I'm no fan of the likes of Obama or the Clintons but if people want to pay them high dollar for "speaking engagements" so what.
That just does not rise to the point of something a person should be concerned about.
Yeah, Russian speaking engagements for half a mil and the money into the Foundation stinks to high heaven. But IT'S TRUMP THAT'S COLLUDING WITH THE RUSSIANS!!!
I wouldn't think this is something that we can say "so what" with and move in. It's not okay that someone was able to sell the power of their presidency, then clintons senator role, then her secretary of state role off to different countries. They're able to walk away with a ton of money for selling the powers of their office. They're able to get away with it due to the fact that the 'bribes' come later on, and it not being during their tenure. I am aware there is a lot more than "payment for speaking engagements" in the payments for speaking engagements. Still, I can't get to the place where it's not okay to get paid for speaking engagements. |
|
|
|
They're volunteer mods they can ban who they like.
And since the hockey stick is now dead, those Reddit climate volunteer mods are now the Deniers. |
|
|
|
Has anybody used https://cryptotax.io/en-us/ for the US tax market? I just saw, that they have a sweepstake where they will pay your crypto taxes  I'm not at all convinced this is a good product. I am convinced they would like us to download their program to our computers. |
|
|
|
|
I'm no fan of the likes of Obama or the Clintons but if people want to pay them high dollar for "speaking engagements" so what.
That just does not rise to the point of something a person should be concerned about.
Yeah, Russian speaking engagements for half a mil and the money into the Foundation stinks to high heaven. But IT'S TRUMP THAT'S COLLUDING WITH THE RUSSIANS!!!
|
|
|
|
There are still very few countries that regulate the sex trade, because it prohibits things that are taboo. The sex trade has the effects of infectious diseases that are very dangerous like HIV and AIDS, America, Japan and other developed countries legalize pornography, so that such trade is regulated. such as Sensor, There is no element of coercion, etc.
Prostitution is a thing that has oftentimes been made illegal, and that has never suppressed the customer demand. The making of such a thing illegal is exactly what causes the spread of STDs. The purpose of regulation is to enhance public safety and make simple requirements, such as requiring condoms and monthly testing. Countries that I know of which seem to have done well legalizing would be such as Canada and Australia. Note that although they make sex for pay between individuals legal, business pimping and marketing girls is not allowed. |
|
|
|
|
I would like to see Greenland bought with money from the sale of San Francisco and Oakland.
But I am not sure if anyone would want them.
Maybe Cuba?
|
|
|
|
^^^ ... and a Hillary heart. Good idea! And since this monster will of course be transgendera, the upper chest section from ...? Wait. Since demcrats are believers in feeding off the public tit, and since this is a Frank-N-Dem, can it have six or ten tits? And maybe two or three heads. They could always be arguing with each other. |
|
|
|
The point is that many among both, Democrats and Republicans, care about truth.
The truth in climate change is that it happens without anything that people do or can do. Science has known for a long time that it is the sun and the Earth orbit that creates climate change in either direction, colder or warmer.
The changing of the term "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" shows that the climate change proponents needed a new term to further cloud their lying explanations, because people were starting to see through what they were doing.
NASA admits that climate change occurs because of changes in Earth's solar orbitFor more than 60 years, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has known that the changes occurring to planetary weather patterns are completely natural and normal. But the space agency, for whatever reason, has chosen to let the man-made global warming hoax persist and spread, to the detriment of human freedom.
It was the year 1958, to be precise, when NASA first observed that changes in the solar orbit of the earth, along with alterations to the earth's axial tilt, are both responsible for what climate scientists today have dubbed as "warming" (or "cooling," depending on their agenda). In no way, shape, or form are humans warming or cooling the planet by driving SUVs or eating beef, in other words.
But NASA has thus far failed to set the record straight, and has instead chosen to sit silently back and watch as liberals freak out about the world supposedly ending in 12 years because of too much livestock, or too many plastic straws. ^^^ Excellent article, btw. No, these are bunko pseudo science crap. Neither the Earth's orbit or axial tilt is responsible for the last century of alleged warming, to whatever extent it actually exists. |
|
|
|
Alexei Leonov, Soviet cosmonaut and first person ever that did EVA( spacewalk) back in 1965 described this ridiculous conspiracy theory in this short interview . One sentence from Leonov sums it up perfectly ''This is ignorance.People who say this are completely ignorant and no nothing about technology.''As i said earlier, if there was any doubt, Soviets would debunk this long time ago. But those involved, albeit on the opposite side, simply know the truth. Right. The soviets didn't debunk this because they were covertly owned by the United States. How laconic and convenient. If you don't have any good answer, just make another conspiracy theory.  LOL however I AM RIGHT!!! RE: DID "WE" actually land on the Moon?
Depends on who your "WE" is.
For example, if your "WE" is "ignorant, lazy slobbering idiots" then no, your "WE" did not land on the Moon. |
|
|
|
.....
I think Trump would make Biden look pretty bad in the debates, but I don't see him doing that to Bernie. Bernie just needs a VP running mate that will attract whatever voter base he's missing. My choice would be Tulsi Gabbard -- I think that's an unstoppable ticket. Buttigieg would also be acceptable -- guy is super sharp. Its lame to say it but his last name is kind of a mess; thats why he'll never be president. Reminds me of Paul Tsongas, that was probably the last least attractive name for a candidate. Yes, I do believe people are that stupid. Voters, anyway.
For now, we're stuck with Biden as the Dem challenger unless he fucks up badly somewhere between now and the primary.....
You don't suppose some science types could maybe put together a Frank-N-Dem from all these half wits? Maybe a Bernie arm, and a Biden arm, a Williamson head, a Buttigieg butt, a couple of legs from ... hmm... |
|
|
|
RE: DID "WE" actually land on the Moon? Depends on who your "WE" is. For example, if your "WE" is "ignorant, lazy slobbering idiots" then no, your "WE" did not land on the Moon. If your "WE" is LBGT etc then your "WE" did not land on the Moon. If your "WE" is Muslim or Hindu your "WE" did not land on the Moon. If your "WE" was hard working, Judeo-Christian, US Citizens mostly Air Force, then your "WE" sure did land on the Moon. Although one of the Christians that landed on the moon turned atheist later. And if your "WE" is all humanity, with all it's imperfections and issues, then your "WE" landed on the Moon. Cheers! PS: Maybe time to redefine your "WE"?  |
|
|
|
Since the hockey stick temperature curve has been proven false, I don't see any reason for urgent action on climate issues. |
|
|
|
The story isn't what the headline says. What the story is, is that when Mann was called to prove he was libeled by showing his data, methods and procedure, he refused to do so. But others had as best could be done, replicated his work, including going out and taking tree core rings from the infamous grove. Those people were amateurs. Amateurs debunked the work of a prestigious scientist, and called him out on it. www.climateaudit.org |
|
|
|
I'm not buying that. There are several sources of dust on the lunar surface (A) monthly static creating "dust fountains" which go up and down, no net dust gain (B) dust drifting in from space, causing microscopic craters when it hits (C) dust clouds from new asteroid impacts In the short run, anything like a solar collector would be a victim of "static cling", (A). But that equilibrates, and there is no net gain. In the long run, (B) and (C) are the creators of new dust, and the primary cause of its accumulation. My understanding is they account for A but I haven't read their paper. That's garbage. It's trying to argue that in a couple billion years, such things could happen. But it totally ignores the major event happening in the solar system over that time frame which affects the planets's orbits. That is the gradual expansion of the sun into a red giant. From this process, when solar flux to the Earth increases about 10%, most life or all life here will cease. That's about a billion years off. But as the sun expands, planets are swallowed up. Planets within the sphere of a red giant star are part of the star. They are no longer planets as we think of them. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.4031.pdfI think that falls firmly under the "outside the bounds of the model". Apparently. But the time frames are overlapping, so in reality, it cannot be ignored. |
|
|
|
Electric plasma stars...
Gobekli Tepe .......
Tepe was just an early strip joint. |
|
|
|
I'm not buying that. There are several sources of dust on the lunar surface (A) monthly static creating "dust fountains" which go up and down, no net dust gain (B) dust drifting in from space, causing microscopic craters when it hits (C) dust clouds from new asteroid impacts In the short run, anything like a solar collector would be a victim of "static cling", (A). But that equilibrates, and there is no net gain. In the long run, (B) and (C) are the creators of new dust, and the primary cause of its accumulation. That's garbage. It's trying to argue that in a couple billion years, such things could happen. But it totally ignores the major event happening in the solar system over that time frame which affects the planets's orbits. That is the gradual expansion of the sun into a red giant. From this process, when solar flux to the Earth increases about 10%, most life or all life here will cease. That's about a billion years off. But as the sun expands, planets are swallowed up. Planets within the sphere of a red giant star are part of the star. They are no longer planets as we think of them. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.4031.pdf |
|
|
|
If our planet is hollow, it would be logical for all planets to be hollow. If the planet is hollow, there would be much better circumstances for life and protection from the outern space. I don't know about moon, except that we are going to land there with bitcoin. So we'll see!  I do agree we are going to HODL to the Moon! As far as the Moon being hollow, there is a simple proof of that. It floats up in the sky, right? Anything that floats is lighter than air, and anything like that is hollow... Ever heard of caves and caverns? Just because you think that there couldn't be any cave or cavern that big, doesn't mean that there couldn't. Except that (joking aside) the mass can be easily computed from the orbit. Verification of such calculation would be dozens of lunar spacecraft orbits, trajectories, etc. |
|
|
|
.... the 4 inches of moon dust equals only about 10,000 years at current rates.
And nobody knows that rates were steady over the last 10,000 years.
Dust accumulation for 10,000 years might be a millimeter. ...
There are books about near planet collisions of Mars, Earth and Venus, based on trajectories of their current orbits.
This is physically impossible. |
|
|
|
^^^ Really!
Actually, ancient prehistoric peoples of earth landed on the moon thousands of years ago. Some people think that the moon landing was a conspiracy, but an even bigger conspiracy is that 10,000 years ago people were simple hunter gatherers. Ten thousand years ago, the technology of earth was far ahead of ours.....
Nobody landed on the moon prior to Apollo. The only footprints on the moon are from the Apollo astronauts. We have photographed and digitized the entire moon, everything down to the size of a football. Any such marks would be clearly visible. Hey! Thanks for playing. A standard football is about 11 inches long, and about 7 inches thick at its center - https://www.sportsrec.com/6560043/what-is-the-official-size-of-the-nfl-football. This means that you could easily stick a football in a 12 inch by 12 inch square foot area on the floor. There's 27,878,400 square feet in a square mile (5280*5280). This means you could easily get 27,878,400 footballs in a square mile. There are about 14,600,000 square miles of surface area on the moon - https://www.space.com/18135-how-big-is-the-moon.html. I'll let you do the math to figure out how many footballs could fit on the completely mapped surface of the moon. The point is, you checked out each one of those footballs? (No, but NASA has... LOL.) ... No, NASA has not checked each pixel. But the entire data base is public, and you can. If you want to prove up your wild, ridiculous assertion...that's for YOU TO DO. |
|
|
|
If our planet is hollow, it would be logical for all planets to be hollow. If the planet is hollow, there would be much better circumstances for life and protection from the outern space. I don't know about moon, except that we are going to land there with bitcoin. So we'll see! I do agree we are going to HODL to the Moon! As far as the Moon being hollow, there is a simple proof of that. It floats up in the sky, right? Anything that floats is lighter than air, and anything like that is hollow... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
)
