@squatz1
So essentially the common human nature of being reactive instead of proactive. You'd think with the history of drought and wildfires in California there would be an intelligent policy change in regards to combating these events. This is going to continue as long as they allow it. Geography certainly isn't helping.
Seems the politicians and officials in California care more about social issues like pushing gender neutral pronouns on everyone than they do the infrastructure of the state and well being of their citizens.
Arizona bay anyone?
Yeah, the problem is that controlled burns do cause a good deal of pollution -- probably not as much as a forest fire, but usually the biggest opposition comes from the localities near the controlled fire. As while it is 'controlled' there is sometimes where thing can get out of hand. So the people around them are nervous. You'd much rather see proactive policies -- look here for a good deal of them https://calmatters.org/explainers/solving-california-wildfires-why-dont-we-do-these-things/This source explains the pros and cons of common talking points when we're talking about forest fires. What I'd do if I was Trump is to be sure that batshit crazy moon bats like CA governor and legislators don't get a dime of federal money until they straighten quite a few things out. And until then they need to STFU. |
|
|
|
It is self-evident that the Quran was written by military men. Spreading Islam beyond its borders, rules about capturing slaves, strict Sharia Law, no drinking, no music, severe punishment for disobedience, the death penalty for apostasy (treason), etc.
That also explains misogyny as male babies where automatically higher on the pecking order based on their utility value.
You needed men to get/capture/enslave women, to make more men, to get more women. All to make Allah happy, of course.
Islam is not about spreading,its about accepting,in the beginning you know how much people accepted it,which is just in double digit figures after lot of struggle from prophet later only people start accepting that everyone is slave of God (Allah). Why nobody answering that before Islam women were treated equal to men? Absolutely not after the Islam only women got more rights such as divorce their husbands if they don't want to live with him anymore,etc. I'm afraid you'll never be able to argue that Islam is pro-woman. Ever. You'll have to go directly against various of your Profit's words to get to that point. |
|
|
|
Because you are just basically wrong in what you said. Due process is an integral part of many aspects of society. In administrative law, promulgated regulations are required to have extensive comment periods, and if one is assessed a penalty, there is an appeals process (WITH DUE PROCESS). The lack of due process is a valid defense in many matters, taking a simple example, when an individual pays rent.
Or when a civil servant is about to be terminated for cause. His contract most certainly requires due process.
Yes, there are laws in place that make it very difficult to fire a federal employee. Tons of paperwork, tons of evidence. Politically appointed federal employees are different though. They can be fired at any time for pretty much any reason (I'd guess it's still illegal to fire them because of their gender race or religion though). No due process required since the reason can literally be "i don't like you" or "I disagree with your opinions" or "I want someone else to have your job". If a non-politically appointed federal employee was fired for any of these reasons, they'd easily win a lawsuit for a very nice pay day. Due process is a very well understood concept and ingrained in culture, institutions, law, and common law. Let me know if you want to continue arguing that the President of the United States is not entitled to due process. If you do, please present case history and similar facts. Otherwise I will ignore postings, I don't think your "opinion" matters in something like this. |
|
|
|
^^ I don't believe Americans as well. I am just saying that a confrmation of his death needs to be confirmed from both sides.
The US claims that his body turned into pieces after the explosion. However, they manage to throw him in the sea. Not any evidence about that. How about being alive and recruited by the CIA in order to learn top secrets? Have you ever thought about that?
All the king's horses and all the King's men, Couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again! |
|
|
|
This is very different than the presentation of facts. You have not presented facts at all, with the possible exception of one chart, which in fact lies by omission of certain facts, such as the past 1960 Briffa tree ring series, without which the statistical validity of the "Hockey chart graph" is falsified, leading to a very different conclusion than what you have. Obviously, reading / reporting / believing someone's "conclusions" is not "evidence" and it is not "facts."
Thus I suggested you have BELIEFS.
as noted by the black line which follows all the other colours during the 1800's and early 1900's but then mysteriously veers out of balance of all the other metrics after 1960.. isnt it both revealing and strange how only the black line goes out of sync far away from the other colours. yet many state how the other colours set the average but then proclaim people should ignore the other colours and only trust the black line post 1960 I've never heard anything like that said except by you. But you are welcome to illustrate "the MANY (who) state..." In that multi-variate statistical analysis, what matters is the effect of including data sets inane then seeing the result of the statistics. It's not a game where you cut off one or another data set to get the desired result. i am in agreement with you. as said isnt it revealing how its only the black line thats out of sync post 1960. but how so many others who apocalyptic preach only want people to notice the black line and ignore the other stats that would indicate something else if taken together and seen 6 lines where 5 are of -0.2<>0 and one line then de-syncs to +0.6 and then someone added on * with annotation of '2016' at +0.8 anyone with a sane mind would question the black line and prefer to know more of the other 5 lines results Rather than stare at a spaghetti chart, one should simply look at the results of the deleted or omitted data on the statistical result. The result is that there never was a "hockey stick temperature chart." Mann took this issue to court, charging libel against a Canadian who published a criticism of his work. Others had reverse engineered Mann's found essentially that the results were faked results. Court was a serious error on his Mann's part, because the court required him to present his methods and algorithms. He refused, so he lost his case. The spectacle of a "scientist" refusing to show, refusing to prove his results is quite curious. |
|
|
|
I went there last weekend through an astral projection and everything was fine, the US flag is still there, so, yes it's true we landed on the moon in 1969, you guys should not worry about that, try to read better things. The moon guardians asked me to bring this message to the earth, you are wasting too much time on shitty theories, life is short, go outside, plant a tree.
Your astraling may just be a fantasy. There are six US flags on the Moon. |
|
|
|
"Buying into convenient lies" does not imply the presence of facts
 This is very different than the presentation of facts. You have not presented facts at all, with the possible exception of one chart
I've presented (and linked to) a few facts - just in that post, we have: a) the debunking of climategate, b) the CFC / Ozone Layer issue (an allusion to something that is I think accepted as fact - let me know if not and I'll go get some evidence), c) the fact that 'little ice age' and 'medieval warm period' were fractions of a degree over a couple of hundred years. ...... No, exactly with those statements you did not present facts. You presented things hoping they would get believed as facts, and I called you on that. So here you are. Let's just consider (A) and (C) of your alleged facts. (B) is technically a very different matter, and quite irrelevant. 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. Here are some interesting historical details about the Little Ice Age. By no means should such phenomena be trivialized, there are indications the planet may be entering another such phase. Wait ... the planet might be entering another Cold Spell? Weren't you arguing we were going into Hot Times? https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/04/the-little-ice-age-back-to-the-future/ |
|
|
|
But the question is, does he really sleep with the fishes. There were too many bin Laden unanswered questions to know if even he sleeps with the fishes. So why this guy?...
The notice that he sleeps with the fishes is the notice of his death. |
|
|
|
This is very different than the presentation of facts. You have not presented facts at all, with the possible exception of one chart, which in fact lies by omission of certain facts, such as the past 1960 Briffa tree ring series, without which the statistical validity of the "Hockey chart graph" is falsified, leading to a very different conclusion than what you have. Obviously, reading / reporting / believing someone's "conclusions" is not "evidence" and it is not "facts."
Thus I suggested you have BELIEFS.
as noted by the black line which follows all the other colours during the 1800's and early 1900's but then mysteriously veers out of balance of all the other metrics after 1960.. isnt it both revealing and strange how only the black line goes out of sync far away from the other colours. yet many state how the other colours set the average but then proclaim people should ignore the other colours and only trust the black line post 1960 I've never heard anything like that said except by you. But you are welcome to illustrate "the MANY (who) state..." In that multi-variate statistical analysis, what matters is the effect of including data sets inane then seeing the result of the statistics. It's not a game where you cut off one or another data set to get the desired result. |
|
|
|
So what's the deal here, he's still alive? Media/gov lying about disposal is one thing. I could care less about Islamic tradition being respected when burying scum like this. The important thing is that the dude is actually toast as they claim.
Even video evidence can be manipulated. You have to dyor and choose what to believe from there. They'll only let us know what they want us to know.
They announced the Evil Guy is dead. I'm good with that. This is called... "He sleeps with the fishes..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nyON_VDIhw |
|
|
|
....
I mean these people aren't shooting up in public when you're going to a location. You're physically going to some sort of clinic, being given a syringe and a 'room' (could be a real room, or a small private area) then you shoot up your heroin, probably stay for a little while and then leave. This limits the amount of LETHAL overdoses (as there are medical staff trained there to help) and the amount of diseases that are spread through people using and reusing needles.
It would seem that the many syringes in the streets and gutters disagree with your santized, pure view of blissful safe shooting up. |
|
|
|
The answer to that question is simple and plain that if the amazon forest get burn then there will be natural catastrophic events all over the globe as these forest are considered the LUNGS of the world and if something happen to the lungs then all system in that case whole ecosystem will started to collapse and when they will reach the threshold then whole planet will go BOOM with different natural disasters.
Thats what will happen if amazon get burn. But thats a big IF so ....
BOOM? Just BOOM and that's it??? LUNGS? Wow. Now you have me worried. I don't know if I will be able to sleep tonight. |
|
|
|
Beto O'Rourke is dropping out of the presidential race. Mr. O’Rourke planned to announce his withdrawal from the race in Iowa on Friday evening and follow up with an email message to his supporters. In that message, a draft of which was reviewed by The New York Times, Mr. O’Rourke said he was proud of championing issues like guns and climate change but conceded that his campaign lacked “the means to move forward successfully.”
“My service to the country will not be as a candidate or as the nominee,” he said. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/us/politics/beto-orourke-drops-out.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=HomepageI honestly didn't see that coming few months ago, wasn't he considered as one of the candidates who actually have some chances of winning? He was a candidate who had huge money poured in early to publicize him as a guy coming out of nowhere to run. But it did in fact seem that as people listened to him, and came to understand what he was and was not, he was a nothing burger. |
|
|
|
My facts are lies to you, and your facts are lies to me. I think we've reached a bit of an impasse.
Perhaps we'll agree that it is always important to question everything and ensure that you reach your own conclusions, whatever those conclusions may be.
I may disagree with your conclusions, but I am always happy to have the debate. It's far better to disagree with people from time to time than to live your life in an echo chamber of confirmation that just reinforces existing prejudices.
I said you have BELIEFS. "Buying into convenient lies" does not imply the presence of facts, but the interpretation and opinion about certain facts. This is very different than the presentation of facts. You have not presented facts at all, with the possible exception of one chart, which in fact lies by omission of certain facts, such as the past 1960 Briffa tree ring series, without which the statistical validity of the "Hockey chart graph" is falsified, leading to a very different conclusion than what you have. Obviously, reading / reporting / believing someone's "conclusions" is not "evidence" and it is not "facts." Thus I suggested you have BELIEFS. |
|
|
|
ha ha ha
you think bread was the reason for the female revolution
 Your assertion was that certain cultures (Christian) thought "women should be in the kitchen. Not only was that assertion wrong in delineating such a belief to Christian, when in fact subjugation of women is far, far more extreme in Islamic than Christian. BUT it was wrong historically, as I did point out. So here'ya go! https://www.thoughtco.com/sliced-bread-invented-1779266In 1930, Wonder Bread began to commercially produce pre-sliced loaves of bread, popularizing sliced bread and making it a household staple familiar to generations. Soon other brands warmed to the idea, and for decades there has been row upon row of sliced white, rye, wheat, multigrain, rye and raisin bread on grocery store shelves. Very few people living in the 21st century remember a time when there was no sliced bread, the universally-agreed-upon "greatest thing."Wait... maybe you still don't buy it. No problem!!! Just make all your own bread for a month and report back .... Let us all know if you still hold it as trivial in importance!!! |
|
|
|
It's a very twisted, sick fuck of a mis definition that argues that a sitting President is not a citizen and entitled to all the rights of a citizen.
He absolutely has rights as an individual citizen. But not when it comes to an impeachment investigation. I hear you saying something you like to say, but I'm not interested any more than whether you like oranges or apples. You made a fairly crazy, illogical assertion and the result was that I refuted it. If you want to produce a logical argument to support your belief, go do it, otherwise, don't waste peoples' time. Looking back at my posts I def wasn't doing the best job at explaining my stance. Let me try again: 'Due Process in the Court of Law' is for when the government decides whether to take someones property, throw them in jail or execute them. Congress can not provide due process because they do not have the power to decide these things. (They make the laws, it would go against the whole idea of our system if they also had the power to enforce them) Congress is not trying to take away the presidents life, liberty or property. They're just deciding whether to fire him from his job or not. He isn't owed any more 'due process' than a CEO that gets voted out by the shareholders/board of a company. I'm back to my original assessment of your opinion. It's a very twisted, sick fuck of a mis definition that argues that a sitting President is not a citizen and entitled to all the rights of a citizen.Because you are just basically wrong in what you said. Due process is an integral part of many aspects of society. In administrative law, promulgated regulations are required to have extensive comment periods, and if one is assessed a penalty, there is an appeals process (WITH DUE PROCESS). The lack of due process is a valid defense in many matters, taking a simple example, when an individual pays rent. Or when a civil servant is about to be terminated for cause. His contract most certainly requires due process. Essentially, now, and because you are following, and defending, the actions of the Democratic House, you are trying to come up with justifications / rationalizations for their actions. But when those justifications and rationalizations seem unhinged and crazy (and crazier and crazier) that's when one has to step back and just say, "maybe this is all wrong. maybe it's just a power grab regardless of the ethics." And that's really where we are, isn't it? Just a power grab, by whatever means they want. I guess what I'm saying is please don't defend stupid, and don't double down on stupid. |
|
|
|
It is quite clear that noticeable changes can and have occurred in relatively short periods of time. The 'little ice age', and 'medieval warming period' are two such instances documented in history.
Yes, but these were fractions of a degree over a couple of hundred years, not measurable difference from decade to decade as we have now.  You may have heard of 'climategate'.
A while ago, but yes, I'm pretty sure it was totally debunked, and there was no evidence of data manipulation. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/09/climategate-bogus-sceptics-liesI still maintain that timescale is key. The climate is changing so rapidly, and in perfect concert with increasing industrialisation and emissions. The evidence is overwhelming now. Think about CFCs and the Ozone Layer back in the 1980s, another climate change caused by man, and thankfully one that we have taken steps to rectify. I don't think anyone denies that humans caused the hole in the Ozeone Layer any more. The fact that you've bought into some of the convenient lies, such as CLimategate does not exist or can be shrugged off, the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age were nominal changes that can be shrugged off, and the recent hockey stick spike is real in spite of Mann's deletion of the recent tree ring data, indicates that you may be more of a BELIEVER than a student of facts. If so, just say so. You like the belief more than the facts. Facts can be difficult to plough through and accurately make conclusions from. |
|
|
|
im white british decent and athiest/agnostic.. but lets deal with some issues fairly one thing I don't like about Muslims is understanding its radicalism,
like saying other religions are "infidels"
and christians understanding their radicalism.... hmm white supremecy, KuKluxKlan.. need i say anymore all religions have radicals. theres even political radicals, social radical. The misconception that's spreading is because of those who are using Islam to bring terror, they bring wrong impression and fear to the people that affects other innocent Muslims.
much like american military and government throw around the word 'god' alot too, while travelling thousands of miles away from USA to bomb entire cities and call it 'defense'.. sorry i just dont buy that one bit. half a dozen middle easterners destroy only a few buildings in america doesnt balance out to the thousands of buildings destroyed in the middle east. I haven't studied Islam meticulously but I think that the worst part in this religion is the inequality of men and women.
and christians believed womans place was in the kitchen ... anyway. i would not think of muslims as terrorists just like i dont think of christians as terrorists. i think of the kukluxklan, white supremisists / isis, da'esh, al-qaeda as completely separate from the religions.... If you go back and look at the Klu Klux Klan historically, they may have been involved in 86 years in 3000-4000 murders of blacks. Of course any number is tragic, but let's as you say, "Be Fair." This is roughly what we see in the US for six months of black-to-black homicides. https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/27/allen-west/allen-west-more-black-black-murders-six-months-86-/And it's about what the radical extremist Islamists accomplish every three months. https://www.thereligionofpeace.comBy all means let's "Be Fair." We'll leave your assertion as "False." Now let's consider your interesting assertion that Christians said "A woman's place is in the kitchen." Actually it was, until the inventions of prepackaged bread, and sliced bread, gave them considerable freedom. So this is a known historical case where technology had a direct effect on freeing women from what would be better considered a necessity for that time and age. |
|
|
|
It's a very twisted, sick fuck of a mis definition that argues that a sitting President is not a citizen and entitled to all the rights of a citizen.
He absolutely has rights as an individual citizen. But not when it comes to an impeachment investigation. I hear you saying something you like to say, but I'm not interested any more than whether you like oranges or apples. You made a fairly crazy, illogical assertion and the result was that I refuted it. If you want to produce a logical argument to support your belief, go do it, otherwise, don't waste peoples' time. |
|
|
|
"A powerful elected official does not, and should not have the same rights that an American individual does when it comes to being investigated for corruption."
You are explicitly saying here that elected officials don't get due process, yet you just got done telling me about how its not ok to ignore the rule of law.
I was actually using the term 'due process' wrong, my bad. I thought it just meant a generally considered fair process. I just looked it up: noun
noun: due process; noun: due process of law
fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement.So yeah, a sitting president isn't entitled to due process regarding impeachment under this definition...... It's a very twisted, sick fuck of a mis definition that argues that a sitting President is not a citizen and entitled to all the rights of a citizen. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
