.....
Everyone else: I encourage you to continue the discussion here free of censorship.
By all means. I provide here my just-now-censored post. A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.
You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.
Quote
Quote from: bluefirecorp_ on Today at 02:54:19 PM
.....
Few were more direct than this one: “Your investigation is not a witch hunt, is it?” Schiff asked.
“It is not a witch hunt,” Mueller replied......
But we all already know this.
It was a pussy-grabber hunt, done using the finely tuned tactics of witch-huntery. |
|
|
|
....
Could be really happened but why they didn't send any men after that first landing on the moon in 1969,it would have been a tourist spot in 2019 if they did that with the technology in 1969.
Technology doesn't work that way. Taking a wild guess here I'll suggest that while computer tech is billions of times superior to that of 1969, rocket technology maybe 1.1 - 1.2x improved. It's like asking how improved are the passenger jets of 1969 compared to those of today. On the question of "did we land on the moon," this wikipedia article may be of interest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings |
|
|
|
.....
Everyone else: I encourage you to continue the discussion here free of censorship.
I think there was already a vote on whether to hold hearings on impeachment, and it failed. |
|
|
|
I'm just confused what you think the best method for taxing the super wealthy would if taxing the super high income doesn't work and you oppose taxing wealth directly. If you can't turn high income into high wealth then you are just terribly irresponsible ...
It doesn't work that way, a lot of people have became better off by sound investments, with quite low incomes. Given that you don't even comprehend basic income strata in the USA, I'm hesitant to discuss taxation policy. |
|
|
|
Mueller is testifying in congress today.
I watched the first couple of hours before I couldn't stand it anymore. Congressional hearings are always cringy and boring. From what I saw, the Dems seem to have come out somewhat ahead, partly because Mueller was more on their side to begin with, and partly because the Republicans performed poorly. The Republican strategy was to entirely discredit the report, but this is too difficult to get across in few-minute snippets. It comes off more as a conspiracy theory. A better strategy would've been to reference over and over again Volume I's strong support for the Trump campaign not being involved in any Russian conspiracy. Volume II's legalistic arguments would then be overridden in many people's minds with the idea, "If he didn't commit an underlying crime, how can he be guilty of obstruction?" Also, although Volume II pretty clearly argues that Trump is guilty of obstruction (without actually saying so), there are plenty of snippets which could've - in isolation - been used to support Trump, and Republicans should've used this. I don't know if this hearing will have much effect, though. Partisans will be unmoved, and how many undecided people are going to watch even snippets of this? The stated purpose was to get the public onboard impeachment, and we're still very far from that. Articles of impeachment would at this point still be a win for Trump. It's a shit show in a clown circus and everyone's watching something way more interesting. |
|
|
|
there was also an ico project to raise funds for a rocket to see what the earth really is. who knows what end?
Sounds like a scam for gullible investors to me. Was the rocket to be pointed up, or down? |
|
|
|
Trees don't net decompose if you don't cut them down in the first place. That is why we have to cut back on meat and deforestation and leave all of the fossil fuels in the ground. Its cutting down the trees that is bad. A live tree absorbs CO2. Bolsonaro is the climate equivalent of a war criminal.
Of course they decompose if not cut down. They fall down and decompose, if not burned down in a forest fire. Cutting them down is good. When they are cut down and incorporated into homes and buildings, that is when they likely do not decompose for a very long time. And it's important to eat more meat. I think I'll buy some steaks today, from cattle that went through six different feedlots before slaughter. Special feedlots where they were fed enriched corn. I wonder if there is any difference in environmental impact if we pick Prime versus Select or Choice beef? Whats the carbon footprint of dry aged prime? |
|
|
|
.... The economy is not imaginary. More people= Bigger economy ..... More people can and has resulted in smaller economy, historically and in many cases. |
|
|
|
I know people that are making millions per year and save nothing after buying a lot of fancy cars and bling.
I don't think I'd call someone "super wealthy" who was making 1, 2 or 3 million USD per year. "Super wealthy" would really be an issue of looking at assets rather than yearly income. But for sure, someone with net assets > 100M most people would agree would be "super wealthy." Or even 50M, or 25M. Maybe. So are you advocating for a direct wealth tax? because under the current tax system, income is the main thing being taxed and income tax purposes was the context of the argument. Over time, high income should lead to high wealth and that is indeed the correlation. This could be a cunning way of moving the goalposts though. Not at all, I'm just noting that "Super Wealthy" refers to assets, not income. And no, high income doesn't "should lead to high wealth." And I'm not advocating for stealing from anyone, that's strictly you, the commie, that is taking from anyone you can slap a label on to justify the taking. |
|
|
|
Environmentalists killed the coal as a fuel source, but coal is abundant and easy to mine. The big problem with the use of coal is the emissions, but recent research into the cultivation of micro-algae iis creating the possibility of using the emissions to farm oil rich micro-algae, and these can be used to create bio fuel. This combination will have a double benefit - the coal can be used to generate electricity to sarisfy the increasing demand for this energy source. The bio fuel can be used to power vehicles to reduce the environmentally damaging switch to electric vehicles.
It isn't a double benefit unless you stop burning the coal or use the algae as feed instead of fuel. Even if all of your carbon dioxide emissions from coal were absorbed by algae, they are just released again when you burn the algae. All combustion of hydrocarbons releases carbon dioxide. You can't cut back without cutting back. Following this logic, since trees decomposing emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas, the trees should all be cut down and tossed down mineshafts. |
|
|
|
....Do all three sides of a triangle add up to 180 degrees, hell yes....
What if you measured the three corners and they didn't add to 180? What would you do? I know what he'd do. He'd flatten the earth out so that they WOULD add up to 180 degrees.  But why? Even on a flat earth, there could be a big mound. Maybe a giant mound which was the burial mound of thousand of years of millions of FlatEarthers. You wouldn't want to disturb such a thing, unless they rose up, zombie like. So because of hilly terrain, I do think three D trig and the 180 degree triangle issue must be considered. And since we've got to stop those zombie hordes, the accuracy provided by 3d trig ballistics targeting is very important. Our tank and howitzer crews are ready to fight the zombies, but they can't do it with just their eyeballs. |
|
|
|
....
As for our actions "hurting the ordinary citizens of Iran" I guess the mullahs over there need to break out that 150B cash their friend Obama gave them, and hand it out.
I agree the mullahs bare some responsibility, but it's misleading to say Obama gave them this cash, they were Iranian assets which were frozen. You have brought to conversation an interesting pont about the passing of the deal in Iran. But since all other countries involved in the deal are still committed to it, what can be done. Would you accept European countries maintaining the Iran Deal and ignoring any sanctions put in place by the USA on Iran? They have no reason not to stick with it, since they are perfectly satisfied with it and should not have to bow down to America every time a political decision is made, even if they are close allies (in my opinion of course). The nature of human behavior both by intent and the pursuit of advantage is to create "damned if you do damned if you don't" situations. It's not misleading to say Obama gave them that cash, that's exactly what he did. I would have given it to the American men and women they held hostage. I'm not concerned with what other countries do or don't do on this issue, as the entire matter revolved around illegal making of a treaty by Obama. FYI, it may not have been illegal to give them the frozen assets back. Offhand I would guess a US President could do that without consulting the other branches. However, look at where we are now. (A) they got their damn money back (B) they are funding hundreds of cases of international terrorism each year (C) they are not following the rules of the agreement with the other nations (D) The US has pulled out of a bad deal but with a statement that we're open to a better deal. (E) Iran is acting like an angry idiot child. I don't have any problem with the US handling of this situation. I can see how internationally we might be criticized for it, but trust me on this; the international community does not want US Potus to be able to do whatever he wants. They might want Obama's actions on this issue, but they know they won't want to deal with any random US Potus having such an ability. One dimension of this problem is that the international community fully expected Hillary to win, and she would have followed this and other illegal actions of Obama faithfully as well as many other batshit crazy things. |
|
|
|
^^^ Well, I don't have to ask why you refuse to acknowledge that the horizon is crated by the angular resolution limit of the "eye" being used; Earth curvature falsified....
>>> garbage pictures deleted There could be multiple reasons why the horizon is seen by the eye. A) earth curvature B) hilly terrain C) rising terrain D) massive clouds of locusts or angry bees creating an apparent horizon E) In the ocean while sailing, synchronized jumping of millions of fish into the air at the same time F) A giant tsunami coming toward you hundreds of feet high, either on land or water G) Massive flows of molten lava from deep underground create a horizon that moves toward you that you want to move away from H) A giant mess of dirt and former civilization coming toward you, formed by the impact of a 300 meter wide asteroid a thousand miles away. But this one is my favorite. I) Place a row of girls in bikinis some distance away, and however far away they are, 5, 10 50 or 100 feet, that's the horizon. None of these involve the angular resolution limit of the human eye. ....Do all three sides of a triangle add up to 180 degrees, hell yes....
What if you measured the three corners and they didn't add to 180? What would you do? |
|
|
|
^^^ The Moon is a holographic projection made of plasma, so obviously if the ocean is cooling the projector solenoids it's not being towed around by an aircraft. Thanks for strawmanning my arguments, I'm sure everybody appreciates your honesty...
@nutty, you're an idiot!
The Earth is round, it's a circular plain. Also, believing that water can stick to a spinning sphere in vacuum is embarrassingly moronic IMO, an impossible flywheel with a 4,000 mile radius and a 1,000 MPH rim speed no less.
The Earth is an engineered structure with artificial lighting.
>>> deleted garbage image
When are you going to share some of that great stuff you been smoking? I think maybe I don't want any... Since you've got it all figured out that the Earth is a circular plain why don't you want to use three dimensional trig? Seems like it would be very useful. In your world do the legs of a triangle add up to 180 degrees or less or more? |
|
|
|
....
We should be stern to the Iranians, we shouldn't allow them to continue to support terrorism and instability around the world. We must strike a balance of keeping them at bay, while still allowing them to thrive as a country.
....
While remembering that continual blatant lying is endemic in their method and practiced routinely. It's called Takiyya. |
|
|
|
....
Did Obama follow the basic requirements for an international treaty under US law with his deal with the Iranian dictators?
Yes or no please.
I don't know the exact details as to how Obama helped in the creation of the treaty, and I wouldn't mind you explaining it to me so I can research it further, this is a very interesting topic. But please don't suggest I'm trying to argue in bad faith. First you said because it was a bad deal, now you are talking about Obama. If there are any interesting details from your perspective, I would be happy to hear them. What basic requirements are you referring to? But you understand this is a case of a US president making a treaty without the consent or even involving the Senate. That deal was really, truly "never a deal." And there is the place where there was a problem. If Trump had wanted to fix it and continue it, he would have ... I guess ... sent it for discussion and ratification in the Senate. But that wasn't what he wanted to do. I'm not even seeing where this is wrong or unfair or un businesslike... Reference The Treaty Clause is part of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which, upon receiving the advice and consent of a two-thirds supermajority vote of the United States Senate, become binding with the force of federal law.You have a point, in that Obama did not and thank you for bringing this to my attention. But to say it was never a deal is misleading, it was agreed between the P5+1 countries and Iran, not just America, and all these countries were optimistic about the deal. In fact, literally the only country unhappy with it was Israel. Negotiated deals shouldn't be broken on a whim. On top of that, even more sanctions were put on iran for little legitimate reason, sanctions which have hurt ordinary civilians. But those of us in the US who were not happy with the deal, made, yes; but made against our law, constitution and tradition, did not number just a few. So perhaps your statement could be changed as to the "countries unhappy with it" to include the USA. As for our actions "hurting the ordinary citizens of Iran" I guess the mullahs over there need to break out that 150B cash their friend Obama gave them, and hand it out. |
|
|
|
...
Tides are caused by some water pumping machine that cools the sun projector? That's pretty fucking lame dude. Creative, yet still embarrassing to profess as something you actually believe.
Don't forget the two mile high Titans who built the dome over our small flat space. Or the 32 mile wide image that's the Moon being moved around in the sky by some airplane-thingy. The Universe is replete with mystery. |
|
|
|
Personally I think this is just "creating pressure" on Great Britain to release their tanker at Gibraltar, nothing else. President Trump had already launched an attack on Iran and abandoned the attack so the Iranians are probably feeling secure and self-confident now, without fear that someone will actually attack them. This is just a new kind of game in this long and complicated conflict over Iran and their uranium enrichment. I don't know, I think this might be Iran showing what they're willing to do (in terms of disrupting world trade and affairs) in order to get a deal from the United States in terms of removing their sanctions and getting another nuclear deal. Iran is in dangerous waters though, as the Trump administration doesn't like the current regime (nor do many in the world) due to the current Iranian regime supporting terrorism around the world. We'll see what comes out of this though. A game of brinksmanship with a fundamentally stupid player like Iran certainly can go wrong. |
|
|
|
The moon is a very mysterious object.
It is like a blown cold-air balloon and hollow.
It attracts light from the sun which produces the illumination it distributes.
Because it is like a blown balloon, and hollow, it does not allow gravity.
....
Wow, now all those asteroid craters on the Moon make no sense. |
|
|
|
<<< garbage images deleted "...In fact, I don't think it (resolution limit of the eye)† has any relation to anything at all. No relation to calculating distances whatsoever. So why do you keep posting it? Measurement of distances and their relative positions is not limited by the human eye, that is why we have instruments, to be more precise than our natural senses..."
† added by me for clarity."...You already stated 1 degree = ~60 nautical miles in the flat earth thread and guess what, the Moon measures 32'..."
"...At sixty feet, one degree of arc is about one foot wide. So this 1:60 ratio applies, and at 3600 miles, 1 degree would sweep 60 miles..."You're putting the cart before the horse here (Porsche not withstanding), as I stated before the globe and thus the Copernican model's large heavy ball Moon are dead in the water as soon as the ratio of 1 minute to 1 nautical mile is defined. This is before any celestial measurements are made with the sextant. How is the ratio defined you ask? Since we will be measuring objects with a sextant using the human eye, the ratio is defined by the angular resolution limit of the human eye being 1 minute. This equates to being able to see a 1 foot object at a maximum distance of 1/2 nautical miles. Beyond 1/2 nautical miles, objects 1 foot and smaller can not be seen; objects in the field of view converge to a point at 1/2 nautical miles. If we place the human eye 1 foot above ground (observably a plain), all objects will converge to the vanishing point at a distance of 1 nautical mile. Since we are above a plain the vanishing point will form a line i.e. the horizon. The horizon is shown here to be an optical phenomenon thus, if the resolution limit changes due to using a zoom lens or, the height above ground changes (angle of attack) then, the distance objects converge to a point at (the horizon) changes also. The globe model requires that the horizon is a physical barrier (the theoretical curve) that can only change in distance based on the viewers height. The distance to the horizon on a globe is (((coincidentally))) the same distance to the horizon as based on the human eye but, if a zoom lens is employed and the resolution limit is changed to any other value than 1 minute then, the model breaks down and is falsified. So there you have it, the globe and Copernican models are falsified and we can start measuring objects and distances with our sextant. Any questions? The horizon line is created inside the eye i.e. it's an optical phenomenon. If the resolution limit is changed to another value from 1 minute i.e. by the use of a zoom lens, the distance to the horizon changes. If the distance to the horizon changes depending on the "eye" being used, then the horizon is not a physical object i.e. there's no curve. Why can't you get this through your fucking skull? Because my skull is too fucking intelligent? One problem with your theory is the importance of 1 minute. Actually, eyeballs are vastly different from person to person. According to your theory which has lynchpin the importance of direct measurement, if someone can only see barely and a blur, then the universe is limited to that. And the person with 2020 vision develops cataracts, and the entire universe changes to adapt.
I'll leave it right there, too. I'm responding only to actual statements and deleting youtube links and stupid pictures. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
