Huh, same time frame as the big opioid crisis 15-20 years ago where doctors were handing it out like candy
US Elections (& Politics) :)
- Thread starter sdkid
- Start date
I keep repeating the above sentence to myself, trying to understand how amazingly stupid, extremely moronic and chronically brain-dead a person would have to be take that stand in light of the evidence.
I think I understand. To most liberals and too many conservatives, WHAT somebody does or says is not the issue. All that counts is WHO did or said something. For them, anything Trump says or does is bad, it doesn't matter a bit what it is. Conversely, whatever the lying cheating liberal leaders do or say, it's good. Doesn't matter a bit what it is.
George/Behizy has more to say about Michigan
rumble.com
Election Fraud Investigation Goes Nationwide | TGS
The George Show is the goofiest & most exciting political show on the planet. Hosted by none other than Blacker Carlson ONE NATION UNDER GOD shirt https://BuyBehizy.com/products/one-nation-under-god-s
rumble.com
bigredfish
Known around here
What the January 6 Committee Did With the Evidence Undercuts a Huge Dem Narrative
What the January 6 Committee Did With the Evidence Undercuts a Huge Dem Narrative
What happened on January 6 shook liberal America to its core. Legions of commentators, elected officials, and some scholars took the airwaves to declare the event worse than the 9/11 attacks—some compared it to Pearl Harbor. The hyperbole was pervasive, which led to congressional Democrats establishing a select committee to investigate the riot. It was a political circus that wasted taxpayer dollars, finding no incriminating evidence against Donald Trump. It also blithely ignored video evidence that shredded its narrative about how this was an American rendition of the ‘storming of the Bastille.’
If this was such a dark and destructive event in our history, why did the now-defunct committee destroy the evidence? No, I’m not kidding. If this were a trial case, the judge would have no option but to dismiss it because everything appears to have been sent into the furnace. Nothing was preserved, a requirement upon the committee’s dissolution. One key piece of evidence that’s been lost: the communications the committee had with the Biden White House
What the January 6 Committee Did With the Evidence Undercuts a Huge Dem Narrative
What happened on January 6 shook liberal America to its core. Legions of commentators, elected officials, and some scholars took the airwaves to declare the event worse than the 9/11 attacks—some compared it to Pearl Harbor. The hyperbole was pervasive, which led to congressional Democrats establishing a select committee to investigate the riot. It was a political circus that wasted taxpayer dollars, finding no incriminating evidence against Donald Trump. It also blithely ignored video evidence that shredded its narrative about how this was an American rendition of the ‘storming of the Bastille.’
If this was such a dark and destructive event in our history, why did the now-defunct committee destroy the evidence? No, I’m not kidding. If this were a trial case, the judge would have no option but to dismiss it because everything appears to have been sent into the furnace. Nothing was preserved, a requirement upon the committee’s dissolution. One key piece of evidence that’s been lost: the communications the committee had with the Biden White House
Parley
Known around here
Two Princeton, MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based on a ‘Hoax’
Physicist, meteorologist testify that the climate agenda is ‘disastrous’ for America
Two prominent climate scientists have taken on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new rules to cut CO2 emissions in electricity generation, arguing in testimony that the regulations “will be disastrous for the country, for no scientifically justifiable reason.”
Citing extensive data to support their case, William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), argued that the claims used by the EPA to justify the new regulations are not based on scientific facts but rather political opinions and speculative models that have consistently proven to be wrong.
“The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule,” Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen stated. “None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule.”
“All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data,” they stated. “The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”
Climate models like the ones that the EPA is using have been consistently wrong for decades in predicting actual outcomes, Mr. Happer told The Epoch Times. He presented the table below to the EPA to illustrate his point.
[/URL]
“That was already an embarrassment in the ‘90s, when I was director of energy research in the U.S. Department of Energy,” he said. “I was funding a lot of this work, and I knew very well then that the models were overpredicting the warming by a huge amount.”
He and his colleague argued that the EPA has grossly overstated the harm from CO2 emissions while ignoring the benefits of CO2 to life on Earth.
Many who have fought against EPA climate regulations have done so by arguing what is called the “major questions doctrine,” that the EPA does not have the authority to invent regulations that have such an enormous impact on Americans without clear direction from Congress. Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen, however, have taken a different tack, arguing that the EPA regulations fail the “State Farm” test because they are “arbitrary and capricious.”
“Time and again, courts have applied ‘State Farm’s’ principles to invalidate agency rules where the agency failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, or cherry-picked data to support a pre-ordained conclusion,” they stated. The case they referred to is the 2003 case of State Farm v. Campell (pdf), in which the Supreme Court argued that “a State can have no legitimate interest in deliberately making the law so arbitrary that citizens will be unable to avoid punishment based solely upon bias or whim.”
According to Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen’s testimony, “600 million years of CO2 and temperature data contradict the theory that high levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming.”
Two Princeton, MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based on a ‘Hoax’ | The Epoch Times
Physicist, meteorologist testify that the climate agenda is ‘disastrous’ for America
Two prominent climate scientists have taken on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new rules to cut CO2 emissions in electricity generation, arguing in testimony that the regulations “will be disastrous for the country, for no scientifically justifiable reason.”
Citing extensive data to support their case, William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), argued that the claims used by the EPA to justify the new regulations are not based on scientific facts but rather political opinions and speculative models that have consistently proven to be wrong.
“The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule,” Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen stated. “None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule.”
“All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data,” they stated. “The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”
Climate models like the ones that the EPA is using have been consistently wrong for decades in predicting actual outcomes, Mr. Happer told The Epoch Times. He presented the table below to the EPA to illustrate his point.
[/URL]
“That was already an embarrassment in the ‘90s, when I was director of energy research in the U.S. Department of Energy,” he said. “I was funding a lot of this work, and I knew very well then that the models were overpredicting the warming by a huge amount.”
He and his colleague argued that the EPA has grossly overstated the harm from CO2 emissions while ignoring the benefits of CO2 to life on Earth.
Many who have fought against EPA climate regulations have done so by arguing what is called the “major questions doctrine,” that the EPA does not have the authority to invent regulations that have such an enormous impact on Americans without clear direction from Congress. Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen, however, have taken a different tack, arguing that the EPA regulations fail the “State Farm” test because they are “arbitrary and capricious.”
“Time and again, courts have applied ‘State Farm’s’ principles to invalidate agency rules where the agency failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, or cherry-picked data to support a pre-ordained conclusion,” they stated. The case they referred to is the 2003 case of State Farm v. Campell (pdf), in which the Supreme Court argued that “a State can have no legitimate interest in deliberately making the law so arbitrary that citizens will be unable to avoid punishment based solely upon bias or whim.”
According to Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen’s testimony, “600 million years of CO2 and temperature data contradict the theory that high levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming.”
Two Princeton, MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based on a ‘Hoax’ | The Epoch Times
Oceanslider
Known around here
YouTube Reverses Course After Throttling Ben Shapiro’s Video Uncovering Corporations Behind Censorship
YouTube Reverses Course After Throttling Ben Shapiro’s Video Uncovering Corporations Behind Censorship | The Daily Wire
*advertisement ends at 5:37
Last edited:
bigredfish
Known around here
Oceanslider
Known around here
Oceanslider
Known around here
Oceanslider
Known around here
Has this been posted already? Funny, that could stir up conversation with liberal friends.
Tis absolutely hilarious that someone would come here and spout MSM B.S. with cherry picked data
to support the Religious views of the poor Democrat party and their blindness !
I believe everyone should spout their views no matter the validity.
to support the Religious views of the poor Democrat party and their blindness !
I believe everyone should spout their views no matter the validity.
I agree!
But what's REALLY ironic is that the Dems are the party that is trying their best to eliminate free speech.....even "offensive" speech...heck, ANY kind of speech that they don't approve of!
The current situation we see today is likened to the movie "Beneath the Planet of the Apes"
where they worship the "God of Forces".
After all of the prophecies Christ told, the last admonition was to watch out for all of the
decay and LIES we will be told.
where they worship the "God of Forces".
After all of the prophecies Christ told, the last admonition was to watch out for all of the
decay and LIES we will be told.
Called out in 2017 and more of the pot calling the kettle black in 2020. Looks like anybody can become a fact checker without qualifications if you read the founders background, other than the Van Zandt version. Appears to be rezzer's qualifications too.I'm not sure that bag is big enough for this thread, too many links from zerohedge
ZeroHedge - Bias and Credibility
CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence.mediabiasfactcheck.com
The website is registered in Bulgaria under the name Georgi Georgiev, a business partner of Krassimir Ivandjiiski.
Bias Rating: RIGHT CONSPIRACY/PSEUDOSCIENCE
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: Bulgaria
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
Parley
Known around here
Chicago Group Asks Gang Members Not to Shoot People Between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
Native Sons, a group from Chicago’s Rogers Park neighborhood, is asking that gang members pledge to cease fire from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. daily so no one lives in fear of being shot while going about their day-to-day activities.
The push for the cease-fire is being called “The People’s Ordinance,” CWBChicago reported.
Native Sons’ co-founder, Tatiana Atkins, said:
Chicago Group Asks Gang Members for Ceasefire 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Daily (breitbart.com)
My comment: So, shooting someone between 9:00PM and 9:00AM is okay in a Democrat run city.
Native Sons, a group from Chicago’s Rogers Park neighborhood, is asking that gang members pledge to cease fire from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. daily so no one lives in fear of being shot while going about their day-to-day activities.
The push for the cease-fire is being called “The People’s Ordinance,” CWBChicago reported.
Native Sons’ co-founder, Tatiana Atkins, said:
Chicago Group Asks Gang Members for Ceasefire 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Daily (breitbart.com)
My comment: So, shooting someone between 9:00PM and 9:00AM is okay in a Democrat run city.
Oceanslider
Known around here
bigredfish
Known around here
Judge In Trump J6 Trial Worked At Law Firm that Repped Russia Hoax’s Fusion GPS, Tied To Hillary's Emails
Judge In Trump J6 Trial Worked At Law Firm that Repped Russia Hoax’s Fusion GPS, Tied To Hillary's Emails | ZeroHedge
The J6 free speech trial won’t be the first time Chutkan has been entangled by court conflicts stemming from her legal workings with outfits targeting Trump.
Chutkan was forced to recuse herself from the bench when she was overseeing Fusion GPS’s attempt to block former congressman Devin Nunes and Kash Patel from outing the source of payments that funded the infamous Steele dossier.
“Fusion GPS, the DNC, and the Hillary Clinton campaign paid Christopher Steele millions of dollars and they laundered it through the FBI and the FISA court to unlawfully surveil Donald Trump. That’s big-time stuff,” Patel, who served in the Trump administration, noted during an interview with America First’s Sebastian Gorka.
After months of litigation before Chutkan, when it became apparent that Nunes and Patel would be successful, “she recused -on her own- from that case. Why?” Patel asked rhetorically.
“We found out her law firm, Boies Schiller, represented Fusion GPS,” Patel answered. “The very client that was in front of her in federal court was one of her former clients. That is rule #1 for disqualification.”
It also sets a sterling precedent for Chutkan’s removal from the Trump J6 trial, Patel said.
“She set the precedent. She cannot neutrally and arbitrarily preside over Donald Trump’s criminal trial when she recused herself from the very representation of the Democratic entrenchment: the DNC, the Hillary Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS, because she was so biased because of her prior representation from Boies Schiller,” he argued.
Judge In Trump J6 Trial Worked At Law Firm that Repped Russia Hoax’s Fusion GPS, Tied To Hillary's Emails | ZeroHedge
The J6 free speech trial won’t be the first time Chutkan has been entangled by court conflicts stemming from her legal workings with outfits targeting Trump.
Chutkan was forced to recuse herself from the bench when she was overseeing Fusion GPS’s attempt to block former congressman Devin Nunes and Kash Patel from outing the source of payments that funded the infamous Steele dossier.
“Fusion GPS, the DNC, and the Hillary Clinton campaign paid Christopher Steele millions of dollars and they laundered it through the FBI and the FISA court to unlawfully surveil Donald Trump. That’s big-time stuff,” Patel, who served in the Trump administration, noted during an interview with America First’s Sebastian Gorka.
After months of litigation before Chutkan, when it became apparent that Nunes and Patel would be successful, “she recused -on her own- from that case. Why?” Patel asked rhetorically.
“We found out her law firm, Boies Schiller, represented Fusion GPS,” Patel answered. “The very client that was in front of her in federal court was one of her former clients. That is rule #1 for disqualification.”
It also sets a sterling precedent for Chutkan’s removal from the Trump J6 trial, Patel said.
“She set the precedent. She cannot neutrally and arbitrarily preside over Donald Trump’s criminal trial when she recused herself from the very representation of the Democratic entrenchment: the DNC, the Hillary Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS, because she was so biased because of her prior representation from Boies Schiller,” he argued.
Parley
Known around here
IMHO she has no business being a judge. Her bias runs thick.