Tag Search for "2014"

newtboy

says...

Aaaaaaahahaha! Good one Bob. The pot calling the glass vase black, I think.

It's a multi state fire, NPR is an appropriate source that actually investigates and had published an article on the exact topic with interviews and quotes from local officials. You made baseless claims about Oregon in your question about California, so local news sources wouldn't be a good source, and they also don't indicate any local forest fires are arson.

Archived from when and where? You know I'm not using your links, you have linked to virus hosts more than once. As a likely Russian operative, no one should trust any link you post. I certainly won't. Bobski #3,5,6,7,12,14,17, and 21 have been told this, you guys need to talk to each other.

We're talking about fires that started in the last month, not over decades. You don't need archived articles for that, so I'll assume these are years or decades of news story/records, the only date listed is 2014 in Ferguson, so massive propaganda FAIL Bob.

🤦‍♂️

bobknight33

said:

NPR is blinded to reality.

While yo look to NPR what about local news? How many arsonist are mentioned?

Archived news articles:

WARNING- PRE VIRUS SCAN ANY LINK BOB POSTS BEFORE CLICKING

bobknight33

says...

newtboy

said:

So I'll tell you again, no, and it's not arsonists in Oregon either, antifa or not, maybe a few, but not a statistically significant number. It's lighting and wind and accidents in California and Oregon and Washington. A massive lightning storm hit the west in mid August sparking fires everywhere, and unprecedented dryness and high temperatures has kept those and other fires alive since.
The newest right wing claim is that climate change has nothing to do with the fires, they're all antifa arson. Of course I assumed that's what you were referencing when you erroneously claimed many of the Oregon fires were arson.

Read it this time, the answers are there...
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/13/912449209/oregon-officials-warn-untrue-antifa-rumors-waste-precious-resources-for-fires

scheherazade

says...

The constitution puts purse authority strictly in the hands of congress. Congress can pass any budget it pleases.
Reviewing any budget submitted by the president is a courtesy, not a requirement.

Actually, congress can pass laws that require (or forbid) the president to do things.

I am not discussing veto. I only mention it as one of the few presidential powers - and that I'm glad he has it, as it means less laws on average.

edit, According to this timeline, Hunter was working there since April 2014, in time for all the investigations.
https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

-scheherazade

newtboy

said:

Lol. If you honestly think that, you need serious help.

The president submits his budget to congress, they rubber stamp it mostly, then send it back for presidential approval. The president controls it more than congress, start to finish, they only make changes the president must approve.
The president has enormous discretionary spending abilities too.
I guess you forgot what Ukraine was about...the president withholding congressionally approved funds. It works the other way too, where they spend funds not approved....constantly.

The president can make presidential orders, emergency declarations, reappropriation, and other ploys to get around congressional approval for spending. Remember that wall Mexico was paying for...how did it eventually get funded, (hint, not through the congressionally approved budget. He reappropriated funds for active duty family housing)

Um...the "veto" we're discussing is actually technically called a "congressional override"...it's when congress overrides a presidential veto, creating the law, not repealing it. Are you confused because I called it congress vetoing the president?

He withheld congressionally approved funds from an ally, costing them lives and loss of bargaining power in an attempt to blackmail their president into STARTING an investigation into a crime that clearly was impossible if you know the timeline. That harmed American interests both in the region and internationally, cost lives, and gave aid and comfort to our enemy, Russia...that covers treason pretty thoroughly. There was NEVER an investigation into Hunter Biden to drop. Fuck, you people are gullible and ignorant, and just refuse to check facts. The Burisma investigation was shelved long before Hunter worked for Burisma, and shelving investigations for bribes was what the prosecutor had been doing his entire tenure, and why EVERYONE wanted him gone besides Russia. There was no explanation because there was never any investigation. Duh.
Can you explain why you stopped doing something you never did in the first place? Why won't you explain why you stopped having sex with infants? Knowing why is a good thing.

Yeah, you probably repeat the nonsense about him getting what was it, $2 billion from China, or was it Trillion? He would have more money than Trump if either figure were true, but they're just not. Look into it.

Oh no, sir. They have repeatedly said, alone and as a group, that they won't publicly oppose him on anything significant or usually even anything minor because they fear he will not support them, will "primary" them, and without his cultists they stand zero chance of being reelected.

ant

says...

*nsfw *geeks *wheels

Haha. I should had done this too with David Braben from E3 (2014) to my Elite fan friend (he would freak out I bet!).

siftbot

says...

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 3:14pm PST - doublepromote requested by newtboy.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by newtboy.

JiggaJonson

says...

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.

bobknight33

said:

If this was OBAMA you all will being a doing a circle jerk of pleasure that Obama is standing up for America and making others finally pay up.'

Bunch of hypocrites.

eric3579

says...

Seems Eucalyptus trees are made to create firestorms..

Fallen eucalyptus leaves create dense carpets of flammable material, and the trees' bark peels off in long streamers that drop to the ground, providing additional fuel that draws ground fires up into the leaves, creating massive, fast-spreading "crown fires" in the upper story of eucalyptus forests.

Additionally, the eucalyptus oil that gives the trees their characteristic spicy fragrance is a flammable oil: This oil, combined with leaf litter and peeling bark during periods of dry, windy weather, can turn a small ground fire into a terrifying, explosive firestorm in a matter of minutes. That's why eucalyptus trees — especially the blue gums (Eucalyptus globulus) that are common throughout New South Wales — are sometimes referred to wryly as "gasoline trees."
https://www.livescience.com/40583-australia-wildfires-eucalyptus-trees-bushfires.html

Eucalyptus do extremely well after fires. Fire and Eucalyptus make good partners it seems. https://wildfiretoday.com/2014/03/03/eucalyptus-and-fire/

lurgee

jokingly says...

In a new interview, Grammy Award winner Linda Ronstadt compared President Trump to Adolf Hitler, saying that "if you read the history" it's "exactly the same."

Ronstadt said there are "great parallels" between Trump and Hitler.

"The intelligentsia of Berlin and the literati and all the artists were just busy doing their thing. Hitler rose to power. There were a lot of chances to stop him, and they didn't speak out," she said. "The industrial complex thought they could control him once they got him in office, and of course he was not controllable."

"By the time he got established, he put his own people in place and stacked the courts and did what he had to do to consolidate his power," Ronstadt said, referring to the Nazi leader. "And we got Hitler, and he destroyed Germany. He destroyed centuries of intellectual history forward and backward."

"If you read the history, you won't be surprised. It's exactly the same," Ronstadt replied. "Find a common enemy for everybody to hate. I was sure that Trump was going to get elected the day he announced, and I said it's gonna be like Hitler, and the Mexicans are the new Jews. And sure enough that's what he delivered."

Ronstadt has been a vocal critic of Trump. Earlier this year, she said she didn’t “want to be in the same room with him” when she learned she would be honored at the Kennedy Center.

“I don’t think he would dare show his face. He doesn’t know anything about art. He knows about money,” said Ronstadt, who received the National Medal of Arts in 2014.

Trump ultimately decided not to attend the award ceremony this year, but Secretary of State Mike Pompeo did make an appearance. Ronstadt swiped at Pompeo during her speech after he cited her 1975 track “When Will I Be Loved.”

Ronstadt reportedly said after taking the microphone, “I’d like to say to Mr. Pompeo, who wonders when he’ll be loved, it’s when he stops enabling Donald Trump.”

SFOGuy

says...

If you've never read how this band lost about $11k on tour for a month (although, yes, while at the same time making other income from sponsors, YouTube, Patreon, iTunes etc)---it's interesting.
Because they're, frankly, successful---and a lot of bands never get to there.

https://medium.com/@jackconte/pomplamoose-2014-tour-profits-67435851ba37

siftbot

says...

Self promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, October 1st, 2014 4:49pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter newtboy.

newtboy

says...

Utter Russian/Ukrainian separatist propaganda bullshit Bob. Not a single letter of truth in how it's presented.

The Burisma investigation began before Biden was hired, and was not being investigated by Shokin before or at the time he was fired for being corrupt himself.

April 18, 2014: Hunter Biden, 44, son of Joe Biden, joins the board of directors of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company. Biden’s directorship attracts attention because Burisma is owned by Mykola Zlochevsky, a minister under Yanukovych. Zlochevsky and subsidiaries of Burisma had faced accusations of money laundering, fraud and tax evasion. (Zlochevsky and the company have denied the allegations.)

Feb. 10, 2015: Ukraine appoints Viktor Shokin as prosecutor general. Shokin inherits some of the investigations into Zlochevsky and his company. But Vitaliy Kasko, who serves as Shokin’s deputy overseeing international cooperation until he resigned in protest, told Bloomberg in 2019 that, under Shokin, the investigation into Burisma remained dormant. Kasko said the matter was "shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015," and Bloomberg reported that documents backed up his account.

Winter 2015-16: Many Western leaders and institutions, as well as Ukrainian anti-corruption activists, view Shokin as corrupt and ineffective for failing to prosecute anybody of significance, and for protecting members of Yanukovych’s and Poroshenko’s circles. A frustrated Biden threatens to withhold $1 billion unless Shokin is fired. (He would later brag that his pressure tactics succeeded.)

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/oct/03/timeline-trump-impeachment-inquiry/

Well son of a bitch....Bob's Russian style cranial rectosis flares up again.

Biden used sanctioned government pressure with international support to publicly route out corruption, Dumb Donald's corruption gets more difficult to ignore daily, and is ALL about personal enrichment, and is done through secretive unsanctioned back channels like his personal attorney who has no business interfering in foreign affairs, then hidden in super top secret servers where they have no business being hidden.

How much money have Trump's children taken from other countries in the last 3 years? All accounts based on their own filings indicate it's hundreds of millions, much through new business dealings created after Trump took office and gifts like dozens of patents from China worth tens of millions.

bobknight33

said:

Well son of a bitch....

Lets roll the tape...

Trump investigates corruption. Biden created corruption.

newtboy

says...

*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?*

bcglorf said:

@newtboy said:
“i should have said "all but guaranteed under all BUT the most wildly optimistic projections". Got me”

Sigh, no. All but the most extreme end of the most pessimistic projections are for under 3ft by 2100. That is the science.

Each of your earlier claims can be demonstrated to be equally contrary to actual scientific expectation. Regrettably, your content to refute the IPCC with a link to a Forbes article...

Its a waste of my time to point out the science if you aren’t willing to. I’m out.

newtboy

says...

The warm water "blob" that started this collapse in 2014 is back this year, bigger and warmer than 2014-15. Don't expect any improvement.
I hope you like soylent green, soylent blue is being discontinued.

siftbot

says...

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, October 16th, 2014 8:20am PDT - doublepromote requested by newtboy.

BSR

says...

In 2014 I road tested new cars before they hit the showroom floor. Got to drive the new 2015 Corvette Stingray from Florida to Las Vegas. They did a 15 min emission test and then spent a day off in Vegas and then back to Florida.

I loved the scenery in this video and it took me back to my trip out west, all expenses paid in new Corvette.

I did lose $25 gambling. I paid a hooker $25 and then she ran off with my money. I knew it was gamble to start with. Hookers don't usually push shopping carts.

VideoSift

/Motorsports

5.0

search results matching tag: `2014`

Smoke From Forest Fire in Oregon Reduces Visibility

Smoke From Forest Fire in Oregon Reduces Visibility

The Walk.

Jon St. John (Duke Nukem) Prank Call

Marijuana Study Confirms Everyone Knows You're High

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

Bush fire goes from 1 to a 100 in a couple seconds

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

Les Yeux Noirs (Dark Eyes) | Django Reinhardt | Pomplamoose

A black man can't be a sushi chef?

White House Chief of Staff Admits Quid Quo Pro in Ukraine

Why Shell's Marketing is so Disgusting

Kelp Forest Decimation Ends Abalone Fishing

Utopia Season 2 Opener The Real Cost Of Having A Child

CGP Grey Driving a Tesla Across The Loneliest Rd in America

Send this Article to a Friend

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon

search results matching tag: 2014

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

Member Login

Sign Up

Account Recovery

search results matching tag: `2014`