Oh, you were the victim a failed robbery attempt? That explains everything. I agree, nothing suspicious at all about Seth Rich since you were once the victim of a failed robbery. We have a guy who claims to have evidence that Rich was the source of the DNC wikileaks emails. He has reached out to Robert Mueller to offer to provide that evidence to them. If the same guy was claiming to have evidence of Trump collusion with the Russians it would be plastered across the news 24x7. Instead we have assholes like you calling anyone who is interested in seeing if he actually has evidence a wacky conspiracy theorist. It's exactly the type of arrogance that got Trump elected btw. I'm interested in the truth. If the truth is that Trump is blowing Putin in a secret underground whore house setup by Jared Kushner so Putin doesn't release damaging information, let's see the evidence. If the truth is that some rogue DNC staffer was the leak, let's see the evidence. If the truth is that the DNC had such shitty security on their network that some lame script kiddy got a hold of the information and made it available on the dark net, let's see the evidence. A lot of people want to believe the truth is collusion - I get it. I don't see anyone publicly claiming to have evidence to support that conspiracy theory though.
Not sure where the $15 trillion number comes from. Google shows nothing. Not sure if you know the Earth hasn't had humans on it for that long but in the short time we are here, we've radically changed it in the last 200 years.
About 15k years not 200. The last 200 have seen a spike in carbon emissions due to the industrial revolution and then the automobile culture plus rapid population expansion. The biggest long-term effect that humanity has had is deforestation, with old growth forests leveled across Asia, the Americas, Europe, the Middle East and increasingly in Africa and South America over the last 4 or 5 decades. Low populations and ever present permafrost and glaciers kept carbon in the atmosphere low over the many millennia of the Ice Ages. Then the ice retreated and the world began to warm and a naturally occurring phenomenon stepped in to keep things stable - the spread of massive forests from the small temperate zones to the rest of the land mass newly exposed by retreating ice. The forests were like a safety valve for all the carbon that was naturally released as life began to flourish in the new warmth. Then a new factor showed up: for the first time a species capable of clearing vast tracts of land began to do so and irrevocably altered the landscape in the process. Then agriculture and animal husbandry and their attendant costs kicked in. The world warmed more rapidly than it would have in the absence of human involvement. Our population began to spike and we removed the large predators that kept herbivores in check while at the same time domesticating those herbivores and multiplying their numbers many times. Then we began really loading carbon into the atmosphere with the discovery of coal, a naturally occurring carbon sink that held a lot of carbon in the ground in perpetuity with only the rare subterranean coal fire to release it. Anybody who thinks global warming is not significantly affected by humanity is not looking at the big picture. We didn't start it, that was a naturally occurring cycle, however we have exacerbated it and made it a rolling process that at this point is probably past it's natural tipping point. Whether we stayed in Kyoto or Paris probably didn't matter. We've got a huge carbon debt built up in the atmosphere at this point and the only question is whether we ultimately wind up with 20 meters of sea level rise in a few centuries or 50. In the former case the landscape will be dramatically changed. In the latter most of the cities on earth will be underwater.
We were supposed to have been underwater a decade ago if you listen to the climate hysterics. When you dig into the details of the Paris deal it was pretty much shit, especially for the US. It didn't really have teeth for the countries with the biggest emissions. China agreed to begin reducing it's emissions by 2030. Pakistan agreed to reduce its emissions after reaching peak levels to the extent possible. WTF does that even mean?
Honestly, I think they just don't care because it's not their problem. And it's that attitude that holds us back in so many other respects (healthcare, etc.). It's all about the MEMEMEMEMEMEMEME. Sandy caused how many billions of dollars of damage? 14 feet storm surge in parts of New York and that caused all tons of issues. 20 meters? That's about 66 feet. But unlike Sandy, the rise in sea level won't go down. Most of New Jersey's areas near water? Gone. Delaware? Gone. NYC gone. 40 meters would eliminate the entire southern half of NJ and good chunks of North Jersey. 50 meters, forget it.
Coastal stuff is a given in a few centuries, it's all going to be underwater. The question is what happens with the deltas and water sheds? How far inland and bypassing how many elevation changes does the water get using naturally occurring riverways, valleys, etc. How much will it cost to dam out the sea? The last time sea levels were 50M+ higher than they are now we had a huge inland sea bisecting the terrain that is now in the middle of America. Of course that was several hundred million years ago, which should tell us all how close we are to the unknown. The lunacy of the climate deniers is that all the evidence says it is happening and yet they continue to deny for various reasons, some economic and some for political gain and some just because nutjobs will join any cause and take it to the extremes. The phenomenon is very similar to the people who insisted that the Earth was at the center of the Universe and that it was flat long after we all knew from consistent observation that neither of these were the case. That didn't stop Kings and Popes from commissioning maps that showed a flat earth with dragons and sea monsters at the edges waiting to eagerly devour anybody foolish enough to sail off the edge of the map and fall into their waiting jaws.
Go to kingston janaica soon before its too late https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...change-will-hit-first/?utm_term=.61eb550c86ac
Jamaica has bad luck with cities. Port Royal was destroyed by an earthquake in the colonial era, punishment for all the wicked sinning going on there according to the arbiters of culture at the time. The culture that has me worried at the moment is the Danes. They have a silly number of cities within the danger zone and it's going to be very hard to dike them and maintain them. It's like the Dutch problem on steroids because of all the coastline involved and the fact that they have an enormous international waterway as the conduit for all the water so their actions will be subject to the scrutiny of other states as well.
If you need to exaggerate like that to make your point, it's not much of a point to begin with. My story was a refutation of your claim that it was "suspicious" that the police called it a (botched) robbery because he still had his possessions on him. If that's the kind of stuff you're presenting as evidence, consider me entirely unimpressed. But not surprised. If not believing in those kinds of conspiracy theories makes me an asshole, I am more than happy to be the assholiest of assholes. And if being disappointed in the lack of critical thinking deployed by these hacks (whether through lack of ability or willful ignorance) makes me arrogant, sooooo be it. If getting real with Joe Average Middle American means catering to stupidity, I will now and forever take a hard pass. Mediocrity and mental laziness should never be coddled for the sake of a political win. Incidentally, that's not why I called you a wacky conspiracy theorist. I call you a wacky conspiracy precisely because I think your next sentence is bullshit: ...Bullshit. You want a certain truth. You aren't interested in seeing if he actually has evidence... unless it's evidence that supports your claim in the first place. That's what conspiracy theorists do. Confirmation bias is a real and natural tendency in every human... but in some people, it rages out of control. Those people think the moon landing was faked, the earth is flat, chemtrails are poisoning us, and Seth Rich was murdered by Hillary's thugs, and will cling to the one or two or three scraps of "evidence" supporting their idea while refuting the thousands of pieces of actual evidence against it. Exactly. Let's see the evidence. Real evidence. I mean we have 12 (or is it 17?) different intelligence agencies who have concluded that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections and that it was likely Russian operatives behind the DNC hacking. I just get the strong sense that you don't have any acceptance criteria for "evidence" here other than checking the political affiliation of the source. And that's pretty sad.
Okey-dokey, I saw Kathy Griffin's big pre-planned press conference with Lisa Bloom. The crying, the histrionics. "Trump broke me, he's a bully, white males are trying to destroy me, his family is trying to ruin me, I'm getting death threats, I'm fired, my shows are canceled." Well, that's not cool; but please remember that Jackie Mason got submarined for giving a fake middle finger on 'The Ed Sullivan Show'. Like I said, I don't think she should get in trouble for this, no way, no how; but it was a stupid way to try to become a anti-hero - as if she didn't see the repercussions coming. She's spinning it like a Wizzzer (HolyJesusGod, I loved those things). Anyway, I guess she'll try to turn it into becoming a beacon of hope for Freedom of Speech and repressed women everywhere. The "If I was a guy, this would not be happening!" thing, she's not wrong; but If you KNOW you're gonna get slammed mercilessly partly because you're female, buck up and don't cry about it later. I hate that. My Daddy didn't raise a fool. And yeah, my feminist bent is from my father. Huge age gap, but he was one of the most formative figures in my life. "If you ever shake your can or bat your eyelashes to get what you want, you'll disappoint me." Not that I have can a worth shaking, but it stuck with me my entire life. Lenny Bruce was blacklisted and had his life set on fire for a lot less. He also got a very well deserved posthumous pardon and apology. Someone will go there that Kathy is an equivalent casualty. I guess it wasn't to Bloom's advantage to mention Lenny, him being a guy and all. Kathy Griffin is not a martyr for willingly throwing herself on a pyre when she knew she knew full well she would get burned. I'm gonna sit back and see how this unfolds, but when the Lenny Bruce comparison comes up, King me. It's coming in some shape or form for sure.
Talk about wanting to believe a certain truth. Real evidence lol Yea actually if you listen to the James Clapper testimony instead of Hillary Clinton it was 3 agencies. I don't know if you're just playing dumb or if you're too stupid to realize but Russia interfering with the election does not mean the Trump campaign colluded with them. Russia interferes with elections, it's what they do and they've been doing it to ours long before this election. We also now know that our own government has software that allows them to create false flag digital trails. That software is likely available to more than the CIA whose exploits were recently used by the people who executed the wanna cry ransomware attack.
Yes, it was three agencies that produced the report. The CIA, NSA, and FBI. That's who directly worked on it. Any of the other branches disagree with it? Offer conflicting evidence or conclusions? Speak out when they were lumped into the reports as a part of the intelligence community? No? Okay. Well, then. If "only" the big 3 being directly involved is enough to make you discount the whole thing... well... this is what I mean when I talk about your lack of acceptance criteria for evidence. This amuses me. Yes, I realize the difference between Russian interference in elections and collusion with the Trump campaign. The reason I was bringing up the interference is because of your own words: Sounds like you're not sure about whether Russia was involved in the DNC hack. The IC has already looked at the DNC leaks and concluded it was Russian interference. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf That's not enough for you, though... You want to wait to hear what kimdotcom has to say first. Police talk about a botched robbery in which the guy still had his wallet? That's evidence in your book. Again, this is just classic conspiracy theorist approach. I never said anything about Trump's campaign and collusion. I, too, am waiting to see the evidence. This isn't about what I do/don't believe happened. This is about watching you use "evidence" willy-nilly to believe whatever you want to believe. Here's a simple thought experiment for you. Right now, think about what kind of evidence it would take for you to believe that Russia was the source of the DNC hack. Or that Trump's campaign was colluding with Russia. How much evidence would you want to see? What would it look like? How high is that bar? How much follow up would you want, to prove that it's not a "false flag" digital trail? Now think about what kind of evidence you would need to see to believe that Clinton (or her organization) orchestrated Seth Rich's murder. Is there a difference between the two? I'm sure there is. The next step would be to frame it as disproving a negative (a logical impossibility). How much evidence would you need to prove that Hillary's campaign did NOT orchestrate the murder of Rich? So if you were an honest man and a good, informed citizen, right now you'd be able to admit to your own biases and recognize the differences between those situations in terms of how high you set the bar for evidence. If you were a reasonable person, you might even try to adjust the height of the bar. If, on the other hand, you give in to your pattern-seeking reptile brain, if you are more interested in having your "side" win, then right now your brain is feeding you all the reasons why you have it all figured out and is trying to give you reasons why I'm wrong. You're not considering the merit of what I've said, you're just looking for ways to refute it regardless of accuracy. You are fitting the facts to what you want to believe instead of the other way around. It's like I'm reading your mind, isn't it? It's not hard. It's what most people do, so don't feel bad. And after reading that last paragraph, my guess is you're now a little fired up and your brain is telling you to lash out, because that's what people do when they feel cornered or have their beliefs threatened, and you'll probably want to present that as an angry denial on the internetz. So I'm curious to see what happens. Have a nice Saturday!
The great Sen. Al Franken lays down the smack: http://www.cc.com/video-clips/o580y...in--giant-of-the-senate----extended-interview "Forget that you had me on the show". Priceless. Ron
So Trump handled a terrorist attack, outside the US, by: Using a terrorist attack to advance his own political goals (travel ban, gun restriction) Spun the mayor of London's words "no reason to be alarmed," he was talking about increased police presence, to incite fear and once again promote a travel ban and isolating the US from everyone. Hid behind the idea that people being upset with him had to do with political correctness. No Donald, it has nothing to do with political correctness. You are just a piece of shit scared old man, who constantly says piece of shit (and stupid) things. If you do it once, twice, hell maybe three times, you get a pass from 80 percent of America... But every day you wake up and act like a rich piece of shit, so don't be surprised when people get on you the next time.
This is where you get lost. You immediately jump to the conclusion that because I'm open to the idea that the truth is not yet known, and could be found with someone claiming to have evidence, that I don't think the currently available information is valid. It is known that computer forensics is not an exact science. That is why you see people talking about the degree of confidence instead of saying we know for a fact this is what happened. Why would you not be open to more information if someone claims to have it? A truth seeker welcomes potentially new information. You seem to reject it. You want to paint me as a conspiracy theorist because I'm open to the truth. I don't see you painting people claiming collusion as conspiracy theorists. I wonder why that is. Does this not appear to be the face of truth?
I really don't have the time troglodyte. Go back to Trumerica where they still burn coal for heat and electricity. The 21st century is not for the likes of you.
I assume you're off the grid and powering your house strictly with solar and wind, possibly your own little nuclear reactor.
