Seems that any bet against Trump remains heavily in the underdog camp.
Hmm... Not so sure. Not like this at least. ..... Such good odds that I would take up to 2BTC bet on this (with escrow if that's too high ofc) REallY.? |
|
|
|
So 3 gangsters break into your home at 3am wielding swords, bats and hammers. They start attacking your family, your children. You get your firearm to defend your family....... and, nothing...
You have to call the government for authorization to kill the people attacking your kids. You make a call to some call center, which is answered by some lady who reads thru a question and answer checklist. 4-5 minutes later, you authorization to unlock the gun is approved.
Now, you exit your hiding spot with a working firearms, to find your family dead and the intruders are gone.
The fact is not having a gun to protect yourself but the authorities should be able to protect you from gangsters. If gangsters do not exist from the first place then you don't have the need to own a gun. So.... you've got the solution to all crime ? Yes. Big guns with a loud bang which propel supersonic globs of hot lead. |
|
|
|
^^^ All observers see the same face, you're wrong or you're lying.
Nope, gotcha. https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/1840/how-far-apart-can-two-people-watch-the-moon-simultaneouslyFrom Astronomy stack-exchange (yes I check his numbers). If we take 6371.0 km as the mean radius of Earth, an apogee of Moon of 405503 km, and a perigee of 363295 km, we get ratios of 6371.0 km / 405503 km = 0.01571 = sin 0.9002° resp. 6371.0 km / 363295 km = 0.01754 = sin 1.005°. So on both sides of Earth between 40030 km⋅0.9002°/360°=100 km and 40030 km⋅1.005°/360°=112 km, with an average circumference of 2𝜋⋅6371 km=40030 km, ... the 20015 km of the half circumference of Earth as zone of visibility. 40030 km⋅0.9002°/360°=100 km The calculation is simplified to the simultaneous visibility of a point at the distance of the center of moon. More precisely one part of the moon can be visible from one observer, while an other part of the moon is visible from a second observer. This adds between 29.3 and 34.1 arc minutes or between 54.3 (apogee) and 63.2 km (perigee) to the diameter of the zone of visibility. Verifying this with a telescope shows the Moon to be a sphere. |
|
|
|
Ok this is so purely factual that even the biggest Trumptards won't be able to deny it. I'm still putting it in self mod because you never know what TECSHARE is able of though... https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/01/politics/donald-trump-category-5-hurricane-dorian/index.htmlSo in a speech Trump says that he's not even sure that he heard about a category 5 hurricane like the Dorian one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVB6fqr4SFIOk, why not? After all you don't have to be a scientist to be POTUS and it's a good way to say "wahou it's an unexpected unprecedented event that we have to deal with" so why not. The problem is that he said THE EXACT SAME THING ALREADY THREE TIMES! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeVCka26BTEHe said exactly that already for the 3 other category 5 that have hit USA while he was in office. So that's at least 3 times where the guy is lying to his whole country. But why? My theory here is that he'd rather appear as a moron that admit that such extreme meteorological events are happening more and more which could mean that climate change might not be a Chinese invention. You see another reason why he would be lying in such obvious 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. |
|
|
|
She must be suffering now with all the Christmas markets  grinch who stole christmas "turn off the lights we already have 8 months of winter. we need it to be 10 months." "25% more winter or i push you to the wall and get out the firing squad" Around here it's summer that's been pushed to the wall by winter. |
|
|
|
....By impeaching Trump, Democrats have made him more powerful than they could ever imagine....
|
|
|
|
...
You believe bullshit or you're a liar, the hypothetical observers in a LA and NY both see exactly the same lunar face all-be-it rotated due to the two observers differing perspectives. Everybody sees the same face no matter what their location on earth is.
No, they do not see the same thing. |
|
|
|
|
If one can grasp that this was a strictly political action for political gain from the start, then the only interesting question is "did those who thought they would come out ahead wind up coming out ahead"?
Or did reality turn out to be a surprise.
I think it will be a surprise. The #1 rule of American Politics has always been "Do not wake the sleeping giant."
|
|
|
|
...
A good example of an impossible observation of the moon is:
Two people, one in NY and one in LA making simultaneous observations of the moon will see exactly the same face. This is consistent with observing a projected disc above a plain while completely debunking the idea we're on a globe observing another globe.
No they don't see the same thing. Actually what they do see proves it's a globe. |
|
|
|
...
That may be so, but how about the crimes or accidents that are committed by stolen guns? Or how about the case where the criminal overpowered the owner and used his gun against him?
Oh right, it don't matter because statistically speaking the numbers are too low to count.
Tell you what. What if there was everywhere, some "smart dust" that would instantly clog the mechanism of a firearm if the dust was ordered to do so. Who would be in control of it? What should they tell it? ROFLMAO! "smart dust!"Good one! lol Don't duck and dodge your own subject. Here are some facts for you, regarding cops and guns. I'm thinking we may need to control their guns and their bullets... In California, officers involved in the search for Christopher Dorner mistakenly fired at least 100 rounds at a truck occupied by three people, none of whom had any connection to the suspect.
A man threatening officers with a rifle was shot 59 times in what was ruled a "suicide-by-cop."
Five officers fired 50 shots at Sean Bell in Queens, New York, including 31 by one detective who reloaded his weapon during the incident.
Police in Lakeland, Florida fired 110 rounds at a suspect, Angilo Freeland, who had killed an officer earlier, hitting him 68 times. Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinel, "That's all the bullets we had."
When 44-year-old drug suspect Winston Hayes' SUV lurched forward he hit a police car, deputies
unloaded their weapons, firing 120 shots. Four bullets ended up hitting Hayes who survived, one hit a deputy sheriff, 11 hit patrol cars and 11 hit five homes in the neighborhood (one of them ended up tearing a hole in a homeowner's hat).
As you can see, cops need a lot of ammo (especially since they only hit their target, on average, 20% of the time) and that means lots of double-stack mags on their belts. How about civilians? They calmly go about their day until they might pause in the parking lot and fire off one or two rounds at a mugger standing an arm’s length away.https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2019/3/25/2019-the-year-of-the-single-stack-pistol/Ask PopoJeff for his thoughts on this. He's a cop. No need to. Looks more and more like your thread is just trolling. |
|
|
|
...
That may be so, but how about the crimes or accidents that are committed by stolen guns? Or how about the case where the criminal overpowered the owner and used his gun against him?
Oh right, it don't matter because statistically speaking the numbers are too low to count.
Tell you what. What if there was everywhere, some "smart dust" that would instantly clog the mechanism of a firearm if the dust was ordered to do so. Who would be in control of it? What should they tell it? ROFLMAO! "smart dust!"Good one! lol Don't duck and dodge your own subject. Here are some facts for you, regarding cops and guns. I'm thinking we may need to control their guns and their bullets... In California, officers involved in the search for Christopher Dorner mistakenly fired at least 100 rounds at a truck occupied by three people, none of whom had any connection to the suspect.
A man threatening officers with a rifle was shot 59 times in what was ruled a "suicide-by-cop."
Five officers fired 50 shots at Sean Bell in Queens, New York, including 31 by one detective who reloaded his weapon during the incident.
Police in Lakeland, Florida fired 110 rounds at a suspect, Angilo Freeland, who had killed an officer earlier, hitting him 68 times. Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinel, "That's all the bullets we had."
When 44-year-old drug suspect Winston Hayes' SUV lurched forward he hit a police car, deputies
unloaded their weapons, firing 120 shots. Four bullets ended up hitting Hayes who survived, one hit a deputy sheriff, 11 hit patrol cars and 11 hit five homes in the neighborhood (one of them ended up tearing a hole in a homeowner's hat).
As you can see, cops need a lot of ammo (especially since they only hit their target, on average, 20% of the time) and that means lots of double-stack mags on their belts. How about civilians? They calmly go about their day until they might pause in the parking lot and fire off one or two rounds at a mugger standing an arm’s length away.https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2019/3/25/2019-the-year-of-the-single-stack-pistol/ |
|
|
|
I also thought that technology back then isn't more develope to support the landing on the moon. I mean it is possible as of today but at that time I think its impossible
Accidentally successful... landing on the moon. Not impossible.  Six times in a row? |
|
|
|
...
That may be so, but how about the crimes or accidents that are committed by stolen guns? Or how about the case where the criminal overpowered the owner and used his gun against him?
Oh right, it don't matter because statistically speaking the numbers are too low to count.
Tell you what. What if there was everywhere, some "smart dust" that would instantly clog the mechanism of a firearm if the dust was ordered to do so. Who would be in control of it? What should they tell it? |
|
|
|
It's a pretty good read.. ...
I think he is correct on basically all of it and as he says it is a disgrace..
A "witch hunt" it surely has been..
Discuss after reading..
They would be respectable and honest if they had just impeached for the outrageous and unacceptable quality of "Trumpness." |
|
|
|
There are numerous things Trump did and are commendable in my own personal view, but his way of addressing Greta has been very undiplomatic for a head of state no matter how you look at it. ...
If his goal is dismissal at least remain silent IMO. It'd help save face.
But the tactic of raising up a child as a shield, angling that no one will criticize the child, is quite transparently only a tactic. |
|
|
|
...
Greta Thunberg apologized Saturday after saying that politicians should be put “against the wall” after some critics alleged that the teen climate activist was advocating for violence against officials.....
Wait, so there's something wrong with putting politicians up against the wall??? What are we going to do? Leave them in their downtown and DC offices? Is she herself a politician? Wondering for a friend... I doen now bout dat. Lez figuur it all AFTER putting ALL DEM up against DAT WALL. |
|
|
|
I have to admit to liking the spaghetti charts (lower right).
Because someone will throw that at you and say something like ...
"See? See it! It's right there!!!"
In that chart the lines are the climate models predictions, and the circles and squares lower on the chart are what the actual observations turned out to be.. Basically shows that they predict(ed) warming and it doesn't(didn't) happen.. Do you think that if I labeled the charts " Proof Of Global Warming" then they would run around posting it as proof of their position unknowingly? I bet some would, lol.. Wait, so you are going to believe your observations instead of THE MODEL? |
|
|
|
....
I do, however, live in the real world where I don't have to worry about attacks from deer, Russians, or zombies. ...
How about you do what you want, and I'll do what I want? Or what I think is best for my protection and that of my family? Obviously, you've never encountered a hostile wild pig, a rabid dog, been involved in a carjacking, or many other real world things. If you insist on trying to devise a scheme for others, who have other realities that yours, you will look foolish. No, I haven't been involved in any of those things. I just thought of solutions to some problems. I know that these solutions won't work for everyone but at least it's a start. I don't see any other solutions. Do you? Sure. First you have to accurately define the domain in which a proposed "solution" applies. You forgot to do that. So please let us know if we are looking for a solution for "gun control" a long term underwater nuclear submarine, or a island with fourteen people, or perhaps a unwed mother's home. Or some other group/sub-society of your choosing. Let's start with this... Targeted Domain: All hand guns and rifles Purpose: To make the guns safer by equipping them with Smart Gun Technology (SGT.) This technology will make the guns safer by preventing the accidental firing of the gun. A biometric feature built in the handgrip, for example, will allow the gun to fire only by the owner or a designated person(s) The technology would also record the last time the gun was fired, by whom, and how many rounds were fired. Cots: No cost to the owner but subsidized by the the federal government to help the manufacturers with the costs. Why is that not so smart? Oh, I remember... https://thehackernews.com/2017/07/smart-gun-hacking.htmlActually, I meant "domain" in the sense of "geographical domain." |
|
|
|
I understand all of that but wonder how the Dems do not see how this all will backfire on them. Sorry, I forgot... Yes they really are that stupid... |
|
|
|
....
I think the main difference is that Pete is an openly gay man, married to another man. Hillary is an openly straight woman, married to a man.
Naw... He's just not the Chosen One. You and all your Dem friends are getting signals from the fat guys in the back room as usual. Subtle signals, about who you should choose. Just obey, don't question. Or question, but within the allowed confines. What should I question? Pete is openly gay, or Hillary is not openly gay. That's what we're talking about right? Nope. What you should question is within the allowed confines of what you know you are allowed to question. It's all about who your chosen candidate is. Did you think you were going to choose a candidate? That's not the way your political party works. Let me explain. Biden has been picked for you. Now the whisper campaign about Pete must be contributed to. Hillary has been picked for you. Her rug licking will be ignored 100%. That is not one of your subjects of conversation. Is it starting to make sense? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
