First of all, I'm not vegan. I think there's just a small number of them compared to us who normally eat meat but I understand why they want to do it. They're not forcing anyone to be vegan ....
Actually, a lot of the vegans would love to force others to be vegans. |
|
|
|
.... 29 charts there for starters, plus references to supplementary evidence.
There is nothing wrong with these charts, although most people are unable to understand them or relate them to the larger picture of climate. And in many cases, they cannot be related. They are just presented in a sort of format like "Oh, and what about THIS? And THIS? And how about THAT?" That is not scientific analysis. It does not separate cause or effect. A much superior measure is the upper stratospheric temperature as measured by satellite. |
|
|
|
...
As the Alliance of World Scientists, we stand ready to assist decision-makers in a just transition to a sustainable and equitable future. We urge widespread use of vital signs, which will better allow policymakers, the private sector, and the public to understand the magnitude of this crisis, track progress, and realign priorities for alleviating climate change. The good news is that such transformative change, with social and economic justice for all
Only necessary to read up to that point to see what that's really all about... "Science" is not "social and economic justice for all." "Science" is not "transformative change." |
|
|
|
~snip~
Hey Frank1 This is a very good question. There are two type of vegans : Chicken ? Hen lay eggs everyday, but not all eggs are fertilized by a rooster. Not all eggs survive, rodents eat eggs, then small chicks are being eaten by fox and other predators. And finally, the reason we have millions and milions of hens/chicken is due to heavy farming. to me there are 2 types non-carnivores.. one vegetarian. doing it more for the healthy eating (no radicalism) then there is vegan(the radicals) that try drilling it into peoples heads about animal suffering as for chickens farmed chickens purposefully keep roosters out of the hen house purposefully to make sure eggs dont fertilise. but lets say humans have 2 kids in 80 year lifespan chickens have dozens or more chicks in 0 year life span. mathematically for a human family to start at 2 and get to 6 takes 60 years.. a chicken can do that in 1 year so 2-6-36-216.. and its only year 3,not year 30 not year 60.. just year 3 yes natural predators can kill off alot of it naturally but still numbers of population expansion without controls of separating the roosters can quickly escalate things in months/years. not dcades/centuries for instance media has examples of islands overrun by wild cats and dogs that were left to breed naturally because they were not neutered imagine the same with cows.. without having a farmer to fense off the bull from getting to the cows.. alot more cows breeding will occur Might Vegans simply be mandated to always carry around, the pro rata fraction of flocks of animals they have saved ? |
|
|
|
its time corrupt americans focus on their own business You are indeed watching the spectacle of the totally corrupt back room of one American party pushing Biden, at the same time attempting to equalize the corruption by accusing and attempting to convict Trump of the exact same thing. |
|
|
|
But going back a bit, I would bet you don't recall what the editors of Penthouse said about Bill Clinton. Praising him, and suggesting everyone vote for him, the magazine editorial ended... "It's about time we have a man in the White House with balls, who fucks."
Ah, but Democrats (Liberals) are expected to be sexually liberated and/or deviants, so really, being promiscuous sexually active is a good quality to have in a candidate for us. I truly sympathize with your situation now, having semi-Autistic Trump blurting true gems about how hot his daughter Ivanka is, while you guys are stuck with Dead Dick Biden. |
|
|
|
Okay, this may seem silly.
No cause or effect is ascertained by this poll!
Regardless...
Someone recently pointed out that people in the crypto world are likely not typical consumer "TV watchers."
Is this true or are we the same as the rest?
Any suggestion on how to handle international outside of USA?
Media goes beyond TV really and quite a number of people on the forum within certain age range would admit that they watch less of TV including me but that does not take out the fact that media influences us. There is the social media which quite a number of us cannot do without, there is also the outdoor media that stares at you when anytime you step out, then the paper media you get to read in magazines probably in bank and when you need to while away time. All of these put together play significant role in the decision we make. In crypto, a news site release a statement and the consuming audience used that as a source to create a thread on the forum which then influence someone to either buy or sell his holdings. Media is powerful and would continue to be unless one wants to live in isolation. Agree completely. We're going to need a bigger poll. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I91DJZKRxs |
|
|
|
Polls, always with the polls. Polls are easily manipulated. It amazes me how many of you forgot all the polls with 90%+ saying Hillary was going to win already. Keep dreaming, the Democrats don't have anyone with a chance in hell of beating Trump.
The poll isn't about the general election, its about the primary election. Joe has to make it to the primary without springing a leak or molesting another child on camera first. I like how your reason why Biden's legacy is over just pivoted from the whole Ukraine ordeal to "springing a leak" (whatever that means) or "molesting another child on camera" (a thing that never happened). So what if he's a bit touchy. In this day and age, its standard behavior for a presidential candidate to boast about grabbing women by the pussy. Even though the conspiratards have convinced me to rally around Creepy Uncle Joe in support against their fuckery, I would be thrilled if Sanders actually became the nominee after toasting Biden and Warren in the debates. That may spell the end of the "Biden Legacy." It certainly won't be the Ukraine ordeal. Trump's legacy, on the other hand, currently hinges on it. The differential treatment of Biden and Trump re women does seem interesting. Biden is Creepy Joe without actually molesting any, and Trump blurts out what a sexy daughter he has and who wouldn't want to do her? But going back a bit, I would bet you don't recall what the editors of Penthouse said about Bill Clinton. Praising him, and suggesting everyone vote for him, the magazine editorial ended... "It's about time we have a man in the White House with balls, who fucks." That's ironic. He never even fucked Lewinsky and only finished once out of like 10 blow jobs. Reagan was called "the Teflon man" because of the way various attacks on him or his actions seemed to just slide right off, and not affect his political numbers. It does seem Trump has some similar capability, doesn't it? It's certainly POSSIBLE for one person to be creepy and not abuse women, and another to not be creepy but outlandish, like Trump's "grab their pussies" comment. Well, let's just say we were picking someone to vote for. I certainly wouldn't pick the CREEPY one, so if that was a label successfully impaled on Biden, he loses. |
|
|
|
Things have changed a lot since then. I'm sure you are aware of the argument that "the sun could not cause the recent warming, because total solar output does not change sufficiently to cause it".
But do you understand the relation of the CERN CLOUD experiments on that hypothesis?
I'm aware of it. I understand how cosmic rays can potentially have some very minor effect on cloud formation. ... The effect is not minor. Not in the least. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/25/cerns-cloud-experiment-results-suggests-industrial-revolution-reduced-cloud-cover-cosmic-rays-have-an-impact-too/And this has a real effect on any attempt to estimate the percent of "current warming" due to man. Further, it has an effect on the nature of the causative agents. What if CO2 were not such a problem, but something else was? What if CO2 was irrelevant, and some other factors were literally being overlooked? ....There is a chance that the current human-caused climate change might cause the gulf stream to shut down... then temperatures in the UK and western Europe will plummet. A couple of centuries is the wrong timescale to think about the effects of human-caused change.
This is literally the production of one of those "scary stories" to influence peoples' behavior. And that's all it is. However, NATURAL changes in ocean currents do exist and always have, because the only constant is change. Propaganda is never a friend of science. |
|
|
|
Polls, always with the polls. Polls are easily manipulated. It amazes me how many of you forgot all the polls with 90%+ saying Hillary was going to win already. Keep dreaming, the Democrats don't have anyone with a chance in hell of beating Trump.
The poll isn't about the general election, its about the primary election. Joe has to make it to the primary without springing a leak or molesting another child on camera first. I like how your reason why Biden's legacy is over just pivoted from the whole Ukraine ordeal to "springing a leak" (whatever that means) or "molesting another child on camera" (a thing that never happened). So what if he's a bit touchy. In this day and age, its standard behavior for a presidential candidate to boast about grabbing women by the pussy. Even though the conspiratards have convinced me to rally around Creepy Uncle Joe in support against their fuckery, I would be thrilled if Sanders actually became the nominee after toasting Biden and Warren in the debates. That may spell the end of the "Biden Legacy." It certainly won't be the Ukraine ordeal. Trump's legacy, on the other hand, currently hinges on it. The differential treatment of Biden and Trump re women does seem interesting. Biden is Creepy Joe without actually molesting any, and Trump blurts out what a sexy daughter he has and who wouldn't want to do her? But going back a bit, I would bet you don't recall what the editors of Penthouse said about Bill Clinton. Praising him, and suggesting everyone vote for him, the magazine editorial ended... "It's about time we have a man in the White House with balls, who fucks." |
|
|
|
Many people seem to agree that it is warming. What they can't agree on is whether much of it due to human activities or if it's a natural process. That's what I usually see people argue about now.
True it's bad that species are dying off before being cataloged, pests are increasing and that island nations are sinking but there might be some positive if it would extend the warm period by a few more centuries, allowing people to then prepare for an ice age.
I am meriting this post. |
|
|
|
Now here is a very simple question. Do you seriously believe that your just saying something means people should believe it is a FACT? That seems to be what is implied in your posts.
No, not because I said it - I am not an expert, none us of here are. You should consider the evidence (i.e. the facts) and then decided for yourself whether you believe it. Yes, I know you won't accept any evidence from me unless I've actually been out in the field and conducted the research myself, that's why I put this: I'll write your next post for you: These aren't your facts, you are taking other people's evidence at face value. This is BELIEF not FACT. Okay, this is because I'm not an expert. I do have a background in science, but I'm not a climate scientist. Fortunately plenty of people are. So far what you've posted looks like mid 1990s to mid 2000s "Global Warming" propaganda. Things have changed a lot since then. I'm sure you are aware of the argument that "the sun could not cause the recent warming, because total solar output does not change sufficiently to cause it". But do you understand the relation of the CERN CLOUD experiments on that hypothesis? You and I are perfectly capable of discussing how that affects state of understanding of solar influence on the earth. It is not necessary that either of us are in atomic physics or solar astrophysics. |
|
|
|
Ok, don't throw me into the same basket for the believers of conspiracy theories.
I believe Earth is NOT flat. I don't believe there are aliens in Area 51.
But this question is factually not very convincing and it is, did we actually land on moon in 1969.
There are many compelling evidences, facts etc that proves that indeed we landed on moon.
But even in 21st century where there an accident with Kalpana Chawla who merely went to space and came back, it sounds too good to be true that in 1969, we landed on the moon which is around 300000 kms or 186000 miles from the Earth with those time of technologies and successfully came back. Remember, the first apple computer was launched in 1976....
I have come across few stories that say that indeed the landing on the moon in 1969 by USA was a hoax and there are hypothesis to support the same. It was supposedly done by USA during the cold war to prove its technological superiority over USSR.... You mean, all six US manned lunar landings were hoaxes? Your bringing up the first Apple computer is interesting. Many, many computers existed at that time, but not in the shape and fashion of the Apple. The Apollo flight computer was built from scratch, and certainly in design, shape and fashion is the grandfather of the Apple computer. There's a more likely possibility than your suggestion that Apollo was a stunt to show tech superiority, which is that we were able to do it BECAUSE OF OUR TECHNOLOGICAL SUPERIORITY. The Soviet moon rocket N1 had four catastrophic failures in a row ... then they gave up .... The Soviets showed to the entire world, their technological INFERIORITY. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iuo3J8L9b8The Saturn rocket used by the US never had a failure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPhhFvUwseg |
|
|
|
Few weeks in, seems he really is dead, especially if the suicide vest story was true. Or at least heavily injured if not. Whether you believe ISIS are authentic terrorists or not, what we can be almost sure is that this is not over yet.
Do we have a confirmation from ISIS side? I want to see something like that in order to believe that he is really dead. I mean they haven't refused the Trump allegations but they haven't confirmed al-Baghdadi's dead as well. I don't follow them so I don't know if they've already confirmed it but from what I observed from groups like this, they are usually slow to confirm deaths compared to how quick they are to take credit for attacks. Though groups like this usually have an appointed successor, there often are some struggles between factions after the figurehead dies. It seems like they are trying to elect their new leader so his death might be indirectly confirmed by them as well. So sad that this terrorism organization is not eliminated after their leader's death. I hope they are going to be weaker at least. The strength of ISIS came directly from economics, their seizing and operating oil wells. This in turn seemed to be "allowed" by Obama/Hillary. Quite curious, right? Now they've lost all those, so they are very weak. And we're playing a shooting gallery. |
|
|
|
Ok, don't throw me into the same basket for the believers of conspiracy theories.
I believe Earth is NOT flat. I don't believe there are aliens in Area 51.
But this question is factually not very convincing and it is, did we actually land on moon in 1969.
There are many compelling evidences, facts etc that proves that indeed we landed on moon.
But even in 21st century where there an accident with Kalpana Chawla who merely went to space and came back, it sounds too good to be true that in 1969, we landed on the moon which is around 300000 kms or 186000 miles from the Earth with those time of technologies and successfully came back. Remember, the first apple computer was launched in 1976.
I'm not saying we didn't, I'm just saying that it's not really a question that can be debunked like other theories which says Earth is flat.
There are certain theories which says that the moon landing in 1969 by USA was actually a hoax and every part of the play was recorded in one of the hangers at Area 51. This was done during race for supremacy between USSR and USA which was played at technology front. While USSR has successfully launched SPUTNIK , USA had to prove its metal and had to do something significantly different. |
|
|
|
What I don't understand is, why not let the man finish out his term? I mean, there is exactly a year left till it's time to vote again. Is he really so savage that they need him out of there A.S.A.P? Never really understood politics myself, but it seems like society is becoming extremely more feminine in nature. All I see is whiners and complainers every day on the news, I know he's not the best president but damn, the lynch mob is really out for blood this time. Because the Dems want to maintain a constant drumroll of "Bad Repubs", "Bad Trump!" nonstop into the elections. They know there is no chance of getting impeachment through the Senate. But the constant negativity is the goal. And doing it using the impeachment process does not cost them money, like advertising does. The government pays! |
|
|
|
I’m glad he is dead, I just hope the doggie that helped get him is ok. Good job delta force and wishing a speedy recovery for the doggo.
Agreed. I suspect it's a huge disgrace in the Muslim World to be outfought by a dog. Dogs are considered dirty and nasty, I understand. |
|
|
|
Are we on the same page at least that politically appointed federal employees (not including the President) can be fired for any reason at any time, without due process?
They can be fired by their boss (e.g. by the President when applicable) but they can also be subject to impeachment - yes, a cabinet member can be impeached - so not sure how that analogy helps here. These are two different ways to remove someone from a job. Extending this to the President's job basically means the he can be voted out by his "boss" (the people) or be impeached. Voters don't really engage in any due process, they can vote any way they want for any reason or no reason at all, so that's fine. But the House is not President's boss so they have to follow the constitutionally prescribed impeachment procedure, which to be fair is sufficiently vague for everyone to find something to complain about. But there is at least the "high crimes and misdemeanors" thing. Found an interesting paper that goes into detail of exactly what we've been debating : High Crimes Without Law. Part 1 goes into detail of Johnsons Senate Trial. During the Trial, his lawyer based his entire defense on one of the same arguments that TECSHARE and Spendulus have been making, and it worked: nullum crimen sine lege “There can be no crime, there can be no misdemeanor without a law.” The principle of no crime without law has been described as one of the most “widely held value-judgments in the entire history of human thought.” Part 2 is Modern Counterarguments to the idea of nullum crimen sine lege The consensus among law nerds over the past 150 years is pretty clear that when the constitution was written, the founders would not have considered nullum crimen sine lege to be a valid defense during the Senate Trial of an impeached official. One point I hadn't heard or considered before was that 'high crimes' are crimes naughty actions that only a President (or someone in power) can be held accountable for. If a civilian did the same thing, they wouldn't be in any trouble with the government, because it's not against the law. There is no official extensive list of things a President can be impeached for. There for, the assumption is that it's up to Congress to decide whether it's naughty enough to remove him from office - not whether or not it's a crime. A high crime is one that can be done only by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," used together, was a common phrase when the U.S. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt but meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes. The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. Indeed the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute. Another interesting point is that since the Constitution explicitly states that after being impeached/removed, a President can still be charged criminally for the same thing that got him removed. This contradicts the Double Jeopardy clause, unless being convicted by the Senate isn't the same as being convicted of a crime. And then you get to the end of the paper and realize none of it even really mattered: In the end, however, it doesn’t really matter how logical Benjamin Curtis’s argument may have been considering how often it has been ignored in practice. In the century-and-a-half since 1868, six federal judges have been convicted and removed from office for conduct that wasn’t necessarily a crime when they committed it — a clear violation of Curtis’s conclusion. That is interesting but really, it has zero relation to my argument about a need for due process. In fact if you are going to argue for impeaching a President for things that are not a crime, that's all the more reason to require strict due process. |
|
|
|
If this news is confirmed, it would be really great news for the whole region.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is spiritual leader and founder of ISIS.
Without him, I don't think ISIS will have strength to recover and start their terror again.
Don't forget there's someone always ready and available to take his place supposedly this news is correct (which probably is). The second in command will take over his position and then continue from where he stopped. IS has out grown a one man terrorist group, kiling the leader won't have much effect since he can easily be replaced also if I'm not mistaken Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi wasn't a very public individual, he doesn't come out openly often like others terrorist leaders do. Not much of an achievement here, IS as a terrorist group hasn't been defeated. This is just a distraction for 2020 general election. Trump just been Trump with his tweet "something very big has just happened" trying to overhyped the situation for his benefit. You are right and I do agree with you that IS has now evolved out from one man terrorist group. In fact, the day Baghdadi was killed ISIS broadcast ed a propaganda video confirming their new leader. The new in charge was supposedly right man of Bin Laden and has also spent time with Baghdadi in jail. Nevertheless, I congratulate all for such a great news. Such extremist do deserve such execution. Because Islam is worldwide, Islamic extremism is worldwide. At any time there are well in excess of a hundred serious Islamic extremist groups performing terrorist acts. Only a very few of these get much publicity. Regardless, I applaud the death of this man because of the many atrocities he personally was known responsible for. |
|
|
|
...
Are we on the same page at least that politically appointed federal employees (not including the President) can be fired for any reason at any time, without due process?
It's relevant because I'm trying to make the point that getting fired without due process is not just a right that every American has.
Yes, I have fired people without due process. And there's a long tradition of a new administration bringing, essentially thousands of new employees in with it, and the old employees giving up their jobs for those new ones. As for what the House can theoretically do, that's certainly a very broad matter. If they act outside reasonable bounds, the Senate can just basically laugh at what they said or did. In this case at hand, the people of the USA voted Trump in, so speaking for myself, I see the House as needing to respect due process. The House is not Trump's boss, the people are. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
