My consciousness says your consciousness is wrong, and what my consciousness knows about QM says there's zero relationship between QM principles or theory and consciousness.

But it's worth noting that if Ai develops consciousness here in 50 years or less, then it has numerous other places in the universe a long time ago.

Only allow posting if IQ < 79

Of course you won't take that bet. And all of the posers on this forum claiming they are concerned about the rape charges won't either. Because every single gambit for delays is going to be played, because that's all it's about.


No. Generally a subpoena would be if someone didn't voluntarily show up. And I disagree about "cannot be issued by the minority" more likely the head of the committee issues them without needing a vote of any sort. For something like that, he  likely would do one if a minority member sought it and it wasn't outside the scope or some looney thing.

Note that when a subpoena was issued, then the defense counsel would be able to request a different date, and they could do that several times. There's the delay game play. They'd love that, because that's all they want.

But remember please this is not frivolous stuff. A subpoena or not, you go to that committee you likely must have an attorney and immediately you are out $10-100k. Of course that's not the case if you are backed by big money interests like Ford. She is not the one paying those attorneys.

A lot of people would find a pattern of sexual abuse by a SC nominee material and of interest. But some stuff in high school or college they would not care about. The arguments by Ford are very weak accusations, insufficient to disqualify.

It is interesting that public arguments are actually being made now that the accusation should be enough to disqualify, which means literally anyone can be disqualified for anything at the whim of a third party. It's unfortunate the "me-too" movement has now been abused and raped for political advantage.

I hope this disgusting attempt to ruin a man for their own gain backfires on the Democrats big time.

Hey, I got an idea.

We could use that FBI to find out about this Russia Collusion that Trump has.

Right? You used to talk about Russia Collusion a lot. Why so silent recently?

I don't know.

I will ask Google.

But this goes a bit further than lacking EQ. However I think we're more in agreement than not. You could expand the definition of "crazy" to include him, and I could shrink it to exclude him.

Geez, we could use them for all kinds of things.

Let's have them figure out if Elizabeth Warren is really an Indian like she says she is?

Good luck with that!

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-09-18%20Judge%20to%20Grassley,%20Feinstein%20(Kavanaugh%20Nomination).pdf

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-09-22%20Keyser%20to%20Committee%20Investigators%20-%20Ford%20Allegations.pdf

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-09-18%20Smyth%20to%20Judiciary%20Committee%20-%20%20Ford%20Allegations.pdf

I think people may not understand the limits of "an FBI investigation" in this case. The FBI cannot issue subpoenas, the Senate committee can. The FBI cannot compel people to testify. Without subpoena power, the FBI cannot get phone records, email records or bank records.

The four people named by Ford have already produced sworn statements that they were not there, that the party did not happen, blah-blah-blah. They cannot change those statements without being under penalty of perjury.

The bet that should be made at this junction is whether one of the major Democratic operatives, such as Creepy Porn Lawyer, comes up with yet another delaying tactic at the last hour of the last day of the FBI investigation. You know they will.

Provide evidence of the plot? Why should that be someone "from the right?" All the left doesn't care? They may not have been the conspirator or the leaker, but they are on board with the events?

Why should Kav have to prove himself innocent?

Who has the burden of proof?

Due process is at the center of our entire concepts of justice. Not just in courtroom.

Does everyone have to fear unproved and unprovable accusations, if they don't comply with demands from a corrupt powerful group?

http://www.telospress.com/how-many-muslims-still-support-terrorism/

....the very disturbing fact that the “7% terrorist supporters” were exactly the number that explicitly agreed that the terror attacks of September 11 were “completely justified.” They also admitted that another 6.5% of global Muslims justified the attacks, and another 23.1% thought that they were at least somewhat “justified.”

That totals up as 36.6% of global Muslims who do not condemn the 9/11 attacks, which constitutes a milieu of hundreds of millions of people.

...
92% of Muslims worldwide do not want their daughter to marry a Christian, 86% believe that women must obey their husbands, 86% believe that only Islam leads to heaven, and 70% want Sharia as the law of the country. 45% support stoning as punishment for adultery, and 45% advocate the “honor killing” of a woman who has violated the “honor” code of the family. 35% are in favor of the death penalty for leaving Islam, and 32% endorse polygamy.

If she's lying she's not a very good liar. More likely she's just confused about those events in the dim past.



After all this is said and done, and no confirmation of Ford's accusations is found, these very Democrats are still going to vote against Kavanaugh. Every last one of them.

I'm curious how and where that sort of world view came to your brain.

I don't agree with that view, at all.

And this is exactly the sort of behavior that drove people to Trump (and will again.)

Where's that Russia Collusion?



Clarence Thomas at his circus hearings -

"Why don't y'all just go ahead and kill me now?"

Guilty? Only if they are not Democratics.

They look the other way in an instant when it's those in their own party. Or their puppets of judges.

Of course it's also true that personal last minute smears is a standard operating tactic for Democrats.

Nothing new in that at all. Remember Bush and the letter that claimed he shirked his duty? Released at the last minute in the election cycle by Democrats who thought they'd get away with a last minute smear. But they got caught, didn't they..

https://nypost.com/2004/09/14/a-font-of-fakes-bush-bash-memos-forged-expert/

...a former adjunct computer science professor at Carnegie Mellon University who has published several Microsoft programming and graphics papers in addition to his book, is convinced the documents are a recent fabrication.

Newcomer – who said he’s no fan of Bush, but cannot let a forgery go unchallenged – tested the pixels and format of the CBS documents.

“With a couple of false starts, I was able in five minutes and two printings to hold my memo in front of the CBS memo, and they were almost identical,” he said.

I can argue with some of your details but not this.

The Repubs seem to be pretty divergent and loose-knit, far more difficult to get them to all be together than the Democrats. They'll goose-step in cadence to what latest weird nonsense was handed to them. Every time.

Rand was penniless when she came to the US, and earned everything through hard work.

 RE your question "Would she be called an anarcho-capitalist," she considered herself a laissez faire capitalist, and rejected anarchism.

However I believe...not certain...the meaning of these terms has changed since the 1930s, and certainly crypto has changed aspects of capitalism's potential.

Rand believed in hard money, eg, gold and silver, and as such there's no doubt she would have been a strong advocate of bitcoin and other peer-to-peer currencies. She advocated the State but for the fewest possible activities.

There is no such thing as "monumental fuckups." There is nothing here except attempts to create delay both by public smear campaign and by legal maneuvers.

There is no "if" to "Democrats gambling." Of course they are. They hope to win majority in the House and have certain strategies predicated upon that outcome.

There is no merit to what the FBI is "supposed to do."

I have read it.

The manifesto is indeed interesting and has certain "good ideas," then it descends abruptly into madness.

Which is exactly what one would expect, given the writer's mental state.


There are any number of places you can go test the hypothesis that you'd rather live that way. Go try it for three days and report back on how you like it.


These facts do not matter. There are any number of people with IQ of >167 whom one would not read because they were boring or wrong, many reasons. In this case the guy was crazy.

She was a great writer, and thought issues through far better than most ever understand them . You've picked a great set of essays there. It varies in quality and relevance to today's issues.