Re: It's probably full of Moties
Should we all be digging heffalump traps?
79 posts • joined 17 Jul 2009
Why in Heaven's name are we allowing people who are incapable (or lay claim to being) of bearing the slightest adversity - 'safe spaces', 'crying rooms', 'puppy therapy' are not the hallmark of a robust, sane individual - be allowed to distort the language? This is aggression masquerading as powerlessness.
Point the first:
"The emails are labeled "committee confidential" meaning that they should not be shared beyond the committee. But on Thursday they were leaked to the news media and some were then later publicly posted by Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), who argued they were of such significance that their release was warranted due to the broader public interest."
The e-mails were cleared for release on Wednesday per Booker's request & with his knowledge. His (Booker's) claims of putting the public ahead of partisan interest was itself a partisan sham (admittedly, not something alien to Booker).
Point the second:
That Kavanaugh was an associate in the White House during the Bush 43 administration is known, as is his work before & after. His role was to coordinate between various entities in the administration. That he handled documents regarding surveillance post-9/11 is utterly unsurprising & in no way demonstrates knowledge of the actual programs put in place, let alone contradicting his testimony.
Point the third:
Kavanaugh is arguably less a partisan choice than Elena Kagan (I'd be curious to see McCarthy's published objections to that nomination) as Kavanaugh has over a decade on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit whereas Kagan had no prior experience as a federal judge.
It's not difficult to conclude Kieren McCarthy is attempting to manufacture a controversy where none exists to further his own partisan & ideological views. It's not his views that are objectionable but the obfuscatory manner in which they're presented.
"The claim of a politically motivated investigation doesn't appear to gel with the facts: we now know that US intelligence agents were warned repeatedly about concerns over Donald Trump and his team's connections to Russia by other spy agencies across the globe: from Germany, Holland, and the UK.
The claim of a politically motivated investigation does gel with the facts. The wiretapping was, by all accounts, largely justified by the Steele/Fusion GPS dossier which has been shown to be a large steaming pile seasoned with a few sparse grains of truth.
There are certain standards that are supposed to be met to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on an American citizen. The evidence to date indicates the FBI didn't meet those standards.
"[...] less SHOUTINESS, an evolving sense of humour, more modern and global cultural touchstones, science coverage that gives proper prominence to peer-reviewed, evidence-based research and a recognition that attempted self-aware hopefully ironic sexism is almost always indistinguishable from actual sexism."
That appears to be, in effect, a complete surrender to the fundamentally irrational notion that subjects can be ruled unfit for discussion.
It's fascinating (in a cringe-worthy fashion) to listen to those who have manipulated and manufactured data, 'hid the decline', and rigged climatological 'models' accuse those on firmer scientific ground of being 'liars'.
Of course, coming from the (highly) paid liar Schmidt, the accusation takes on a certain aura of risibility.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Climate scientists were wrong when claiming that the Medieval Warm Period was local to Europe only.
'Climate scientists' have done everything possible to deny and obscure the Medieval Warm Period.
As Climate scientists were wrong regarding this MWP, they must be also wrong regarding AGW
'Climate scientists' haven't been 'wrong' - they've bloody well lied. And most of the data most of the data doesn't the hypothesis of AGW
This study is an important breakthrough, as it proves that GW can be caused by factors other than human activity
Not to listen to the 'climate scientists.
As AGW can't be proved without a shadow of doubt, we shouldn't preemptively act to prevent it
Why is it massively disrupting civilisation around the world is 'erring on the side of caution', but being reluctant to do so is 'poor logic'?
Your arguments are unconvincing because they are fundamentally unsound.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020