Would bashing China solve all the problems of the United States

[SUZNV + 1,197]

18 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

Yes, it counts. It might even be the final say in the matter. But what issue did they decide? That, in principle, the DOJ should be allowed to drop a case. Not exactly the exoneration you've been arguing for, is it. 

 

And you haven't been arguing at all but putting sources that said :"Flynn pleaded guilty" and that's all matter or "request to drop the case" is an abuse of power or expert's opinion. I don't think I has been arguing with you at all.

Edited June 24, 2020 by SUZNV

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

42 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

TikTok kids and K-pop stans made Donald look like this. 

 

Yes good for them...it is time for the resistance to be dealt with...New presidential executive order....Antifa sentencing guide lines....notice no choke hold allowed.

 

Edited June 24, 2020 by Eyes Wide Open

[BradleyPNW + 282]

26 minutes ago, SUZNV said:

And you haven't been arguing at all but putting sources that said :"Flynn pleaded guilty" and that's all matter or "request to drop the case" is an abuse of power or expert's opinion. I don't think I has been arguing with you at all.

Maybe the 2-1 decision stands. But if a D.C. Circuit judge asks the full Court of Appeals to vote (11 judges) and they decide to overturn the 2-1 decision are you going to come back here and accept that fact? 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

8 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Yes good for them...it is time for the resistance to be dealt with...New presidential executive order....Antifa sentencing guide lines....notice no choke hold allowed.

 

Is that in Texas? Because it looks like Texas might be joining Antifa. I bet you'll still love Donald even if he manages to flip Texas blue. But as Howard Stern explained, Donald will never love you. 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/texas/

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

On 6/2/2020 at 6:00 AM, frankfurter said:

your country is burning, and not because of China.

 +/-10 buildings were set on fire, hardly equates to "your country is burning". People riot in the kingdom of the CCP thousands of times a year, you guys just cover it up like the virus. The US has always shown it's flaws for the world to see, the founders of the country wanted it to be that way 

[SUZNV + 1,197]

2 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

Maybe the 2-1 decision stands. But if a D.C. Circuit judge asks the full Court of Appeals to vote (11 judges) and they decide to overturn the 2-1 decision are you going to come back here and accept that fact? 

Should we argue over your hypothesis now? Why not 3-0? Anyway do you accept what is known until today yet? Because you seem believe in failing attempts more than the system itself.

To answer your question, any of us didn't accept Flynn case before the declassified document? We didn't have enough information back then. Sullivan's ill performance was not two bad and three-judge panel fixed his problem. But if eleven-judge panel reverse again, after the declassification .and no new evidence appears, I will start worrying and lose faith in the system, but not currently.  It is common for politicians to throw dirt to each other but not common for US judges to make these kind of decision.

I am not a believer of the "guilty until proven innocent". Are you?

Edited June 24, 2020 by SUZNV

[BradleyPNW + 282]

46 minutes ago, SUZNV said:

Should we argue over your hypothesis now? Why not 3-0? Anyway do you accept what is known until today yet? Because you seem believe in failing attempts more than the system itself.

To answer your question, any of us didn't accept Flynn case before the declassified document? We didn't have enough information back then. Sullivan's ill performance was not two bad and three-judge panel fixed his problem. But if eleven-judge panel reverse again, after the declassification .and no new evidence appears, I will start worrying and lose faith in the system, but not currently.  It is common for politicians to throw dirt to each other but not common for US judges to make these kind of decision.

I am not a believer of the "guilty until proven innocent". Are you?

Wait, I accepted the 2-1 decision above, however, you will "lose faith in the system" if the majority of 11 judges contradict your preconceived belief? I think I'll give you a chance to clarify that position because if you let it remain in that form it undermines your credibility. 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

6 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

Is that in Texas? Because it looks like Texas might be joining Antifa. I bet you'll still love Donald even if he manages to flip Texas blue. But as Howard Stern explained, Donald will never love you. 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/texas/

Tic Toc Tic Toc....ohh how deep does it go...It would seem Obama and Biden directed things in new ways...Tic Toc Tic Toc.....wIll Nadler impeach Barr in time....

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/strzok-comey-obama-biden-flynn-case

https://www.libertyheadlines.com/strzok-notes-obama-biden-flynn/

 

Edited June 25, 2020 by Eyes Wide Open

[SUZNV + 1,197]

4 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

Wait, I accepted the 2-1 decision above, however, you will "lose faith in the system" if the majority of 11 judges contradict your preconceived belief? I think I'll give you a chance to clarify that position because if you let it remain in that form it undermines your credibility. 

No, because there still be no evidence no matter how many judges voted for it. I don't take"guilty until  proven innocent" as an answer. I never think any system is perfect anyway but will be a new low in my onion, which granted by the constitution. 

And what is the point of accepting the result if you still think you were right anyway? Just mean you are not going to protest?  I can just say the same thing. It just like say sorry or thank you without really mean it. What is the credibilityin these behaviors? Maybe it's better to say straight what I think or say nothing can save some credibility than pretending with empty words.

Edited June 25, 2020 by SUZNV

[BradleyPNW + 282]

3 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Tic Toc Tic Toc....ohh how deep does it go...It would seem Obama and Biden directed things in new ways...Tic Toc Tic Toc.....wIll Nadler impeach Barr in time....

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/strzok-comey-obama-biden-flynn-case

https://www.libertyheadlines.com/strzok-notes-obama-biden-flynn/

 

That's some weird stuff there. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

58 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

That's some weird stuff there. 

It would be even weirder if you, you know, clicked on the link 

Quote

However, Strzok’s notes seem to suggest that he masterminded the plan, raising the possibility of a Logan Act violation even though the 1799 law preventing civilians from conducting state affairs had never been used in a successful prosecution.

Peter Strzok / IMAGE: CBS News

Strzok and his FBI accomplice, Joe Pientka, went on to interview Flynn three days later with the Logan Act serving as cover to interrogate Flynn about the intercepted phone conversations. The aim, however, was getting him to issue a misstatement that they could use to press perjury charges.

Government malfeasance plain and simple, but you want Flynn to rot in prison on a trumped up technicality? Because your TDS is that severe? Because you're incapable of rational thought? I'm really curious what makes you tick. It can't all be drugs, can it? 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

2 hours ago, SUZNV said:

No, because there still be no evidence no matter how many judges voted for it. I don't take"guilty until  proven innocent" as an answer. I never think any system is perfect anyway but will be a new low in my onion, which granted by the constitution. 

And what is the point of accepting the result if you still think you were right anyway? Just mean you are not going to protest?  I can just say the same thing. It just like say sorry or thank you without really mean it. What is the credibilityin these behaviors? Maybe it's better to say straight what I think or say nothing can save some credibility than pretending with empty words.

Oh, so this statement of yours was made in bad faith:
 

Quote

Is this counted? Or "friend of the court" is more important.

You thought the 2-1 decision should matter to me but if there is a decision by the full 11 judge bench that overturns that decision then it wouldn't matter to you. 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

13 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

It would be even weirder if you, you know, clicked on the link 

Government malfeasance plain and simple, but you want Flynn to rot in prison on a trumped up technicality? Because your TDS is that severe? Because you're incapable of rational thought? I'm really curious what makes you tick. It can't all be drugs, can it? 

TikTok Tiktok. Our glorious hero Donald is going to blow the cover off the Demonrat's coup attempt and you have TDS. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

[Marcin2 + 724]

On 6/22/2020 at 6:10 PM, ralfy said:

 

The world middle class is set to to rise to almost 5 billion in ten years. The amount of resources and energy needed to meet its demand will be more than what's available.

Energy productivity is offset by energy consumption. That's because in capitalist economies investments in productivity are made in exchange for increasing consumption of what is produced. Otherwise, there is no point in investing in productivity!

The total amount of energy currently being used is 20 TW. In order to meet just basic needs of the current population, we will need 50 TW. IN order to meet basic needs of a growing population, we will need at least 75 TW. To meet middle class conveniences, six times our current consumption.

My income calculation comes from the World Bank.

Where did you find 50 TW or 75 TW of future primary energy consumption ? Honest question , if it is your approximation Please tell how you arrived at this number.

I think some people may need explanation.

20 TW is a sort of mind shortcut. As Watt is a unit of power. By stating 20 TW we assume that human population consumes 20 TW of energy on average during the whole year.

It would be better to say that we use about 600 EJ exajoules of energy 600 10E18.

Whem we divide 600 10E18 joules by number of Seconds in a year that is about 30 10E6 we arrive at 20 10E12 Watts so 20 TW

Edited June 25, 2020 by Marcin2
Typo

[Marcin2 + 724]

I think we would peak below 50TW.

Current average consumption in developed , industrialized countries is about 150 GJ per capita.

The outliers that are 1. very heavily industralized like SK with 240 GJ, or are 2. energy abundant / large countries / never even Heard about energy conservation like US, Russia, Middle East oil rich, Australia etc with 200-400 GJ range.

So currently we have 8 billion people times 75 GJ equals 600 EJ.

In the happy future when everybody is rich it would be 10 billion people times 150 GJ so 1500 EJ = 50 TW.

Without a lot of coal and a lot of nuclear this is impossible.

Edited June 25, 2020 by Marcin2
Typo

[JoMack + 547]

On 5/30/2020 at 2:09 PM, Ward Smith said:

unmasking isn't illegal, but lying to Congress is. So when Obama claims he didn't know anything about this he probably is lying, but no proof. Biden also claimed he didn't know, when the unmasking was revealed we see that he lied. He'd been counting on the unmasking record staying hidden. 

Flynn is innocent, do try and keep up. A Federal Judge is about to lose his post if he doesn't vacate the invalid plea. 

Sullivan really needs anti-psychotic meds.  He needs to take those marbles he has left and retire.

[SUZNV + 1,197]

7 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

Oh, so this statement of yours was made in bad faith:
 

You thought the 2-1 decision should matter to me but if there is a decision by the full 11 judge bench that overturns that decision then it wouldn't matter to you. 

1 You accepted but still think you were right. I don't care what you think but what is the point of saying :"I accepted" emptily? You have no power to do anything anyway except voting or protesting and I am not expecting anything from you. You have the freedom of thought like mine. What is the difference between "accepted and still have faith but I were right" vs "lose faith and I were right"? You and me are not relevant in this context. Don't make thing personal. 

2 The first overturn has new element which is the declassified documents so It is acceptable, no matter of the outcome, the hypothesis 11 judge bench may have no new declassified documents but it overturns 3 panel judge decision, meaning that the first 3 outcome were not fair or 11 outcome will not be fair given the same input. How is anyone expected to have good faith in a flip flop  system same input but 2 possible outcomes because of the increase in CPU numbers from 3 to 11? 

Yet you cannot see the differences in that and expect me "I accepted the decision but I were right (which imply I disagree with the decision. It was not right but I still have faith in its fairness)" like you did? You are contradicting yourself if I interpret your words correctly.

Edited June 25, 2020 by SUZNV

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

2 hours ago, SUZNV said:

1 You accepted but still think you were right. I don't care what you think but what is the point of saying :"I accepted" emptily? You have no power to do anything anyway except voting or protesting and I am not expecting anything from you. You have the freedom of thought like mine. What is the difference between "accepted and still have faith but I were right" vs "lose faith and I were right"? You and me are not relevant in this context. Don't make thing personal. 

2 The first overturn has new element which is the declassified documents so It is acceptable, no matter of the outcome, the hypothesis 11 judge bench may have no new declassified documents but it overturns 3 panel judge decision, meaning that the first 3 outcome were not fair or 11 outcome will not be fair given the same input. How is anyone expected to have good faith in a flip flop  system same input but 2 possible outcomes because of the increase in CPU numbers from 3 to 11? 

Yet you cannot see the differences in that and expect me "I accepted the decision but I were right (which imply I disagree with the decision. It was not right but I still have faith in its fairness)" like you did? You are contradicting yourself if I interpret your words correctly.

You're trying to use logic and reason with an illogical, unreasonable interlocutor. 

I laid all this out for him months ago. Do you think any of that sank in? He discards facts like his philosophically aligned Antifa(ct) brethren discard history, and for the same reason. Factual history is inconvenient to his imaginary narrative. So they tear down Lincoln statues, because racism. Idiots all. 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

5 hours ago, SUZNV said:

1 You accepted but still think you were right. I don't care what you think but what is the point of saying :"I accepted" emptily? You have no power to do anything anyway except voting or protesting and I am not expecting anything from you. You have the freedom of thought like mine. What is the difference between "accepted and still have faith but I were right" vs "lose faith and I were right"? You and me are not relevant in this context. Don't make thing personal. 

2 The first overturn has new element which is the declassified documents so It is acceptable, no matter of the outcome, the hypothesis 11 judge bench may have no new declassified documents but it overturns 3 panel judge decision, meaning that the first 3 outcome were not fair or 11 outcome will not be fair given the same input. How is anyone expected to have good faith in a flip flop  system same input but 2 possible outcomes because of the increase in CPU numbers from 3 to 11? 

Yet you cannot see the differences in that and expect me "I accepted the decision but I were right (which imply I disagree with the decision. It was not right but I still have faith in its fairness)" like you did? You are contradicting yourself if I interpret your words correctly.

You chose to lean on the 2-1 decision to claim the amicus curiae was irrelevant and it blew up in your face. Take the L, man. 

Why would I accept the 2-1 decision yet still think Flynn is guilty of lying to the FBI? Because the 2-1 decision dealt with a question that had no bearing on Flynn's innocence or guilt in the matter of lying to the FBI. You, however, think the decision was more than it was. And because you think the decision was a proclamation of Flynn's innocence your confirmation bias kicked into overload and cornered you into an indefensible position. The correct response would have been: "Yes, I'll accept the majority opinion of the full 11 judge bench, because the issue they're deciding has no bearing on the guilt of innocence of Flynn." I tossed a slow pitch softball to see what you would do and you whiffed it. 

 

[SUZNV + 1,197]

3 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

 And because you think the decision was a proclamation of Flynn's innocence your confirmation bias kicked into overload and cornered you into an indefensible position. 

 

You put your words in my mouth and counter it

I did not say Flynn lie  to FBI or not. I said there was no evidence and until now the 3 panel judges voted with the score 2-1 in my flavor to drop the case as the consequence of lack of evidence. Evidence is all about drop the case or not. No evidence or drop the case mean Flynn was not proven guilty even if he committed it, legally innocent. Why "they're deciding has no bearing on the guilt of innocence of Flynn"?

What do you think of the meaning of this decision? Simply too costly to follow and drop the case to save tax payers and Flynn's money? And the "hypothesis " full courts appeal is because Sullivan thinks he loses nothing for appeal to  full D.C. Circuit Court roster and Flynn will lose more money. The worst case scenario is simply dropping the case. Is that a judge's job?

"Yes, I'll accept the majority opinion of the full 11 judge bench, because the issue they're deciding has no bearing on the guilt of innocence of Flynn." 

If this what you want of my answer, off course I accept the opinion of anyone, include the full 11 judge bench. Do I have full mark now?  What does it have anything to do with my credibility if  I may lose my faith in them?  

It is funny that you think  "I am cornered and indefensible" while from my view you are running around telling me I was cornered  and defenseless. You gonna shoot me with your opinions or  your imaginations? Do you expect me to shout:"Stop shooting me, it hurts"? or "I surrender"? 

Edited June 25, 2020 by SUZNV

[BradleyPNW + 282]

19 hours ago, SUZNV said:

You put your words in my mouth and counter it

I did not say Flynn lie  to FBI or not. I said there was no evidence and until now the 3 panel judges voted with the score 2-1 in my flavor to drop the case as the consequence of lack of evidence. Evidence is all about drop the case or not. No evidence or drop the case mean Flynn was not proven guilty even if he committed it, legally innocent. Why "they're deciding has no bearing on the guilt of innocence of Flynn"?

What do you think of the meaning of this decision? Simply too costly to follow and drop the case to save tax payers and Flynn's money? And the "hypothesis " full courts appeal is because Sullivan thinks he loses nothing for appeal to  full D.C. Circuit Court roster and Flynn will lose more money. The worst case scenario is simply dropping the case. Is that a judge's job?

"Yes, I'll accept the majority opinion of the full 11 judge bench, because the issue they're deciding has no bearing on the guilt of innocence of Flynn." 

If this what you want of my answer, off course I accept the opinion of anyone, include the full 11 judge bench. Do I have full mark now?  What does it have anything to do with my credibility if  I may lose my faith in them?  

It is funny that you think  "I am cornered and indefensible" while from my view you are running around telling me I was cornered  and defenseless. You gonna shoot me with your opinions or  your imaginations? Do you expect me to shout:"Stop shooting me, it hurts"? or "I surrender"? 

The 2-1 decision regarded DOJ authority to pursue or drop charges. It didn't have anything to do with Flynn's guilt, innocence, or a lack of evidence. The DOJ is the entity that claimed there was insufficient evidence to win their case. The amicus curiae said the DOJ had abused their power by making that claim, which you would have know if you had read it. 

You lost credibility because you 1) refused to read the amicus curiae to understand the issues at hand, and 2) said you would start worrying and "lose your faith" in the system if the full 11 judge bench overturned the 2-1 decision, a decision that regards an extremely uncommon circumstance that affects almost no one. Clearly, your thinking is guided entirely by your confirmation bias. You have no idea what you're talking about yet you're entirely confident you're right. Damn man, I tossed you a slow pitch softball, gave you a second chance to take another swing, and you still whiffed.