It's not. My Harvard professor is of a more senior ranking than yours, and level of authority is what you are going by, so I win.....
That is a quite fascinating method of winning. I have been around some professors, and yes, some senior professors, and some with more senior rank, and none seem to have been aware of what authority and what win-status they may have had. And this is a "Harvard professor." |
|
|
|
Links, no, not from you. Not until you admit the error of your ways. |
|
|
|
Here's some evidence which I think backs up my previous point about intentionality and the speed with which each lie is replaced by a new one. It's interesting how the lies peak at just about the time of the 2018 mid-terms.... All I can think of is "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan." There are lies, and then there are lying liars' lies. |
|
|
|
Then why do you continue to support it? We have socialist highways and millions of people have died since the highway act of 1956. Why aren't you pushing for private highways?
Everytime public highways have been tried, its led to a lot of deaths but commies like you never get it. If you were at all genuine, you'd boycott all socialism by staying off of all public roads.
Ayn Rand defined highways and similar infrastructure as a legitimate part of government services in a limited capitalist society. Realistically, though, today we do not need roads owned by governments, because micropayments can easily be handled by scanners and RFID technology, also cryptocurrency. That's true for many other projects, but there would likely remain some that would have to be done by governments for the common good. However, who would decide which those were? If it was persons pursuing an outmoded, 19th century set of concepts such as yourself, the results would always be a total disaster. The concept I'm pursuing is the one we already have for roads. I just want to carry it over to healthcare and education. Right, you would take an already outmoded, obselete concept, and expand it... |
|
|
|
"...How about you get some cojones..."
I've proven my point with documented evidence and refuted your copy pasta from the fags.... You are done. |
|
|
|
@Spendulus, there is no point to debate with Batty.
He'll dumb you down, and win from experience.
Do not cast pearls before swine?A crypto forum is the wrong place to argue against clear and simple math, lol. |
|
|
|
Your article is based on an opinion piece in Bloomberg that doesn't carry any actual weight. Semantics and wishful thinking aside, there's no way Pelosi won't deliver the articles of impeachment. If she continues in her path to senility, though... |
|
|
|
We just don't know if the victims were actually terrified. We assume they were in great spirits. We don't want to jump to conclusions.
Good point. Maybe it was the want-to-be terrorist who was terrified when all those peoples' eyes rotated around to him. Because I have a feeling they were all madder than hornets... |
|
|
|
At the time of the end of the world, Satan will be released from the abyss ...
Is Satan going to be eating Popeye's fried chicken sandwiches, or Chick File fried chicken sandwiches? I would like to know which company to buy stock in. |
|
|
|
Well no wonder Pelosi is fighting so hard. Her son is in the same pickle if Biden loses.
Luongo: Pelosi's Coup Attempt Is Now Open Warfare, "There Will Be Casualties"The Democrats declared war this week. Not on Donald Trump but on the United States and the Constitution.
What started as a coup to overturn the 2016 election has now morphed into a Civil War ...
nonsense. There's nothing more constitutional than impeachment. |
|
|
|
|
Sorry, you really can't apply human or even mammalian concepts of sexuality to insects.
|
|
|
|
Yes, this is where the real action will start. Not with the "Mueller Report." Not with the Inspector General's Report. And not with the Impeachment of Trump. Or this is where it has already started. Quietly. For over a year. Not seeking to splash big headlines. On August 30th, 2019, Devin Nunes submitted eight criminal referrals to the DOJ. https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/12/21/scandal-dan-bongino-explains-john-brennans-cia-became-ground-zero-russian-collusion-story/U.S. Attorney John Durham had requested former CIA Director John Brennan’s communications records. This included all emails, texts and call logs from his time at the CIA. The Times’ sources also told them that Durham’s team was said to be “scrutininizing” Brennan’s Congressional testimony. Many believe he’s perjured himself. This is a major development and it hasn’t received the attention it deserves. Durham’s probe, as we all know, shifted into a criminal investigation in October. In a special counsel or an independent counsel investigation, when the work is done, the team prepares a report of their findings. In a criminal investigation, when the team accumulates sufficient and convincing evidence of a crime, an indictment is made. .... the Russian collusion story did not originate with the FBI. It began long before they opened their counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016. ....it began because John Brennan and others wanted to gather intelligence on Barack Obama’s political opponents, “but couldn’t get it because there are U.S. laws that prevent the government from spying on its own citizens. But they found another place they could get it from – The Five Eyes.” The Five Eyes, which includes the intelligence services of England, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the U.S., share intelligence among the group. It was set up to help track down terrorists and international criminals, but in this case, it was used against Obama’s political opponents.....The reality of the situation is that it’s very likely John Brennan and his colleagues convinced the FBI to open their counterintelligence investigation. "our intelligence infrastructure was spying on political campaigns, notably [Ted] Cruze, [Ben] Carson and Trump using foreign partners in circumvention of U.S. law. There’s no doubt about this anymore.” |
|
|
|
That's right folks, they can't refute the claim all observers see the same lunar face. .....
They do not, and your little farce is over. How about admit it. You've got a moon that's a sphere and the earth is a sphere, approximately. Or do you think that you can argue against a mathematical proof with insults. If so, that's not going to get you an A. That will get you an F. Since you like to use sexual-orientation directed insults, and since I'm half drunk, I have one for you. Well, really more of a joke than an insult. How about you get some cojones (eg ... "balls"... eg ... "SPHERES") and admit you have been wrong? |
|
|
|
With what is going on, the only vote there that shows someone is really thinking and taking a decision objectively is the independent candidate who voted. Every other person that vote for or against or maybe abstain only voted along party lines and that is bad for democracy. The Democrats have called witnesses, documents were provided even people appointed by the President but some people instead of voting for sense voted on the party stand while the Republicans just went with a block vote to be on the opposing side. In essence, it further shows that politicians do not care about the country rather they are concerned about their own grasp of power and nothing else.
This analysis I think is wrong and here is why. If one party (call it the aggressor) heads into the voting with a block vote the other is pretty much forced to respond in kind. You might say the possible game plays are dictated by the aggressor. Thus your conclusion (bolded) cannot be true. |
|
|
|
But everyone can agree that Trump just says and blurts things pretty much on the moment, often without his own best interest and almost like he doesn't care about making mistakes.
Not sure that's lying, more just like the way he is.
I don't know. I still think my explanation above is plausible, but I can certainly concede that it might just be that the rise of social media and 24 hours news culture has created a climate where people such as Trump (or in the UK the eerily similar Boris Johnson) will just rise to the top. I don't think either Trump or Johnson is particularly intelligent, so perhaps it's not all orchestrated and we are in fact in an era where the ego-maniac attention-seeking bullshitting sociopaths reign supreme. The old saying is that we get the politicians we deserve; perhaps it is true that the society we have created is one where these people represent the pinnacle, as horrific as is sounds. (re bolded) Unrelated to this thread, last couple weeks I have been wondering about the extent of structural modifications to cultural and social discourse that may occur as a result of the sort of things that twitter does. Seems to be mostly changes in bad directions... RE ( I don't think either Trump or Johnson is particularly intelligent) my opinion of Trump is sort of he's like a near-autistic high level genius. That would explain poor social skills and high achievement. I have worked with several people who were similar, that's why I put it this way. |
|
|
|
Have you ever walked around a place a hurricane has hit a few days later? I can totally imagine a person saying those sorts of things over and over.
Talk like "Such extreme meteorological events..." is more like academic eggheads prattling.
That COULD be an explanation if he was giving an interview from where the hurricane hit, or right after visiting the place. Some kind of emotional mistake yeah. But I think there is one speech where he does it, so ok let's say that was emotion. And the 7 other times? When he talks about it days if not weeks after the event in a big comfy chair? He's still emotional? Trump is so sensitive and emotional that 3 weeks after the disaster he still doesn't really control what he says? Damn, not sure that's better... Let me repeat, have you yourself ever walked through a hurricane devastated area? No. How is it relevant though? I'm sure you hate fake, lying policians as much as I do. But everyone can agree that Trump just says and blurts things pretty much on the moment, often without his own best interest and almost like he doesn't care about making mistakes. Not sure that's lying, more just like the way he is. |
|
|
|
They make an assumption that the earth's surface curves, it does not. ~
It's not an assumption you fucking moron. It would be an assumption if it had not previously been proved mathematically, which of course it has, hundreds of years ago. But let's prove the matter here and now, and for this purpose consider it an assumption. ^^^ All observers see the same face, you're wrong or you're lying.
Nope, gotcha. ... ...If we take 6371.0 km as the mean radius of Earth... ... fags at stackexchange ....empirical observations motherfucker.... gatekeeping cock smoker .... Nope. You are done, buddy. Any amateur astronomer (down to a ten year old) knows the facts on this one. It's called "name the craters I can see in different phases of the Moon." They make an assumption that the earth's surface curves, it does not. You've proven nothing then accuse me of lying? Proof doesn't rely on assumptions, go find a length of rope asshole...This is backwards. Make the prediction (if earth is round then distant observers see different parts of the moon) and then do the math. If the results correspond with the observations, confirm the hypothesis. The results do agree with the observations. Secondly, libration is impossible without a spherical moon. All observers of the moon see libration. You are done. Now run along, cry to mama, maybe you'll get some hot milk and cookies with your blanket. |
|
|
|
Have you ever walked around a place a hurricane has hit a few days later? I can totally imagine a person saying those sorts of things over and over.
Talk like "Such extreme meteorological events..." is more like academic eggheads prattling.
That COULD be an explanation if he was giving an interview from where the hurricane hit, or right after visiting the place. Some kind of emotional mistake yeah. But I think there is one speech where he does it, so ok let's say that was emotion. And the 7 other times? When he talks about it days if not weeks after the event in a big comfy chair? He's still emotional? Trump is so sensitive and emotional that 3 weeks after the disaster he still doesn't really control what he says? Damn, not sure that's better... Let me repeat, have you yourself ever walked through a hurricane devastated area? |
|
|
|
This doesn't typically happen, but the FISA court has come out with a statement regarding the wiretapping of Trump campaign and former campaign officials and they're saying that they had been misled by the FBI. This never happens but here is the report - https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6600-fisa-court-demands-answers-fro/87f1132ddc399b0c99b1/optimized/full.pdf#page=1 - from the presiding FISA judge stating that the FBI had provided false information and had withheld information from FISA judges in order to get a warrant granted to wiretap Trump Campaign officials. Here's some quotes from the above statement. The frequency with which representations made by F.B.I. personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other F.B.I. applications is reliable - Judge Collyer wrote. The FBI responded by saying that their FBI Director (A Trump appointee) is taking appropriate action against those that had withheld information and provided false information and that they've implemented a 40 point corrective plan to fix this from happening again. I doubt anything will really come out of this, but I guess we'll see. Just pretty crazy to see the FISA court come out like this, as they never do. I'll take them seriously if and when we see jail time for the violations. |
|
|
|
^. Nice one, but hey - Houston we have a fucking problem.
Batty here, confuses face with phase. It's his NASA syndrome.
Well, Moonbat has now been presented with a simple trig proof that the Moon is a sphere, or I guess a wacko could argue that it is only proven it is 51-52% a sphere, by two distant observers looking at the Moon. And that it is only 59% a sphere, since one observer sees somewhat different parts at different times (libration). None of his lying, story-making, or fantasies will help. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
