Political Roundtable Part XXII

[Ruzious]

I'm sorry but this entire accusation is a joke. Other than this, the left cant lay a single glove on him. If he had any kind of credible pattern of behavior like this then I would take it serious. And I dont even like kavanaugh. I'm a social liberal. Very liberal in fact. I prefer strict constitutionalist on the bench as well as civil libertarians.

Since you've done nothing but spew hate for "liberals" lately, it's become clear you hate yourself.

Take a number and get in line brah.

[montestewart]

Soviet-state sponsored science = Lysenko, prove science wrong mafia, all state sponsored science = Lysenko 508 Mafia \*!4effa!*/

I speak 3 languages. I think you hope you speak my language 1/2 as good as I do your owns. You are being juvenile for deflection. My child uses this when I say no to toys. This is a science talk not deflect politics. Below is fact, it is on IPCC constitution. Read if u know truth.

IPCC, if country does not say yes to CC (climate change) impose sanction. There is no complain or debate, only say yes. When say yes country (if poor) force into 100 year debt. Country also require to teach all children as reality.

They say a country which science do not agree are “free ride” off true science. So economic sanctions by UN. Theybhold baby food, baby milk and other thing from Belarus. Say our media sanctioned as we try to debate.

It is mafia. For our loan of 100 million we pay 500 million in interest to IPCC bank. This is so we do not “free ride”. But our economy and poor are real casulalty.

Sorry, I won't bother to debate your facts, because your conclusions are frequently only tenuously connected to these facts.

I speak one language. I don't care how many languages you speak. Sorry if you missed a very rarefied joke. I have enjoyed your contributions of late. Much more concretism.

How's that for a deflection?

[GhostofChenier]

Perhaps you can read a well researched story by respected uk news? It is why poor country are tricked my WMF and IPCC into deep poverty by Climate Loan Shark. Bangladesh also refuses loan from IPCC but also has sanction until accepted.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jun/30/bangladesh-climate-change-loans

This is not science. This is forced profit by a declare “non-binding” agreement enforce by threatingin.

Bangladesh was forced 500 million loan, Belarus only 100 million. Both high %, accept or economic sanction. Either equal same result.

[dckingsfan]

I'm sorry but this entire accusation is a joke. Other than this, the left cant lay a single glove on him. If he had any kind of credible pattern of behavior like this then I would take it serious. And I dont even like kavanaugh. I'm a social liberal. Very liberal in fact. I prefer strict constitutionalist on the bench as well as civil libertarians.

Since you've done nothing but spew hate for "liberals" lately, it's become clear you hate yourself.

Take a number and get in line brah.

Other than that Ms. Lincoln, how was the play?

[Pointgod]

Soviet-state sponsored science = Lysenko, prove science wrong mafia, all state sponsored science = Lysenko 508 Mafia \*!4effa!*/

I speak 3 languages. I think you hope you speak my language 1/2 as good as I do your owns. You are being juvenile for deflection. My child uses this when I say no to toys. This is a science talk not deflect politics. Below is fact, it is on IPCC constitution. Read if u know truth.

IPCC, if country does not say yes to CC (climate change) impose sanction. There is no complain or debate, only say yes. When say yes country (if poor) force into 100 year debt. Country also require to teach all children as reality.

They say a country which science do not agree are “free ride” off true science. So economic sanctions by UN. Theybhold baby food, baby milk and other thing from Belarus. Say our media sanctioned as we try to debate.

It is mafia. For our loan of 100 million we pay 500 million in interest to IPCC bank. This is so we do not “free ride”. But our economy and poor are real casulalty.

The world central banks have been bullying nation states with these type of tactics for centuries.

I’m sorry to hear of this. I’m quite certain that this is Obama’s administration gangstering “democracy “ around the globe. Liberals are out of their damn minds!


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

The Rapist in Chief Trump has made banks a lot of money. banks love Trump. You're completely full of it.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[GhostofChenier]

PointGod why is Trump answer for everything you disagree? Pleas help to explain.

This is statement to avoid debate. You do not contrivute to anything here I see. Why not debat instead of avoid.

You only insult with no target

[pancakes3]

Perhaps you can read a well researched story by respected uk news? It is why poor country are tricked my WMF and IPCC into deep poverty by Climate Loan Shark. Bangladesh also refuses loan from IPCC but also has sanction until accepted.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jun/30/bangladesh-climate-change-loans

This is not science. This is forced profit by a declare “non-binding” agreement enforce by threatingin.

Bangladesh was forced 500 million loan, Belarus only 100 million. Both high %, accept or economic sanction. Either equal same result.

you'll notice that the article criticizes the banking practices, not the science of climate change.

if that is the point you're trying to make, i think many on this board will sympathize. however, thus far, your position has been that climate change is a hoax enacted so that banks can engage in these lending practices and that is not the same argument.

[pancakes3]

Reminder that SD is not uniquely loathesome.

Read on Twitter

[montestewart]

Perhaps you can read a well researched story by respected uk news? It is why poor country are tricked my WMF and IPCC into deep poverty by Climate Loan Shark. Bangladesh also refuses loan from IPCC but also has sanction until accepted.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jun/30/bangladesh-climate-change-loans

This is not science. This is forced profit by a declare “non-binding” agreement enforce by threatingin.

Bangladesh was forced 500 million loan, Belarus only 100 million. Both high %, accept or economic sanction. Either equal same result.

you'll notice that the article criticizes the banking practices, not the science of climate change.

if that is the point you're trying to make, i think many on this board will sympathize. however, thus far, your position has been that climate change is a hoax enacted so that banks can engage in these lending practices and that is not the same argument.

Was writing something similar on my phone, but lost the post.

Don't agree with your conclusion GoC, and don't agree that the article supports your conclusion, because it doesn't. I do appreciate that you're trying to bring a point of view for discussion, and maybe we shouldn't be so quick to conflate GoC with STD. Similar positions, sure, but GoC is making some attempt at back and forth. I'm changing my tack for a minute.

[GhostofChenier]

Perhaps you can read a well researched story by respected uk news? It is why poor country are tricked my WMF and IPCC into deep poverty by Climate Loan Shark. Bangladesh also refuses loan from IPCC but also has sanction until accepted.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jun/30/bangladesh-climate-change-loans

This is not science. This is forced profit by a declare “non-binding” agreement enforce by threatingin.

Bangladesh was forced 500 million loan, Belarus only 100 million. Both high %, accept or economic sanction. Either equal same result.

you'll notice that the article criticizes the banking practices, not the science of climate change.

if that is the point you're trying to make, i think many on this board will sympathize. however, thus far, your position has been that climate change is a hoax enacted so that banks can engage in these lending practices and that is not the same argument.

I have say at least 10 time cc is *exaggerates* not hoax. Exaggerate is symptom of grant/research/loan system built around a scientific “fact” which is very basic.

Climate changes, carbon has impact. But reaction inflated. While industry now for a simple fact, but more fear more donate for grant and more power for IPCC to force loan on all nation.

Yes excess carbon has impact any person knows this. But level of impact is unclear and timing. Reaction inflated not for science purpose, but many others (finance politic) snowball down hill too late to stop. Too many industry rely on “you cannot dispute fact” statements. This is not science. Science always reevaluate, retest.

This is business.

[dobrojim]

This isn't a criminal case. This is a confirmation for a SCOTUS seat. The burden of proof is not "to convict."

Apparently it actually is still possible for it to become a criminal case.
There is no statute of limitations in MD for this offense. All it would take
is for the victim to file a complaint in Mont County for local authorities
to have to do an investigation. Kavanaugh could be confirmed onto SCOTUS
and then face an indictment.

[Pointgod]

Perhaps you can read a well researched story by respected uk news? It is why poor country are tricked my WMF and IPCC into deep poverty by Climate Loan Shark. Bangladesh also refuses loan from IPCC but also has sanction until accepted.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jun/30/bangladesh-climate-change-loans

This is not science. This is forced profit by a declare “non-binding” agreement enforce by threatingin.

Bangladesh was forced 500 million loan, Belarus only 100 million. Both high %, accept or economic sanction. Either equal same result.

you'll notice that the article criticizes the banking practices, not the science of climate change.

if that is the point you're trying to make, i think many on this board will sympathize. however, thus far, your position has been that climate change is a hoax enacted so that banks can engage in these lending practices and that is not the same argument.

I have say at least 10 time cc is *exaggerates* not hoax. Exaggerate is symptom of grant/research/loan system built around a scientific “fact” which is very basic.

Climate changes, carbon has impact. But reaction inflated. While industry now for a simple fact, but more fear more donate for grant and more power for IPCC to force loan on all nation.

Yes excess carbon has impact any person knows this. But level of impact is unclear and timing. Reaction inflated not for science purpose, but many others (finance politic) snowball down hill too late to stop. Too many industry rely on “you cannot dispute fact” statements. This is not science. Science always reevaluate, retest.

This is business.

Climate change is not exaggerated in fact it's probably understated. There are record high temperatures and extreme weather events occurring with more regularity. The time to address climate change is now not when things start to get extreme.

As for the article it doesn't support your claim that it's exaggerated. The author is trying to argue that developing economies should be allowed to pollute because more developed economies pollute more. No it doesn't work like that. All loans come with conditions and while I have criticisms of the world bank addressing climate change should absolutely be a condition of accepting the loan. It's not either or. Developed countries should be reducing their CO2 emissions even more than developing nations but at the same time developing nations should grow in a way that keeps these emissions in check.

You still haven't answered what the better options to reducing CO2 emissions is other than do nothing. What are some alternative mechanisms?

[queridiculo]

Reminder that SD is not uniquely loathesome.

Read on Twitter

Wow.

I refuse to believe that this represents how female republican voters view this issue, absolutely abhorrent.

Shocked, by now I figured I've heard and seen everything, but this takes it up yet another notch.

Their responses on the assumption that this is true

[Pointgod]

Reminder that SD is not uniquely loathesome.

Read on Twitter

"Economic anxiety"

[gtn130]

I'm sorry but this entire accusation is a joke. Other than this, the left cant lay a single glove on him. If he had any kind of credible pattern of behavior like this then I would take it serious. And I dont even like kavanaugh. I'm a social liberal. Very liberal in fact. I prefer strict constitutionalist on the bench as well as civil libertarians.

Since you've done nothing but spew hate for "liberals" lately, it's become clear you hate yourself.

Take a number and get in line brah.

SD20 is claiming to be a social liberal who staunchly supports Kavanaugh, the guy who is going to lead the repeal of Roe v Wade

[verbal8]

This isn't a criminal case. This is a confirmation for a SCOTUS seat. The burden of proof is not "to convict."

Apparently it actually is still possible for it to become a criminal case.
There is no statute of limitations in MD for this offense. All it would take
is for the victim to file a complaint in Mont County for local authorities
to have to do an investigation. Kavanaugh could be confirmed onto SCOTUS
and then face an indictment.

If I hadn't seen the Republicans give up any pretense of caring about morality in the last 2 years, I would be shocked that Kavanaugh seems to be the "hill they are willing to die on".

Even with the moral aspect thrown out the window, I don't get the strategy behind "ram Kavanaugh through to confirmation".

The credibility of Kavanaugh's denial seems to get weaker every day.

There best case scenario is they get him on the court in October. If he gets on the court without the allegation being resolved(which would happen meeting that time frame), they have given up control of the situation.

There is a real chance that a couple weeks later he is indicted. I can't imagine any worse optic for the Republicans. Some of the attacks on Dr. Ford have been quite reprehensible. I think there is a real possibility of defamation suits.

This isn't even the only issue. Another thing will happen in October - the archives will be done with their review of his records. That release can provide a lot of fuel for House investigations next year, which could lead to Kavanaugh being impeached for lying in his confirmation hearing.

[Pointgod]

PointGod why is Trump answer for everything you disagree? Pleas help to explain.

This is statement to avoid debate. You do not contrivute to anything here I see. Why not debat instead of avoid.

You only insult with no target

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here.

[Jamaaliver]

It's happening. Rising costs will continue to devalue any wage gains. If US had concern about China stealing intellectual property, then we should have stayed in TPP.

Walmart says new batch of Trump tariffs could force price hikes on bikes and Xmas lights

Walmart has warned the Trump administration that its latest batch of proposed tariffs could make it more expensive for U.S. households to buy items ranging from cribs to Christmas lights.

The world's largest retailer delivered the message in a letter dated Sept. 6 to the office of the U.S. Trade Representative. In it, Walmart joined other industry players in sounding an alarm that American shoppers will suffer the most if another batch of levies is imposed on goods and parts bought from China.

"Should the tariffs go into effect, Walmart customers will face cost increases for essential items like car seats, cribs, backpacks, hats, pet products and bicycles,'' the retailer said. And there will be a domino effect. "Either consumers will pay more, suppliers will receive less, retail margins will be lower, or consumers will buy fewer products or forego purchases altogether."

The administration, which has been steadily imposing tariffs on China because it says the Asian nation has stolen intellectual property, is now proposing another set of levies ranging from 10 percent to 25% on items that range from detergent to luggage to vegetables.

USA Today