Regardless this is 100% designed to distract from the total failure that was the Kavanaugh investigation, real or not.
Ahahahaha. So a right wing bombing attack was a "distraction" from a confirmation hearing? ROFL. The amount of mental gymnastics. Jesus fuck dude, what the fuck is wrong with you? Literally right wing terrorism and you're like "BUT MAH POLITICAL APPOINTMENTS!!!" Nah, literally you're just here distracting from the right wing terrorism... again here's the list: Scott Leader and Steve Leader
Curtis Allen, Gavin Wright, and Patrick Eugene Stein
Alexandre Bissonnette
Michael Hari, Michael McWhorter, and Joe Morris
James Alex Fields Jr.
Brandon Griesemer
Nikolas Cruz
That's a lot of people radicalized by the same hate driven narrative. Literally to the extent to harm others.
Nope, a distraction from the total failure and backfiring the witch hunt & slandering of Kavanaugh resulted in for the Democrats. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
I am currently buying silver at spot price for crypto at current market rates. I am interested in any 90% US coinage, or other .99-.9999 purity silver. I prefer 1 ounce rounds and coins but will consider others. My preferred form of payment is Clamcoin and Digibyte. We can potentially negotiate something else if you have a particularly good offer.
I DO NOT ACCEPT SHIPMENTS DIRECTLY FROM DEALERS/RETAILERS DUE TO POTENTIAL FOR FRAUD! If you want to purchase silver retail, it must me shipped to yourself then reshipped to me. Anything shipped directly from a retailer will be returned and no payment rendered.
I expect you to send first so I can verify the authenticity of the metal before paying. I will do this the same day of receipt and prices will be set beforehand at the time of shipment. I am located in the USA. I reserve the right to return the metal via a method of my choice at my expense. Please take a moment to review my post and trust histories. I have hundreds of trades completed, thousands in value entrusted to me, and all obligations met over my 7+ years of trade history. Please PM me to discuss.
|
|
|
|
|
The family unit is the foundational building block of our society. The concept of marriage being obsolete is post modernist garbage.
|
|
|
|
Nobody gets anywhere close to the looting done by Obama.
President Donald Trump: Total Actual plus Budgeted = $5.683 trillion, as much in one term as Obama accumulated in two.
Thanks for proving my argument... Except he didn't lol. You are absolutely delusional. |
|
|
|
So, the GOP hate rhetoric...
Is that the reason this crazy guy chose his targets?
AAAAnd thank you for your version of admitting you were wrong Just gave up arguing. It's not worth arguing legal battles with a non-lawyer. It's just bird shit thrown around without any precedence. The shit you say, if you asked /r/asklegal would get you pretty much banned. But I'd like to actually point out Cesar Sayoc was taken in by alt-right and right wing hate narratives. It seems that he also pushed a narrative. He went to attack and lash out. Scott Leader and Steve Leader Curtis Allen, Gavin Wright, and Patrick Eugene Stein Alexandre Bissonnette Michael Hari, Michael McWhorter, and Joe Morris James Alex Fields Jr. Brandon Griesemer Nikolas Cruz ( https://theintercept.com/2018/10/27/here-is-a-list-of-far-right-attackers-trump-inspired-cesar-sayoc-wasnt-the-first-and-wont-be-the-last/ source for the names) That's a lot of people radicalized by the same hate driven narrative. Literally to the extent to harm others. So, the GOP hate rhetoric...
Is that the reason this crazy guy chose his targets?
AAAAnd thank you for your version of admitting you were wrong (changing the subject). Anyone with a functional explosive device will be charged under "weapons of mass destruction" which Cesar Sayok was not. This demonstrates the media was purposely misrepresenting this situation to create maximum fear as well as distract from the horrible failure that was the Kavanaugh witch hunt that blew up in the Democrats faces. Don't edit my quotes to make yourself look better and try to distract from the subject of discussion to yet another topic. So you are a lawyer now? Your appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Of course you don't want to discuss it. Why would you want to admit you were wrong, ever? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law |
|
|
|
So, the GOP hate rhetoric...
Is that the reason this crazy guy chose his targets?
AAAAnd thank you for your version of admitting you were wrong (changing the subject). Anyone with a functional explosive device will be charged under "weapons of mass destruction" which Cesar Sayok was not. This demonstrates the media was purposely misrepresenting this situation to create maximum fear as well as distract from the horrible failure that was the Kavanaugh witch hunt that blew up in the Democrats faces. |
|
|
|
Right now:
51/47+2 for senate, which is pretty damned close to even control.
I wonder if that'll flip more seats after more Georgia vote suppression investigation. They did just find like 30k ballots from what I read.
LOL. "found" 30k ballots. Nothing to see here folks, move along. |
|
|
|
I never said anything about redefining anything, you did. So is your argument that the law was passed after Kazinski committed his acts? That argument sounds familiar. The crimes he committed as far as I have seen are committed BEFORE the "weapons of mass destruction" legislation was passed. Therefore he would not legally be able to be charged under this statute. None of this proves anything about my point anyway that Sayoc was not charged with "weapons of mass destruction" the standard charge for anyone in possession of a functional explosive device.
1994 - https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/33551996 arrest, 1998 plea deal - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_KaczynskiAfter his arrest in 1996, Kaczynski tried unsuccessfully to dismiss his court-appointed lawyers because they wanted him to plead insanity in order to avoid the death penalty, and he did not believe he was insane. In 1998 a plea bargain was reached, under which he pleaded guilty to all charges and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He was arrested after the law passed. Cause time works that way... Did ya know 1996 occurs after 1994? I'm pretty sure you're just purposely misconstruing arguments, and because you've been proven wrong time and time again about this issue (and pretty much every single issue you troll on); you're just digging yourself a deeper hole. But we're pretty off-topic, pretty sure this topic was about a radical dis-attached individual attacking leftist... crazy dude be crazy. It does make me wonder if GOP's hate rhetoric is much different than that same hate rhetoric from ISIS. That's not how the law works. You can't be charged with laws that were passed AFTER the act was committed. The date of his arrest is irrelevant. I am on topic. The premise is the fact that Cesar Sayok was not charged with a "weapons of mass destruction" charge demonstrates the devices were not functional and there is some thing else going on here. You are off topic with this unibomber bullshit, and you are wrong about that anyway. |
|
|
|
We have already been over this once smart guy, you know I sourced the law. Why are you going to make yourself look dumb arguing this again?
Mailing weapons of mass destruction through USPS... only a fucking insane tard would believe that they'd be charged with "weapon of mass destruction" https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1047180.htmlOh, hey, look at that! Someone else sent working bombs through the USPS and they WEREN'T classified as weapons of mass destruction. Who'd thunk?  Just because you fail at understanding law doesn't mean the courts fail at understanding law.  Well first of all the law says nothing about a requirement of mailing, simply possessing a functional explosive device is enough for the charge. Also, I know so little about law that I noticed that the laws against "weapons of mass destruction" came during and after Kazinski's bombings, and you can't charge some one with a law that was passed AFTER the act was committed. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a#c_2https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921Uhhh... if you actually read; https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/33552001 came after 1994 my friend. I know numbers are hard; but just because it has more "9s" in it doesn't mean it's a greater number. Here's the change log; 2004—Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(b)(1), struck out “certain” before “weapons” in section catchline.
Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(b)(2), struck out “(other than a chemical weapon as that term is defined in section 229F)” after “mass destruction” in introductory provisions.
Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(a)(1), amended par. (2) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (2) read as follows: “against any person within the United States, and the results of such use affect interstate or foreign commerce or, in the case of a threat, attempt, or conspiracy, would have affected interstate or foreign commerce; or”.
Subsec. (a)(4). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(a)(2), (3), added par. (4).
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(b)(3), struck out “(other than a chemical weapon (as that term is defined in section 229F))” after “mass destruction”.
Subsec. (c)(3). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6802(a)(4)–(6), added par. (3).
2002—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–188, § 231(d)(1), substituted “section 229F)—” for “section 229F), including any biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178)—” in introductory provisions.
Subsec. (c)(2)(C). Pub. L. 107–188, § 231(d)(2), substituted “a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title)” for “a disease organism”.
1998—Pub. L. 105–277, § 201(b)(1)(A), inserted “certain” before “weapons” in section catchline.
Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105–277, § 201(b)(1)(B), inserted “(other than a chemical weapon as that term is defined in section 229F)” after “weapon of mass destruction” in introductory provisions.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 105–277, § 201(b)(1)(C), inserted “(other than a chemical weapon (as that term is defined in section 229F))” after “weapon of mass destruction”.
1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–132, §§ 511(c), 725(1)(A), (B), in heading, inserted “Against a National of the United States or Within the United States” after “Offense”, and in introductory provisions, substituted “, without lawful authority, uses, threatens, or attempts” for “uses, or attempts” and inserted “, including any biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178)” after “mass destruction”.
Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 104–132, § 725(1)(C), inserted before semicolon at end “, and the results of such use affect interstate or foreign commerce or, in the case of a threat, attempt, or conspiracy, would have affected interstate or foreign commerce”.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–132, § 725(4), added subsec. (b). Former subsec. (b) redesignated (c).
Subsec. (b)(2)(B). Pub. L. 104–132, § 725(2), as amended by Pub. L. 104–294, § 605(m), added subpar. (B) and struck out former subpar. (B) which read as follows: “poison gas;”.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 104–132, § 725(3), redesignated subsec. (b) as (c). Nope, not redefining it, other than biological/chemical weaponry post 2001  I never said anything about redefining anything, you did. So is your argument that the law was passed after Kazinski committed his acts? That argument sounds familiar. The crimes he committed as far as I have seen are committed BEFORE the "weapons of mass destruction" legislation was passed. Therefore he would not legally be able to be charged under this statute. None of this proves anything about my point anyway that Sayoc was not charged with "weapons of mass destruction" the standard charge for anyone in possession of a functional explosive device. Feel free to do more mental gymnastics tho, I hear The Special Olympics is having an event for that this year. You can never get enough practice. |
|
|
|
copy of wikipedia
I see lots of information you likely didn't even read, copy and pasted (that is against forum rules to plagiarize BTW), but I don't see your premise, retort, or argument... What do you want me to say exactly about well known documented data? Should I do a brief comment after each report? The argument that vaccines aren't safe or that the government doesn't care is simply false as shown above. Simple because they lost some reports somewhere it doesn't mean the whole thing is a hoax and they are trying to kill people. Vaccines are proven to work, it's a fact, we have stopped plenty of diseases thanks to them. No one is arguing that vaccines are 100% safe because nothing is, any drug has side effects, you can die from eating too many paracetamol pills, it doesn't even take that many. Science will prevail. Nutjobs wont. I shouldn't have to tell you what to say. In fact if you were giving this information a fair examination you wouldn't be saying anything, and be reading about it instead of simply denying its relevance over and over again (and don't lie to me I know damned well you didn't do anything more than skim at the most). I never made any of those arguments so I am not going to bother defending those premises. Also there is an important difference... no one is trying to force people to take paracetamol pills by law. This entire issue would largely be a non-issue for people if there wasn't creeping legislation mandating vaccinations in many states against any standards of implied consent. http://icandecide.org/government/ICAN-HHS-Stipulated-Order-July-2018.pdfThe Corruption of Science: What They Won't Tell You! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrGRP2mu0GAThe Death of Science | Scientific Corruption and You https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmvLdOkpg2MOk genius. What would happen if something like Ebola appeared in the US or wherever the fuck you live. Let's call it, the badecker's disease. It kills people in a few days. They make a vaccine that works and stops it, would you think it's a good idea to force people to take the vaccines? Yeah, think about it for a few seconds genius. There are already laws on the books for pandemics and emergencies. This has nothing to do with mandating people get common vaccinations by force of law. Every year a lot of kids die of vaccine preventable diseases. By your logic, it should also be legal to give kids alcohol, might as well right? Why make it illegal, fucking government, why would they want to help kids, right? They are evil. Not vaccinating your kid is the same as giving him alcohol, or tobacco or drugs sometimes. You could be killing your kid because of it. PD: however I do think that making vaccines mandatory could be sending the wrong message to all the nutjobs, thinking that they make it mandatory because they want to poison us and not because they want to help. A lot of things are mandatory, like wearing helmets or seat belts, etc etc, they don't do it because they hate people... I didn't claim they do it because they hate people. Also wearing a seat belt is not equivalent to getting known toxic substances substances injected into your bloodstream. You can have freedom or security. If you try to have both you will have neither. But do you think they are doing it? Do you think governments are poisoning or killing people on purpose through vaccines? This is irrelevant to the discussion about this suit, and nothing but a red herring to draw focus away from the facts. |
|
|
|
copy of wikipedia
I see lots of information you likely didn't even read, copy and pasted (that is against forum rules to plagiarize BTW), but I don't see your premise, retort, or argument... What do you want me to say exactly about well known documented data? Should I do a brief comment after each report? The argument that vaccines aren't safe or that the government doesn't care is simply false as shown above. Simple because they lost some reports somewhere it doesn't mean the whole thing is a hoax and they are trying to kill people. Vaccines are proven to work, it's a fact, we have stopped plenty of diseases thanks to them. No one is arguing that vaccines are 100% safe because nothing is, any drug has side effects, you can die from eating too many paracetamol pills, it doesn't even take that many. Science will prevail. Nutjobs wont. I shouldn't have to tell you what to say. In fact if you were giving this information a fair examination you wouldn't be saying anything, and be reading about it instead of simply denying its relevance over and over again (and don't lie to me I know damned well you didn't do anything more than skim at the most). I never made any of those arguments so I am not going to bother defending those premises. Also there is an important difference... no one is trying to force people to take paracetamol pills by law. This entire issue would largely be a non-issue for people if there wasn't creeping legislation mandating vaccinations in many states against any standards of implied consent. http://icandecide.org/government/ICAN-HHS-Stipulated-Order-July-2018.pdfThe Corruption of Science: What They Won't Tell You! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrGRP2mu0GAThe Death of Science | Scientific Corruption and You https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmvLdOkpg2MOk genius. What would happen if something like Ebola appeared in the US or wherever the fuck you live. Let's call it, the badecker's disease. It kills people in a few days. They make a vaccine that works and stops it, would you think it's a good idea to force people to take the vaccines? Yeah, think about it for a few seconds genius. There are already laws on the books for pandemics and emergencies. This has nothing to do with mandating people get common vaccinations by force of law. Every year a lot of kids die of vaccine preventable diseases. By your logic, it should also be legal to give kids alcohol, might as well right? Why make it illegal, fucking government, why would they want to help kids, right? They are evil. Not vaccinating your kid is the same as giving him alcohol, or tobacco or drugs sometimes. You could be killing your kid because of it. PD: however I do think that making vaccines mandatory could be sending the wrong message to all the nutjobs, thinking that they make it mandatory because they want to poison us and not because they want to help. A lot of things are mandatory, like wearing helmets or seat belts, etc etc, they don't do it because they hate people... I didn't claim they do it because they hate people. Also wearing a seat belt is not equivalent to getting known toxic substances substances injected into your bloodstream. You can have freedom or security. If you try to have both you will have neither. |
|
|
|
It's a scientific fact that the overall temperature is rising. The problem most people have with this theory, is that the media is claiming it's due to human influences that the worlds temperature is rising. Which can be disproven very easily. Humans have a very, very minor effect on climate change. The worlds temperature has gone up and down over the last thousands and thousands of years. For example : 300 years ago it was almost 1 C° higher than it is now.
So that's my problem with the theory. Although you simply can't deny that climate change isn't happening.
Here's a nice timeline. It's pretty smooth, even though there's changes greater than 1C. Notice the extreme curve in recent history? EXCESSIVELY LONG CHART BASED ON IPCC DATA Normally non-man made climate change takes place over tens of thousands of years, not hundreds. |
|
|
|
copy of wikipedia
I see lots of information you likely didn't even read, copy and pasted (that is against forum rules to plagiarize BTW), but I don't see your premise, retort, or argument... What do you want me to say exactly about well known documented data? Should I do a brief comment after each report? The argument that vaccines aren't safe or that the government doesn't care is simply false as shown above. Simple because they lost some reports somewhere it doesn't mean the whole thing is a hoax and they are trying to kill people. Vaccines are proven to work, it's a fact, we have stopped plenty of diseases thanks to them. No one is arguing that vaccines are 100% safe because nothing is, any drug has side effects, you can die from eating too many paracetamol pills, it doesn't even take that many. Science will prevail. Nutjobs wont. I shouldn't have to tell you what to say. In fact if you were giving this information a fair examination you wouldn't be saying anything, and be reading about it instead of simply denying its relevance over and over again (and don't lie to me I know damned well you didn't do anything more than skim at the most). I never made any of those arguments so I am not going to bother defending those premises. Also there is an important difference... no one is trying to force people to take paracetamol pills by law. This entire issue would largely be a non-issue for people if there wasn't creeping legislation mandating vaccinations in many states against any standards of implied consent. http://icandecide.org/government/ICAN-HHS-Stipulated-Order-July-2018.pdfThe Corruption of Science: What They Won't Tell You! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrGRP2mu0GAThe Death of Science | Scientific Corruption and You https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmvLdOkpg2MOk genius. What would happen if something like Ebola appeared in the US or wherever the fuck you live. Let's call it, the badecker's disease. It kills people in a few days. They make a vaccine that works and stops it, would you think it's a good idea to force people to take the vaccines? Yeah, think about it for a few seconds genius. There are already laws on the books for pandemics and emergencies. This has nothing to do with mandating people get common vaccinations by force of law. |
|
|
|
A false flag? What? Do you even know what the words you use mean? http://www.yourdictionary.com/false-flag"false-flag Noun (plural false flags) (nautical) A ruse, in the days of sail, in which an attacking ship would fly the colours of its enemy until close enough to open fire. (espionage, military) A diversionary or propaganda tactic of deceiving an adversary into thinking that an operation was carried out by another party." So your theory is Jim Acosta is an undercover Republican operative sent to discredit CNN and the Democrat party? Mmmmmk. Why don't you make it absolutely clear and source the exact image you claim is doctored. >the deception creates the appearance of a particular party, group, or nation being responsible for some activity, disguising the actual source of responsibility. We're talking about the guy committing "violence" rather than presidential silencing of press. It's a pretty good disguise. The best part is the "violence" was doctored footage, which "was sped up, but not doctored" according to the whitehouse. Speeding up the video "is" changing the footage. Even if what you are claiming were true, this still doesn't make it a false flag. Learn how to use words, then debate. Also, once again, source the image you are claiming is doctored. Not an article the image might be in, the URL to the image itself. |
|
|
|
Oh please do source this "doctored" video so we can do a side by side comparison. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. Source it. "That’s not altered, that’s sped up," said Conway of the video, "They do it all the time in sports to see if there’s a first down or a touchdown. I have to disagree with, I think, the overwrought description of this video being doctored."
Conway's statement is mind-boggling on a couple of counts. For one, speeding something up almost certainly falls under the definition of altering it. And sports analysts don’t usually speed up the action to get a clearer look at it—slowing things down tends to offer a more detailed look.
If you read the article; you'd see the source. Pretty sure you can compare the gif I linked on the first page to OP's post. Overall, this is a false flag right wing operation to target the media. A false flag? What? Do you even know what the words you use mean? http://www.yourdictionary.com/false-flag"false-flag Noun (plural false flags) (nautical) A ruse, in the days of sail, in which an attacking ship would fly the colours of its enemy until close enough to open fire. (espionage, military) A diversionary or propaganda tactic of deceiving an adversary into thinking that an operation was carried out by another party." So your theory is Jim Acosta is an undercover Republican operative sent to discredit CNN and the Democrat party? Mmmmmk. Why don't you make it absolutely clear and source the exact image you claim is doctored. |
|
|
|
I think collective education is still very valuable, but the wrong things are being taught in the wrong ways. Kids should learn how to manage money, how to take calculated risks, and how to make smart investments so they aren't forced to become modern slaves.
We are social creatures and need to be around others from a young age to develop emotional intelligence and also cultivate lasting friendships, which help in many aspects of life (emotional health and also business deals later in life because you grow to trust them).
Traditional schooling environments should remain but the coursework should change to account for the current job market, which is becoming increasingly digital in nature.
I agree completely. Everything is always about balance in all things. Too much of any good thing can be destructive. You pointed out a couple of the primary issues with our educational systems. Schools spend little to no time on basic things like teaching children how their own brains work with critical thinking skills, logic, and debate and instead "teach" by operant conditioning which results in more of a parroting effect than actual thinking skills. The problem with this strategy of "teaching" is that even if you teach them the right thing to parrot, information changes and becomes outdated. Another point you brought up was basic money management skills. It is really pathetic how little people know about how to manage their money let alone what money itself is. Furthermore in the US we spend an inordinate amount of time conditioning children in subjects that are somewhat arbitrary when most of the world takes advantage of this time to start training in specialized industrial skills. Not everyone is going to be a PhD or get a masters degree, most people won't, and those people need that bridge to get to the next step in their careers. Furthermore this is a huge workforce which could be taken advantage of to raise overall productivity as these kids learn on the job for credit. |
|
|
|
Oh please do source this "doctored" video so we can do a side by side comparison. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. Source it. |
|
|
|
We have already been over this once smart guy, you know I sourced the law. Why are you going to make yourself look dumb arguing this again?
Mailing weapons of mass destruction through USPS... only a fucking insane tard would believe that they'd be charged with "weapon of mass destruction" https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1047180.htmlOh, hey, look at that! Someone else sent working bombs through the USPS and they WEREN'T classified as weapons of mass destruction. Who'd thunk? Just because you fail at understanding law doesn't mean the courts fail at understanding law. Well first of all the law says nothing about a requirement of mailing, simply possessing a functional explosive device is enough for the charge. Also, I know so little about law that I noticed that the laws against "weapons of mass destruction" came during and after Kazinski's bombings, and you can't charge some one with a law that was passed AFTER the act was committed. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a#c_2https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
