that we should fear a revolution today is unsupported. Back then, half of all children then died before the age of 10, many due to the famine they were experiencing. We just don't have the kind of poverty today in the US that the French peasants endured in 1780.

I would bet; I imagine that the fish wintering under the ice had a tough moment with that shockwave.

In another note: why didn't the water put out the fuse? From simple starvation of oxygen if not actual dousing?

I do agree that unilateral disarmament is a difficult thing to achieve, but there are other arguments as to why it should be pursued. I am sure we agree on a lot of things on this subject, but let me at least put the other side out there:

1. America as the over achieving nation in the world has a duty to lead by example. How can the country with the largest nuclear arsenal expect other countries to start the process that we all signed up to? Hey France, why didn't you get rid of your 87 nukes? Well America, why haven't you touched that pile of 500? (making up numbers here to illustrate the point)

2. The US isn't worried about Best Korea nuking them because they would need a staging platform and a functional ballistic missile. They can be launched from subs, but NK isn't really your worry there. The most developed nations are the concern, and if you could get an agreement it could happen, with peacekeepers and mutually open inspections, and pressure on smaller countries to abide or be trade embargoed to stop them (which the west does/has done already). Unlikely as things are right now, i agree.

3. We have ageing equipment housing extremely dangerous explosives. They require a huge amount of maintenance and whatnot, costing billions. The UK has to replace their system soon to the tune of hundreds of billions of pounds. Imagine what kind of alternative modern anti-nuclear defence system we could develop using all that money and all our technology? That way we could be safe from nukes without using nukes and it would cost less in the long run.

Also if you claim your weapons as part of a defence, it's a bit of a giveaway that you're bullshitting if you then go off around the world antagonising other countries, knowing that they can't really fight back. So i think in fairness we should crack open that self-defence argument and see what percentage of it is referring to "a good offence".

Having said all that, binning all the US nukes overnight wouldn't be a great idea. The UK would be less of a target and safer without nukes imo, but the US would probably make the world a lot safer just by having less.

Let's be honest here, the amount of nukes we have is preposterous. No one could possibly have any reason to use that many, the potential for absolute worldwide devastation is far too high to need that many - you could potentially finish the world off in a nuclear winter, according to the average figures given, in about 100 'small' nukes. Not 100 each per country, but 100 total worldwide.

And remember, that doesn't mean you can use 90 and be safe. The figure 100 was enough to likely cause a global famine by causing temperature drops leading to crop failures. That doesn't account for extinction of animals and the devastation of the natural balance (which would lead to our eventual extinction) which can be wildly unpredictable. You could shoot 40 at a country, win the conflict, and cause the starvation of millions+ in your own (and other) countries for the next 20 odd years..... or worse.

I find it disgusting and outrageous that people are still allowed to use this kind of indiscriminate trapping these days at all. There's no way to keep endangered, or unwanted animals from being killed or injured to the point where they'll likely die later.
I would like to think I would destroy any I found, and/or use them on the trapper if I found them, leaving them pinned in the forest with both arms and legs attached to separate trees in hopes that the animal they were going for finds them and has a nice treat.
Just sickening. I hope at least this one animal didn't die a horrendous, painful, long, torturous death by starvation, but with the injured leg, it still may have.

For starters, I have to oppose the implied thought that Saddam's reign of terror was preventing this sectarian violence. His rule through the Suni minority to wage genocides against the Kurdish and Shia majority and decades of brutal repression of same all served to make the sectarian hatred and violence worse. Tally up the hundreds of thousands he killed through genocide, the million plus he killed in the Iran-Iraq war and everyone that died by direct execution or deliberate starvation level poverty and compare it doesn't stand out as starkly and objectively a desirable alternative to today.

Now if you ask what would I do differently it depends on what level of power I've got to act with. Ideally, we can go back to first Iraq war and have Bush senior march on Baghdad. This would've aborted one of Saddam's genocides. Equally importantly, this would have kept the Shia Iraqi population's view of America as a liberating force. The standing in the desert and watching Saddam slaughter them thing still carried their mistrust of American forces after Saddam's actual removal later. That singularly stupid move of leaving Saddam in power, at the urging of most of the planet, drove the Shia population of Iraq back to Iran as their sole sympathetic ally.

Next step, after the removal of Saddam, whether we can do it back then, or only a few years ago as it really happened is to truly setup an occupation government. You don't bring stability to a region by immediately trying to transition to a democracy before the shooting has even stopped. The occupation government would be run by somebody with actual knowledge and experience with Iraq, rather than as Bush senior did by sending in a guy with zero experience and a two week lead to brief himself. The task you should place on this leader, is to setup a federated Iraq, with distinct and autonomous Shia, Sunni and Kurdish states. The occupation government would dictate things after taking input from Iraqi's rather than holding them to the tyranny of the majority as Bush and co allowed. The occupation would setup an initial constitution defining what laws and agreements spanned all three Iraqi provinces/states and what extent of autonomy they had to define their own systems of government. The American military's job would be to enforce this very basic constitutional framework. Each Iraqi state/province would be aided in setting up their own governments with a transition plan again dictated not voted upon. The transition plan would define the point in time when each state transitioned from occupation rule to a self determined future and rule of law.

The above plan on the whole would work, but Bush and co couldn't have managed post Saddam Iraq more poorly if they had actively tried to.

If zero time travel is allowed and we are to 'fix' things today, you need a lot MORE power. You need an army the size of America or Russia's and the political will to spend several years doing things the public will hate you for. The end game is still the same as above, a federated Iraq kicked off under a dictatorial occupation. To get there from today though you need to create stability. You need to take an army and march it across the entire country. As each city is cleared of militants you take a census of everybody and keep it because you need it to track down future militants. In entirely hostile locations like were ISIS has full rule, you bomb them into the stone ages before marching the army in. The surviving population is given full medical treatment. Now, as for sorting militants from civilians though, you do NOT use American style innocent until proven guilty justice. Instead, any fighting age males are considered guilty until proven innocent. This level of rule of law needs to remain in place until stability can be restored. You of course guarantee lots of innocent arrests, but your trying to prevent massive numbers of innocent deaths so it's required. As you stabilize the nation you can relax back to innocent until proven guilty and work on re-integrating the convicted.

You'll note that although the methods I'd declare necessary above are by any count 'brutal', they do not extend into Saddam's usage of genocide, torture and rape as the weapons of choice.

I'm glad to see that people are now accepting that exercise does very little for weight loss. Eating the right foods is 90% of the weight loss effort. Permanent weight loss also hasn't got anything to do with calorie counting/restriction.

A whole-foods plant based diet is the only sustainable way to lose weight because you never go hungry, and you get all of the nutrients you need. No exercise, no starvation, no calorie counting, no fasting, no salads. Just eat real hearty and satiating foods, and that's it.

You'll lose an average of 2.5kg a month, which within 2 years is 60kg. It's consistent, predictable and permanent.

If you're serious about losing weight here are some resources that I've used to get my BMI back to 23 (from 30):

https://www.drmcdougall.com/health/shopping/books/starch-solution/

https://www.amazon.com/21-Day-Weight-Loss-Kickstart-Dramatically/dp/0446583820

http://engine2diet.com/recipes/

https://www.amazon.com/Foods-That-Cause-Lose-Weight/dp/0380807971/ref=pd_sim_14_2?ie=UTF8&dpID=51BiLkzcpQL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR95%2C160_&psc=
1&refRID=J9FHP0P469CCPDH0Z613

Of course, exercise is great for your heart and brain health, and to give your body some tone and shape.

'TORN APART AND DEVOURED BY LIONS' was my favourite, I think, from the book, but 'STARVATION' was a vicious little bastard and I respect that.

If you break it down to just intentional homicide per 100,000 population, it averages out to 3.8 deaths for the US and 1 for the UK based on recent stats.

Some other countries for comparison:

Russia - 9.0
Jamaica - 39.3
India - 3.5
Canada - 1.4 (Probably died from starvation apologizing to one another)
China - 0.8 (Of course, this is just what they admit happening)
Norway - 2.2