So the entirety of your evidence is guilt via association? Ok, if that is fair game let us break down the association networks between the Democrat party and China shall we? Guilt via association is of the flimsiest of arguments. Do you know how FBI interviews work? It is a crime to lie to them, a felony. Pound me in the ass federal prison time in fact. Essentially in effect, if you make a material statement that is false in ANY WAY, they can decide to send you to prison. If they ask you the color of the socks you were wearing and you thought they were white, but they were actually grey, you are in violation of the law. If you thought you had lunch with some one at 2:15 and it was 2:17, you can get sent to prison. Essentially if they get more than about 5 minutes to talk to you they will be able to find some technicality to prosecute you over, or force you to plead guilty to a lesser charge. Did you know there is a conviction rate in the high 90%s in federal court? Do you know how they maintain numbers as high as 99.8%? They pile on penalties for everything until they have a choice between dying in prison or pleading guilty to whatever the fuck they tell them too, guilty of it or not. It is not hard AT ALL to manufacture these kinds of convictions, especially in an FBI shown to be ACTIVELY COMPLICIT in many of the crimes these people are going after. |
|
|
|
Hopefully this leads to new rules about media conduct that will result in avoiding this type of disruption and disrespect to the office in the future.
Thats the thing most people don;t understand about how flimsy this suit was. The White House is not an official government entity. It is literally The President's home. He has no requirement to admit anyone there, that is why the 1st amendment argument was ruled invalid. They did however say he had a 5th amendment protection for due process. I am looking forward to him in court trying to weasel out of explaining how he legally committed an act of assault. The problem was that he was disruptive, not that he was asking hard or mean questions. He was literally yelling stupid shit when there weren't even questions during the Kim jong un meeting and more. Thinking about this more, I think Jim Acosta may have just walked into a trap. Think about it. The court says he is entitled to due process. That means a court hearing. What happens in court? You have to testify under penalty of perjury. He is going to have to pick between felony perjury to lie to cover for his behavior which is clearly on video, or he will have to essentially admit to assaulting her. Either way he isn't getting his press pass back for long. |
|
|
|
Hopefully this leads to new rules about media conduct that will result in avoiding this type of disruption and disrespect to the office in the future.
That's the thing most people don't understand about how flimsy this suit was. The White House is not an official government entity. It is literally The President's home. He has no requirement to admit anyone there, that is why the 1st amendment argument was ruled invalid. They did however say he had a 5th amendment protection for due process. I am looking forward to him in court trying to weasel out of explaining how he legally committed an act of assault. |
|
|
|
They will once they are hit with anti-trust regulations as well as revoking their safe harbor provision under DMCA because they are no longer an open forum if they are curating content, legally making them publishers liable for what they publish.
Do you think those anti-trust regulations will be voted and implemented or do you think it's more likely that we're heading for another personal data scandal for which Facebook will pay less than a million dollar in penalty? Let me remind you (but I think you probably already know it) that Facebook is now massively investing in cognitive technologies that will most likely know us better than we know ourselves for the gain of unknown third parties. The regulations are already on the books, they just aren't being enforced. Facebook, as well as many other social media outlets clearly qualify for anti0trust action by the letter of the law. The data scandals will not stop, they will increase, and more and more companies will be responsible for it. Once you give up your data to a 3rd party you might as well just count on the world having it any more. |
|
|
|
And? Who the fuck said Fox had any credibility either? Not me. That lawsuit is going to be thrown out, it has no standing. ZERO.
The left likes to make up its own rules as it goes along... how long do you think the rest of the country is going to tolerate that before they start making their own rules for you personally? You children have no idea what you are playing with for some petty narcissistic obsession. Once the rule of law is gone from all your games you will have about as many rights as a hunted animal.
So now Fox has "incentive to cover up for [CNN's] retarded employees"? It's an actual Trump-appointed judge in an actual courtroom saying that Acosta should get his pass back and the case is going forward. Pretty much the opposite of "thrown out". Not sure about the rest of your rant - should I get off your lawn or not? Maybe take a few minutes and research how few companies own all these media outlets you believe are opposed to each other. They don't serve the public. They serve their owners. His pass was temporarily reinstated, not under any first amendment right to be there, but because the judge ruled he should have been given due process. So in short, they are going to have some kind of hearing, or who the fuck knows what, demonstrate he committed an act of assault, then revoke it again. Regarding my "rant" you do whatever the fuck you like, just know you are going to eventually going to have to personally pay for the results of subverting the rule of law. I hope "winning" was worth it. |
|
|
|
Yes, I am sure CNN has zero incentive to cover up for their retarded employees.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-orders-white-house-returns-press-pass-to-cnns-jim-acostaThe judge, a Trump appointee, declared that precedent had been set that the White House should have given Acosta due process before taking away his credential and that harm to the reporter had already occurred. He said that CNN is likely to succeed on Fifth Amendment grounds and that the harm to Acosta outweighs the government's need for an orderly press conference. And? Who the fuck said Fox had any credibility either? Not me. That lawsuit is going to be thrown out, it has no standing. ZERO. The left likes to make up its own rules as it goes along... how long do you think the rest of the country is going to tolerate that before they start making their own rules for you personally? You children have no idea what you are playing with for some petty narcissistic obsession. Once the rule of law is gone from all your games you will have about as many rights as a hunted animal. I hope it was worth it. |
|
|
|
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/16/media/cnn-trump-lawsuit-hearing/index.htmlAhaha. >Judge orders White House to return Jim Acosta's press pass I guess that Trump's in the wrong here. Who'd thunk?  The ruling by federal judge Timothy J. Kelly was an initial victory for CNN in its lawsuit against President Trump and several top aides. The suit alleges that CNN and Acosta's First and Fifth Amendment rights were violated by last week's suspension of his press pass.
Oh, violating constitutional amendments; that's a paddling. In court, Kelly said that Sanders' initial claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched the White House intern who was attempting to take the microphone from him at the news conference was "likely untrue" and "partly based on evidence of questionable accuracy."
Oh, fake news from the whitehouse propagated straight to bitcointalk. Ahahaha. The White House Correspondents' Association -- which represents reporters from scores of different outlets -- said the government's stance is "wrong" and "dangerous."
The whole executive administration is a shitshow. Yes, I am sure CNN has zero incentive to cover up for their retarded employees. |
|
|
|
Even if that were true, which is under dispute, this does nothing to support the theory HUMANS are the cause. |
|
|
|
Congrats on learning to source and do your own research. Really, I am actually impressed. Regardless this is 100% designed to distract from the total failure that was the Kavanaugh investigation, real or not.
So, a crazy right wing bomber was a distraction from a political nomination? Alright. I don't know what tin foil you wear, but it must be some high quality stuff I say it was to distract from the backfiring of the slandering of Kavanugh perpetrated by the dems, and then you just write something I didn't say, pretend I said it, then argue that. I bet you got all the gold stars in debate class. Maybe if you leave me some more butt hurt negative trust ratings it will change my mind  |
|
|
|
...
What about sea levels rising, that to me suggests that something is going on, don't you think?
I answered your questions with a re-explanation of the nature of scientific inquiry. Now what? Change the subject? What are you trying to get to exactly? What questions, I only asked one. I don't see why most scientists would lie about it, period. If you want to discuss what you said: However I did find this: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207What about it? This article simply discusses the issues in moving from temperature measurements by ship engine cooling water to the bouys. ''These results suggest that reported rates of SST warming in recent years have been underestimated in these three data sets.'' ''Ocean temperature is related to ocean heat content, an important topic in the debate over global warming.'' Next. |
|
|
|
You have fun denying reality and shifting those goal posts all over the map with your qualifiers. The left created this division witht he bullshit story over Russian collusion to try to delegitimize the president THE PEOPLE elected, and since then it has been nothing but a violent insane shitfit from the left non-stop. You enjoy your alternate reality though.
Uhh, trump lost the popular vote. This thread is about a right wing extremist sending bombs through the mail to left wing figures that right media attacked day on, day off for years. It's a pretty obvious link where the violence came from with this guy. He was still legally elected the president via our electoral process. Get over it, or you know keep pushing a civil war, and see how that goes. I am sure none of what you stated applies at all to left wing media (just about all of everything on tv). |
|
|
|
It's not an argument, that's what I'm saying. That's not proof that climate change is a hoax. Just because someone can benefit from it somewhere. Flat earthers also think governments benefit from hiding the truth from us, should I believe them as well?
Great, we are agreement because I never even made that argument. Also I never claimed it was proof, you asked for motives so I provided them. The burden of proof is not on me to prove anthropogenic climate change is not real, it is on the supporters of the theory to prove it is real. So far none of the evidence presented that I have seen is legitimate or reliable as it all depends on either projections, estimates, or computer simulations, not empirical data. Really? You are going to pull out flat Earthers... common, that is chicken shit guilt via association tactics, and it is not even associated. You can do better than that bald faced slander. |
|
|
|
So you are saying video of leftists attacking conservatives is "bullshit", but your list of names is proof positive. How about Rand Paul being hospitalized beause of his wingnut leftist neighbor? What about Steve Scalise? All you have to do is put the word "ANTIFA" into Google to see hundreds of examples. You are right, all these years of violence were nothing, and really it is the media whipping up right wing reactionaries, not the leftist violence itself.
Deaths? List of deaths. I mean, you just "these things exist because I say they do". Provide actual sources, cause the source you provided gave me 3 physical attacks on politicians in a bunch of words. I gave a pretty decent list of serious attacks by right wing extremist and you've not even provided a decent counter-example. You have fun denying reality and shifting those goal posts all over the map with your qualifiers. The left created this division witht he bullshit story over Russian collusion to try to delegitimize the president THE PEOPLE elected, and since then it has been nothing but a violent insane shitfit from the left non-stop. You enjoy your alternate reality though. |
|
|
|
Come on, give me actual incidents. Not just bullshit. I want reported incidents that show links between leftist and violence. Not just people giving the same goddamned "talking" points over and over. There's a difference between just attacking conservatives and attacking conservatives because the media told you to, but these nuances seem to escape you ever so. There's a lot of conservative violence on liberals. Tons in fact to the point where it turns into ACTUAL HOMOCIDE. Oh hey, look actual incidents; Farzad Fazeli tried stabbing a politician. Ending up not injuring ANYONE and was later captured. An unknown assailant supposedly sucker punched a politician because his political views. Umm... The third attack was a person attacked in the midst of destroying personal property. I mean, if you were to destroy MY personal property, I'd feel aggressive and would probably attack. I mean, I should just call the police, but ya know what, that's kinda a shitty example too, just like your other two. No deaths, no actual violence, just someone being punched. Sure, it's violence, and the people involved in those incidents should face justice. But no deaths. No serious injury. As opposed to the right wing: Literally running people over in crowds. I like that they threw in that gun shooting incident at the very end, I think a guard was shot in that incident from memory. That guy was pretty loony, but then Las Vegas shooting happened and I kinda forgot all about the poor guard being wounded slightly; cause you know -- all those actual deaths and such. The only thing "left" wing violence has in common is attacking their individual representatives; normally in a physical assault sort of way. Rarely with lethal, violent weapons unlike the extremist right wing. So you are saying video of leftists attacking conservatives is "bullshit", but your list of names is proof positive. How about Rand Paul being hospitalized beause of his wingnut leftist neighbor? What about Steve Scalise? All you have to do is put the word "ANTIFA" into Google to see hundreds of examples. You are right, all these years of violence were nothing, and really it is the media whipping up right wing reactionaries, not the leftist violence itself. |
|
|
|
Aside from crazy conspiracy theorists, real skeptics of this would be people who acknowledge there is some climate change happening but it's not because of us. A lot of people simply believe it's a natural process. I don't know too much about it but I definitely don't believe the government or whoever is faking it.
Let me get this straight. Humanity has been burning lots of fossil fuels for over two centuries now. It took nature millions of years to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it in the form of fossil fuels. Now humanity is converting this form back to CO2 by burning it. Yet, if climate change is related to an increase in CO2 levels, it can't be tied to human action? OK whatever. I don't follow the logic. Even if the bulk of the CO2 is released by volcanoes, nature has been slowly sequestering this excess over millions of years. The contribution of humanity now taking this sequestered CO2 and releasing it back into the atmosphere cannot be helping the situation. This is compounded by the fact that the sun is putting out much more energy than it did eons ago. Therefore, we need less CO2 in the atmosphere to keep this planet habitable, not more. I'm sure it's not helping, obviously, but what's the real impact of it? Like are we contributing 0,001% to it or are we the 50%? As I said I don't really know much about it, I don't really have any reason to believe the government/science is lying about it, I love science. I don't see any motif behind it either, what would they gain from it? What do any monopolies get from any kind of regulation? The ability to stifle competition while they can cope with new regulations. Also I suggest you look into how much money is ALREADY being made in the carbon swap market. What would happen to that market with wider carbon regulation I wonder? I don't know man, the ''government profits from this'' argument just doesn't do it for me. Every single conspiracy theorists uses that, vaccines, flat earth, bombs, terrorists, etc etc. The government could be making money from a lot of different things, legalizing weed for instance, I'm sure they would make money with it, don't you think? Yet they don't do it. The government is people, they are not fucking Satan. They also make money with all the fines/tickets for driving, drinking, etc etc but are they not doing it for our benefit? Remind me where I used the word government anywhere in my statement. Who makes the regulations? Yeah.. Government / company / xxxx. It doesn't matter, my point is that it's not a good enough argument. A lot of different people/companies/governments can profit from a lot of different things at any given time. Saying they would or are profiting from it doesn't mean it's a hoax. The point was that I never made the argument "governments would profit", you did. I specifically cited financial sectors and large corporate entities who would greatly benefit from this legislation while smaller companies and individuals will be unable to cope. Now if you are denying corporations would manipulate government for profit then I have a special jar of magic piss to sell you, its delicious you'll love it. |
|
|
|
You really need to be listening to people who have worked with hydrogen and stop believing you know something because you googled it. That's literally a way to get killed.
Ahaha, I'm amazed you're able to use a computer without killing yourself No problem, get a job in a refinery and come back in a year or two and tell us about it. Fuck dying working with oil. That's how you get killed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_gas_and_oil_production_accidents_in_the_United_StatesAll the deaths. I actually tried research death for hydrogen and got a french link of accidents dating back to the 1980s: Thus, 25 mortal accidents involving hydrogen including 5 French accidents (ARIA 169, 170, 176, 3512 and 7956) are
recorded in the ARIA database and constitute 12 % of the studied sample. These accidents have resulted in 80
deaths including 9 in France. 80 deaths due to hydrogen total. Hey, did you know that owning a pool increases your chances of drowning? Owning a car increases your chances of getting in an auto accident. Also owning more than 2 functional brain cells increases your chances of understanding the more commonly used it is the more deaths there will be, and that is not a valid indicator of the safety of the technology. |
|
|
|
So you are saying no one has already produced hundreds of examples of leftist violence directed against conservatives, and your assumptions about what motivated these people is more valid than video of leftists attacking people?
I mean, no one has produced ANY lists of violence from the leftwing American citizens driven by media reporting. Prove me wrong  However, there's are dozens of examples of right wing violence. It's kinda sad that the right media propagates their hate rhetoric. As I said, this guy is another name to the violent right-wing list. So you are saying you said it, therefore it must be true? Oh look... What are these? https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-30/brief-history-leftist-political-violence-yearhttps://www.victimsofcommunism.org/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waZTYA3JVHEhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDwoWscEOTshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hthHHX-oJh8https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU-kIunAVRghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmSjIOHvdlYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw9kyYEwg2Ahttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyHB0COkw3shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRUF5FIIeVIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIMomsIsfREThat is a nice little qualifier you added there. Quite a convenient way to dismiss massive amounts of leftist violence over the past several years. The left has only had regular attacks on conservatives for years, I am sure any violence in response has nothing to do with that and is all a result of Tucker Carlson right? The left are cry bullies, attacking then faling over and crying like a toddler with a skinend knee playing the victim. That is why they always have women on the front line during their mob actions, while the "men" peek out between them, take pot shots, then scurry away like the nutless soyboys they are. |
|
|
|
Aside from crazy conspiracy theorists, real skeptics of this would be people who acknowledge there is some climate change happening but it's not because of us. A lot of people simply believe it's a natural process. I don't know too much about it but I definitely don't believe the government or whoever is faking it.
Let me get this straight. Humanity has been burning lots of fossil fuels for over two centuries now. It took nature millions of years to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it in the form of fossil fuels. Now humanity is converting this form back to CO2 by burning it. Yet, if climate change is related to an increase in CO2 levels, it can't be tied to human action? OK whatever. I don't follow the logic. Even if the bulk of the CO2 is released by volcanoes, nature has been slowly sequestering this excess over millions of years. The contribution of humanity now taking this sequestered CO2 and releasing it back into the atmosphere cannot be helping the situation. This is compounded by the fact that the sun is putting out much more energy than it did eons ago. Therefore, we need less CO2 in the atmosphere to keep this planet habitable, not more. I'm sure it's not helping, obviously, but what's the real impact of it? Like are we contributing 0,001% to it or are we the 50%? As I said I don't really know much about it, I don't really have any reason to believe the government/science is lying about it, I love science. I don't see any motif behind it either, what would they gain from it? What do any monopolies get from any kind of regulation? The ability to stifle competition while they can cope with new regulations. Also I suggest you look into how much money is ALREADY being made in the carbon swap market. What would happen to that market with wider carbon regulation I wonder? I don't know man, the ''government profits from this'' argument just doesn't do it for me. Every single conspiracy theorists uses that, vaccines, flat earth, bombs, terrorists, etc etc. The government could be making money from a lot of different things, legalizing weed for instance, I'm sure they would make money with it, don't you think? Yet they don't do it. The government is people, they are not fucking Satan. They also make money with all the fines/tickets for driving, drinking, etc etc but are they not doing it for our benefit? Remind me where I used the word government anywhere in my statement. |
|
|
|
So you are saying a URL with a list of names on it is a source?
Wait. Can you actually not see the URL? Like is it just removed in your country or something? It's a link to "the" "intercept" ".com". It's in big red text. That's the source of the names. It also goes into a bit of detail for each one. It also includes links to collaborating news stories and the information is echo'd around the entire internet. Either all this is just "right-wing" violence conspiracy (which doesn't seem possible with the amount of collusion that'd be required) or there are ACTUAL people out there, swept up in RIGHT WING VIOLENT RHETORIC that they literally go out and MURDER people. That's just wrong man... just wrong. I don't see violent left-wing agents doing the same thing. I mean, if you provide a list of American citizens killing off individuals in the name of left-wing extremism, please let me know. But as far as I can tell, there really isn't a list. Luckily, there's a list of right wing extremists to talk about. And this guy was added to that huge list of nut job right wing terrorists. So you are saying no one has already produced hundreds of examples of leftist violence directed against conservatives, and your assumptions about what motivated these people is more valid than video of leftists attacking people? |
|
|
|
|
They will once they are hit with anti-trust regulations as well as revoking their safe harbor provision under DMCA because they are no longer an open forum if they are curating content, legally making them publishers liable for what they publish.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
