Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
You need to work on your logic a bit.
We are discussing your apparent enthusiasm for the Putin/Russia way. To think it unsound and unsuccessful does not mean one is a Prof softy on US immigration patterns.
Federal law makes it a crime to lie on a gun application of course
The question are you addicted or using illegal drugs is there for a reason
hunter answered no, thus lying and breaking the law
Rudy points out the whole reason this is part of gun laws is to keep drug users from acquiring guns - not to excuse them with , 'well he was an addict at the time',
and we should feels sorry for him and excuse his behavior since he has a disease .
That approach totally defeats the purpose of the law - by dismissing the application of the law breaking because he is an addict was the exact opposite of the intent Congress had for putting this as part of gun applications
I answer the same question every time I get or renew a state medical license
doubt very much if I lied they would feel sorry for me and forget about it and drop the charge
I imagine police officers , as well all of us who own a gun have answered this .
An analogy would be to excuse a drunk driver because they had a disease
therefore lets drop it.
Not to mention making even more complicated is the FACT THAT HUNTER IS A LAWYER who cannot claim he did not know better .
but all this does not matter
since we are in reality a nation of lawYERS
https://dailycaller.com/2023/06/14/republican-study-committee-budget-welfare-work-requirements/?pnespid=qL03Ez1Caqwc3PjSvGq0CMmXuhCtTJUoI7K9kbF6.01myFmfs7YTyTinJ7jaGhAFYDXckBc2
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/jun/14/lawmakers-promise-punish-justice-department-heavy-/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=subscriber&utm_campaign=newsalert&utm_content=newsalert&utm_term=newsalert&bt_ee=tG5Rleu1w8NtYUJXAOqlDeDW5G%2FnrRrs0p1JYQtZ1aZo7hsE4CJhvvx8laidZkz4&bt_ts=1686767902973
Well, the Russians are failing to reproduce by quite a bit , , , all on their own.
" he actually appears to love Russia and his people".
What a scary, naive view. He loves himself and his power and that's it.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Freezing_Order.html?id=ARVJEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1&ov2=1#v=onepage&q&f=false
Does he love the people he steals from, all of them? Does he love the people that he murders, everyone that gets in his way?
Well, that does clarify
As for "least of evils" I'm thinking your brand of humor and snark would get you defenstrated in short order.
https://www.arthursido.com/2023/06/its-a-small-club-and-you-aint-in-it.html
Do whatever harder!
Still off-point.
The point in this moment is that I have challenged your hostility to Uke success in general and Zelensky in particular and apparent rooting for Russian success.
The Russians too-- but you seek to change the subject. Stay on point please.
They are showing up to fight. Nothing magical about it whatsoever and should readily be acknowledged but for some reason you cannot.
and only he , the greatest "deal maker " in history can fix Ukraine
N Korea Iran and China
this would all be fixed with "amazing , greatest deals "in history "
"I have done more for Blacks then any other President in history !
never mind LBJ , Lincoln , Grant (who tried at least while he was able to)
I am tired of BS artists !
so are a hundred million other Americans.
That meat grinder is Russia turning his country into rubble.
Love ya man, but on this your thinking is not sound. The fighting spirit of the Ukes proves you wrong.
C'mon GM-- you can do it! Say that AMcC was on target with that particular one!
He was correct, and his lack of outrage is typical.
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=852,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/140/956/728/original/4a1c5179a17c2879.jpg
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/06/american-justice-69-year-old-grandma-cancer-given/
Russia invaded his country. He and the Uke people fight back! This is right and proper!
"In 2019, before the pandemic, almost 7 million Californians lived below the poverty level, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure. That is roughly 17.2 percent of the state’s population. This gave California the highest poverty rate in the nation, considerably higher than states such as Louisiana and Mississippi that are typically associated with high levels of poverty (see Figure 1)."
Well, that is certainly a relevant response to Newsome's slippery assertions! Simple, concise, usable by an interviewing reporter or an opponent in debate.
BTW, I am realizing that as interesting as this is, this is not the thread for it. We should be in the Newsome and/or the 2024 threads.
"He will win."
Maybe and maybe not.
"I hope he gets Zelensky and his cartel in his grasp."
Why do you root for his victory?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
C'mon GM-- you can do it! Say that AMcC was on target with that particular one!
He was correct, and his lack of outrage is typical.
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=852,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/140/956/728/original/4a1c5179a17c2879.jpg
Yes. The ending of slavery in less than a century (also) vindicated the Constitution. Slavery wasn't ended from within, and there was no sign it would have ended if the south had started out as a separate country.
We have plenty of setbacks in this country, especially now. Celebrate the wins, big and small.
If you think "Juneteenth" is supposed to be anything but another mechanism for spurring anti-white hatred, you're kidding yourselves.
C'mon GM-- you can do it! Say that AMcC was on target with that particular one!
He was correct, and his lack of outrage is typical.
Yes. The ending of slavery in less than a century (also) vindicated the Constitution. Slavery wasn't ended from within, and there was no sign it would have ended if the south had started out as a separate country.
We have plenty of setbacks in this country, especially now. Celebrate the wins, big and small.
When we first saw this issue a few days ago I hesitated to criticize because Tom McClintock, a favorite of mine (I have donated to him more than once) voted in opposition.
Having read a bit more, I no longer hesitate. To fail to go after Schiff would be cowardly weakness. This resolution should pass!!!
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/jun/20/adam-schiff-new-censure-resolution-be-brought-hous/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=subscriber&utm_campaign=newsalert&utm_content=newsalert&utm_term=newsalert&bt_ee=k5aValO8vKQr47ka4jkJxyLTK9KmkWo01rgPBwactr0TaRlVA7I70qATa8nTk1Iy&bt_ts=1687315789823
Putin’s to-do list
What would happen if Russia were to prevail in Ukraine?
By Clifford D. May
Western leaders have long misunderstood Vladimir Putin.
In 2001, President George W. Bush “looked the man in the eye” and “found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy.” Not exactly.
In 2015, President Barack Obama predicted that Mr. Putin would not want to “get bogged down in an inconclusive and paralyzing civil conflict” in Syria. Five hundred thousand slaughtered Arabs later, Mr. Putin has propped up his client, dictator Bashar Assad.
Angela Merkel made Germany dependent on Russian energy in the belief that Mr. Putin’s ambitions would drown in a river of euros. The chancellor was mistaken.
And after Mr. Putin dismembered Georgia in 2008 and annexed the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 (while inserting irregular forces into eastern Ukraine to wage an endless insurgency), American and European leaders went out of their way not to provoke him.
This may explain why President Biden, early in 2022, hoped Mr. Putin was planning only a “minor incursion” into Ukraine.
A question worth asking: Should Mr. Putin come out of this war looking and feeling like a winner — I’m hopeful about the current Ukrainian counteroffensive, but I rule nothing out — what would he do next? The answer, I assure you, will not be: “I’m going to Disneyland!”
Moldova is the lowest-hanging fruit. It’s not a NATO member, and its military capabilities are limited. Russia already occupies Transnistria, a strip of what used to be eastern Moldova between the Dniester River and the Ukrainian border. Moldova would probably fall to Mr. Putin within days.
Mr. Putin might want to formalize his control of Belarus, to which he recently deployed tactical nuclear weapons.
After that, perhaps a bolder move: The creation of a land bridge to Kaliningrad, a Russian territory — it was Konigsberg when it was captured from Germany in 1945 — 400 miles west of the Russian mainland.
Based in Kaliningrad is the Russian navy’s Baltic Fleet. Russian troops there are equipped with mobile nuclear-capable Iskander-M missiles, and sophisticated air defense systems. Russian tanks would roll west into Lithuania from Belarus and east into Lithuania from Kaliningrad. Mr. Putin would need to take only a ribbon of southern Lithuania — in particular, the main road running from Belarus to Kaliningrad.
But Lithuania is a NATO member, so Mr. Putin wouldn’t dare, right? Don’t be so sure. He’d likely call the invasion “a special military operation to restore Russian territorial contiguity at a time of increased NATO aggression against Russia.”
He might also charge that the Russian minority in Lithuania, roughly 7% of its 2.8 million population, is being oppressed and requires his help. Neighboring Latvia and Estonia, where ethnic Russians are close to a quarter of the population, could be dealt with later.
Mr. Putin could say to NATO: “I’m open to diplomacy — a land-for-peace deal. But if you’d rather wage war, you should understand that extreme measures will be considered.”
Now ask yourself: Which NATO members would be willing to risk a nuclear war with Russia over a ribbon of countryside in the southern Baltics? Turkey? Germany? France? Would most Americans support such a conflict?
It’s tough to see how NATO could survive if it failed to defend one of its members as pledged in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
For Mr. Putin, NATO’s collapse would be a huge victory, one that his communist allies in Beijing and his Islamist allies in Tehran would regard as a significant battle won in their war against the West.
And in both those capitals, as well as in nuclear-armed Pyongyang, a lesson would be learned: The U.S. and Europe cave in to nuclear blackmail.
There’s one more geostrategic reality I want to mention. Sandwiched between Lithuania on the north and Poland on the south is the Suwalki Gap, a narrow stretch of Polish land running from Belarus to Kaliningrad.
A rail link just north of this corridor links Kaliningrad to the Russian mainland. But it functions under an agreement between Russia and Lithuania, whose relations are now severely strained.
A year ago, Lithuania, complying with European sanctions, prohibited the transit of coal, metals and building materials.
Kaliningrad’s governor called that a “serious violation” of the agreement.
A Russian invasion and occupation of the Suwalki Gap would also trigger Article 5. And it would cut off Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia from their NATO allies, complicating any attempt to provide materiel and reinforcements in case of a Russian invasion.
Not just coincidentally, comrade, two years ago, Russian and Belarusian troops staged a military exercise to practice closing off the Suwalki Gap and attacking Lithuania.
Perhaps you’ll say that, after the war in Ukraine, Mr. Putin wouldn’t have the resources and manpower necessary for such aggressions. But if he’s been successful, Tehran and Beijing would be as helpful as possible. The morale of his troops would improve. And he’d have millions of Ukrainians whom he could draft and then — with bayonets pressed against their backs — use as cannon fodder.
This much we should understand by now: Mr. Putin’s mission, as he sees it, is to restore the Russian Empire, which, for less than a century, was rebranded as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
“If Russia is not defeated [in Ukraine], then it will just be a matter of time before it regroups, rearms, and that it will come for somebody next,” Lithuanian Prime Minister Ingrida Simonyte told a reporter last month.
In the Pentagon and at NATO headquarters in Brussels, geopolitical strategists should be imagining scenarios such as those described above. Defense plans based on deterrence rather than appeasement should be established. A good place to do that would be the next NATO summit. It’s scheduled for July in Vilnius, the Lithuanian capital.
Clifford D. May is founder and president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and a columnist for The Washing-ton Times
C'mon GM-- you can do it! Say that AMcC was on target with that particular one!
second
The Intentionally Provocative Hunter Biden Plea Deal
President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, attend the White House Easter Egg Roll in Washington, D.C., April 10, 2023. (Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters)
Share
387 Comments
Listen
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
June 20, 2023 3:08 PM
Well, I had the wrong solstice. In the many times we’ve discussed today’s scenario on the podcast and in print, I predicted the Biden Justice Department would give Hunter a sweetheart plea deal right before Christmas, when Washington traditionally does its worst as people tune out the news.
Turns out it was just as summer was about to begin . . . when people are paying attention to the news, when the Biden Justice Department’s special counsel has just charged Donald Trump with 37 felony counts, and when Democrats are trying every way they can think of, without a scintilla of embarrassment, to rile up the Trump-friendly GOP base in hopes of getting Republicans to nominate Trump for the presidency.
Gotta love it when a plan comes together.
Here’s what I wrote six weeks ago:
In a friendly interview on MSNBC on Friday, [President Biden] made it clear to his subordinates at the Biden Justice Department that he has determined his son Hunter should not be charged with a crime. “My son has done nothing wrong,” said the president. “I trust him. I have faith in him, and it impacts my presidency by making me feel proud of him.”
This was blatant interference in the moribund investigation. The Justice Department and its assigned prosecutor, Delaware U.S. attorney David Weiss, have recently come under significant pressure due to whistleblower allegations from law-enforcement agents that there has been significant political interference in the probe and that the FBI has supposedly been sitting on evidence that implicates the president in a bribery scheme.
This has led to speculation that the scam I’ve been predicting for a couple of years is imminent: The Justice Department could soon give Hunter a sweetheart plea deal in which he would admit guilt to the undeniable — a minor tax charge or two, plus, perhaps, a false statement on a required federal firearms form, concealing his drug abuse. Swept under the rug would be the part of the investigation that really matters: The gross monetization of Joe Biden’s political influence and what foreign adversaries like China believed they were buying.
Yup.
Under Justice Department policy, even with a plea agreement, the government is supposed to seek a plea to the “most serious,” readily provable “offense that is consistent with the nature and full extent of the defendant’s conduct.” Hunter Biden committed tax offenses that could have been charged as evasion, which is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment for each count. Furthermore, he made a false statement that enabled him to obtain a firearm; that’s a ten-year felony under legislation pushed through by then-senator Joe Biden to show how very serious Democrats are about gun crime.
Biden apologists have tried to minimize that transaction as a “lie and try” case, which they say is often not prosecuted. But such non-prosecution (though it shouldn’t happen) occurs because of what you’d infer from the “try” part — i.e., the liar got caught and failed to obtain the gun. Hunter’s case, to the contrary, is a lie and succeed case. He got the gun. What’s more, he was then seen playing with it while cavorting with an “escort” (see the New York Post’s pictorial, if you’ve got the stomach for it). Shortly afterwards, he and his then-paramour — Hallie Biden, the widow of his older brother — managed to lose the gun near a school (it was later found by someone else).
Those are the kinds of gun cases that get charged by the Justice Department even if the suspect hasn’t, in addition, committed tax felonies by dodging taxes on the millions of dollars he was paid, apparently for being named Biden. Yet after refusing for years to appoint a special counsel despite the five-alarm conflict of interest attendant to investigating the president’s son ( . . . and family . . . and the president himself), the Biden Justice Department is permitting Hunter Biden to dispose of the case with misdemeanor tax charges that will allow for a probation sentence, and diversion — essentially, no prosecution — on the gun felony that would result in imprisonment for most Americans who engaged in similar conduct.
Quite a deal.
Last week, Trump was flirting with 60 percent in GOP primary polling after being indicted, with a 45-point lead in some surveys. Democrats seem bound and determined to get him to 70.
Not seeing how that is responsive to the question presented in this moment.
Rather graceless. Enforcing the end of slavery was a fine achievement for America and its' leader in the effort, the Republican Party.
More endless pandering to the “We waz kangs/we waz slaves” narrative.
There is more slavery today than before the civil war, meanwhile those of us who actually work for a living have half our earnings confiscated at gunpoint by a illegitimate government to support the albatrosses around our necks.
https://twitter.com/RAZ0RFIST/status/1538843250215137281?lang=en
".Or maybe it’s just ice in Alaskan waters…"
that would be part of it .
the other part would be due to ice that was only there due to climate change
thus full circle
this whole thing is linked to climate change.
I forget in which thread we posted in the last few days about a Russki threat of this sort asserting justification because of the sabotage of Nord Stream 2 so this sounds like a warning shot across the bow to me:
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2023/06/20/northwest-alaska-hit-with-internet-and-cellphone-outages-caused-by-offshore-fiber-optic-cut/
Rather graceless. Enforcing the end of slavery was a fine achievement for America and its' leader in the effort, the Republican Party.
More endless pandering to the “We waz kangs/we waz slaves” narrative.
There is more slavery today than before the civil war, meanwhile those of us who actually work for a living have half our earnings confiscated at gunpoint by a illegitimate government to support the albatrosses around our necks.
"Which still would not answer Newsome's glib citation of GOP states with worse data."
"Those states former Californians move to?"
IIRC he cited Mississippi and other deep south states.
Rather graceless. Enforcing the end of slavery was a fine achievement for America and its' leader in the effort, the Republican Party.
if we vote in trump
we will not need to worry about ukraine
besides the fact this would not have happened if he was prez
he will fix it in an hour
but he would not say how since he does not want to reveal his dealmaking strategy ahead of time.........
just ask him.
Bullsh*t excuses. This is sciencism, not science.
This is what the arguments for the other side look like:
============
When (and how) do we debate vaccine science?
KATELYN JETELINA AND KRISTEN PANTHAGANI, MD, PHD
JUN 20
Over the weekend, a vaccine brawl took place. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.—presidential candidate and longtime spreader of old, tired vaccine rumors— had a conversation with Joe Rogan on his podcast. The conversation bled onto social media in which Rogan ultimately challenged Dr. Peter Hotez—a Nobel Prize-nominated vaccine scientist—to debate RFK Jr. about vaccine rumors that have already been addressed dozens of times.
Everyone chimed in: from Elon Musk amplifying the conversation to Mark Cuban calling Rogan a bully to stalkers confronting Hotez at his house and pressuring him to debate.
Through the noise, Hotez held his ground; he didn’t go for the bait. He’s not going to debate. But he did propose an alternative: he will go on Rogan’s show to talk about vaccines but without RFK Jr.
Hotez 100% made the right move.
This is why. (Brought to you from our experience in the trenches.)
The dilemma
There is no doubt that rumors and falsehoods on social media impact behavior. As a scientist, it’s really tempting to address them because we are deeply entrenched in the data. We can help, right?
But the toughest part of addressing these rumors is deciding when to actually do it. There are benefits but also great risks:
It can create a false sense of equivalence. When scientific experts debate those promoting fringe, demonstrably false views, it can create a false impression of a genuine scientific controversy where none exists, misleading the public.
Backfire effect. It’s very easy for these discussions to get heated, which can lead to psychological defense mechanisms being triggered, making it even more challenging for people to learn. People don’t think as logically when they’re angry or insulted.
It takes a lot of time. “A lie can go around the world before the truth gets its pants on.” Scientists’ time and energy are finite, and many scientists who address these rumors volunteer their free time to do so. Choosing which debates are worth the time is important.
May be personally dangerous. Presenting yourself to a hostile audience can become physically dangerous. A close scientist friend of YLE pushed against Rogan during the pandemic, and their family had to flee after the FBI picked up death threats.
Live debate rewards charm, not data
We understand why live debates are preferred by many—they are more accessible and more entertaining than the slow work of careful science.
While scientists are great professional arguers (in fact, debate is ingrained into the definition of science), scientific debate is not usually done in the same way as political debate between candidates vying for your vote or high school debate teams.
Instead, scientific debate is typically done in writing and focuses on very specific scientific questions. This allows for careful presentation of data and citation of sources. It can be slow and boring, but it is much more effective.
Live debates can easily be hijacked when arguers use logical fallacies and rhetorical tricks that give the appearance of “winning,” but in reality are a path to nowhere. Both of us have experienced being on the receiving end of these types of dead-end debates:
Moving the goalpost: As soon as one question is adequately answered with data, the goal post is moved and a new excuse is found why the answer is unsatisfactory. This is done ad nauseum so no amount of answers or data are ever deemed “enough.”
“Firehosing”: Throwing so many different rumors at the scientist all at once that it is impossible to address them all.
Unfalsifiable hypotheses: Assertions that are impossible to prove wrong, not because the assertions are correct but because they are untestable. No amount of inquiry will ever lead to an answer.
Rapid topic switching: When one claim is satisfactorily addressed, instead of acknowledging it and learning, a new topic is rapidly introduced.
Ad hominem attacks: Instead of discussing specifics of data and scientific claims, the scientist is attacked. (Calling them a pharma shill is a particularly common one.)
Misunderstanding standards of evidence: For a successful debate on science to occur, both parties must be in agreement about how much weight different types of evidence are given (anecdotes vs. observational trials vs. randomized-controlled trials, etc.). When one party holds an anecdote as more informative than a randomized-controlled trial, it’s very difficult to have a useful discussion.
“Debates” like these are often harmful. They don’t help people discover what’s true; they confuse and divide.
Some debates are worthwhile
How do you tell the difference?
One easy check: are participants willing to change their minds if a valid argument is presented? These folks are definitely worth the time to talk to. But if someone is repeating the same tired rumor, despite it having being studied and addressed over and over and repeatedly found to be without merit, chances are a debate with that person is not going to be particularly helpful.
Also, subject matter is important. Beyond vaccines, it’s important that the science is not politically and/or religiously polarized. One study found debating GMOs (something that hasn’t been linked to politics or religion) can change minds, for example, but a debate on evolution (which has been religiously linked) or climate change (which has been politicized) is much less effective.
Many people are genuinely seeking answers
Hundreds of thousands of people really wanted this vaccine debate. Why?
A combination of things: severe loss of trust, anger against pharma, anger against the pandemic, anger against scientists, tribalism, and some people truly have unanswered questions.
Legitimate concerns exist. In fact, the vast majority of people who have questions or doubts about vaccines don’t outright deny vaccines as beneficial. They are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.
The continuum of vaccine hesitancy. Credit: MacDonald and the WHO SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy.
Answering people with valid questions needs to be scientists’ priority. We need to meet them where they are, answer their questions from a place of empathy not condescension, equip trusted messengers, and anticipate concerns so we can prevent information voids that will otherwise be filled with false rumors.
The goal should always be to foster a society that values critical thinking, evidence-based reasoning, and the dissemination of accurate scientific information. In order to do this, scientists need to get our own house in order. We need to make science more accessible, entertaining, and more down to earth while still staying true to the standards of scientific integrity.
Bottom line
Hotez made the right call. “Debate me or you’re a coward” will not help move knowledge forward. And, typically, it will not help those in the middle whose concerns will still not be addressed. Deeply ingrained beliefs, hostile environment, and a lack of expertise makes it counterproductive and dangerous in the worst case scenario. Given our limited time and resources, we need to focus on where we can really makes a difference.
Love, YLE and KP
In case you missed it:
The science (and buisness) behind disinformation. And what to do about it.
COVID-19 vaccines and sudden death: Separating fact from fiction.
Kristen Panthagani, MD PhD, is an emergency medicine physician at Yale. In her free time, she is the creator of the medical blog You Can Know Things. You can subscribe to her newsletter here.
Which still would not answer Newsome's glib citation of GOP states with worse data.
Released by whom?
On what basis was it withheld?
