Jump to content

Cacti

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    291
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Cacti

  1. 3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    I'd hate to think that the principal purpose of the warrant was simply to secure sensitive documents, but I guess I can't quarrel with the legitimacy of it.

    Here’s my question: If the purpose of the warrant was not to indict but rather to just secure sensitive documents, wasn’t there another way to repossess the documents other than use the FBI?

    Specifically, is there any way that the warrant could have been enforced by another federal agency—one that just mentioning their name doesn’t automatically trigger so many people? Or perhaps it could have been enforced by state authorities, even though it originated on a federal level?

  2. 2 hours ago, Sbbruin said:

    Well, if life rudimentary life exists in inummerable places, and life evolves and mutates to gain reproductive advantages, then it would seem that it is almost inconceivable when we are talking about 10 to the 25th power number of planets that life hasn't evolved to the sapient level somewhere.  Seems far more likely that it has happened many, many times over.  And the way we are going, not sure we've really evolved to the sapient level. 

    Rudimentary life existing in innumerable places (that, of course, is unknown) doesn’t mean that evolution would take the same path as it did on Earth; that is, there’s no evidence to suggest that sapient-like intelligence is a goal of evolution, or even desirable for long-term survival.

    Stephen Hawking addressed this very issue:

    Quote

    We are used to thinking of intelligent life, as an inevitable consequence of evolution. But the Anthropic Principle should warn us to be wary of such arguments. It is more likely that evolution is a random process, with intelligence as only one of a large number of possible outcomes. It is not clear that intelligence has any long-term survival value. Bacteria, and other single cell organisms, will live on, if all other life on Earth is wiped out by our actions. There is support for the view that intelligence, was an unlikely development for life on Earth, from the chronology of evolution.

     

    • Hook 'Em 2
  3. 5 hours ago, Sbbruin said:

    There is zero point zero percent chance that life hasn't found a way many times over throughout the universe. 

    Here’s a dated, but still relevant link I posted several years ago in a similar thread. We just don’t have enough information to put a probability on whether sapient life does or doesn’t exist elsewhere.

    Quote

    An astrophysicist says extraterrestrial civilizations “almost certainly” existed at one time or another. Here’s what’s wrong with his argument.

     

  4. 17 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    Congress enacting a law does nothing to protect anyone from Congress revoking it or making a different law. 

    That’s true, but as we’ve just seen, SCOTUS can also revoke previous interpretations.

    I’d rather take my chances with elected representative, who, to some extent can be influenced, as opposed to appointed decision makers who answer to no one.  

  5. 1 hour ago, B00M said:

    I think it's outrageous bullshit that the SCOTUS left this up to the states...

    What’s outrageous is that for nearly fifty years Congress has failed to codify R v W. By failing to do so, our elected officials have shown an amazing lack of conviction and courage. Instead of making law on behalf of the American people, they chose to ‘punt’ that burden to SCOTUS.

    Blame SCOTUS if you will, but the real villain here is the cowards of Congress failing to codify a decision with which a majority of Americans agreed.

  6. 4 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

    europe is as stable as usual.

    Europe, generally speaking, is stable but I still wouldn’t feel comfortable living in Eastern Europe, especially in those countries that share a border with Russia. And IMO, Western Europe (especially NATO) stability is very much dependent on America’s military largesse and economic assistance via our status as the top importer of EU goods. If, as some believe, America will soon cease to exist as a democracy, then I wouldn’t bet on Europe remaining stable for any length of time.

    On a semi-related note, you would think it would be stressful living next door to a hyper-aggressive Russia, but evidently the Finns don’t stress out about it, as evidenced by the fact that they are continually ranked the highest in Gallup’s World Happiness Report.

    The reason I bring Finland in this discussion is because despite the fact that Finland has to contend with a dangerous and unpredictable Russia; and despite the fact that the Finns continually have to prepare to defend their country against a real threat, they seem to manage the stress pretty well.  Better than we do, anyway. The danger to their democracy is genuine, whereas some of the so-called threats to our democracy are purely imaginary.  

    Tl;dr. The Finns are better at chilling out than we are.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
  7. 2 hours ago, elfenix said:

    if they are selling it either below cost or below what it could be sold at on the world market it is an explicit subsidy.

    So in the case of gasoline, are they saying that oil companies are selling to the public at below cost, or that it could be sold on the world market at a higher price, or both?

    I don’t think either scenario is true, but even if it were, where does the direct government subsidy enter the picture?

    • Hook 'Em 1
  8. 13 hours ago, elfenix said:

     

    this is the entire fossil fuels industry so includes coal and they use the term explicit rather than direct but the figure is ~$500 billion per year

    https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies

    Thanks for the link, but I don’t feel better informed (re: direct subsidies) after reading the article. Maybe I don’t understand their methodology, so let’s simplify and use gasoline as an example.

    Are they claiming that the final price at the pump doesn’t reflect the true cost to the consumer, that the true cost should include a direct/explicit government subsidy which the oil companies receive?

    • Hook 'Em 1
  9. 3 hours ago, sidis said:

    anyone that actually believes that joe biden being the president as opposed to anyone else being president is driving the change in oil and gas commodity prices is utterly ignorant of how the O&G markets work.

    I haven't read the whole thread, so I wasn't aware someone made that claim.

    Although this is a Joe Biden thread, my remarks weren’t specifically directed at current leadership; rather, they were more or less directed to your remarks:

    Quote

    are there really people who can find their way to this site that are actually dumb enough to believe that the market dynamics governing oil and gas economics are actually driven by u.s. political leadership?

    Of course, any rational American leader would have embargoed Russian energy—and encouraged our allies to follow suit—but it definitely was a political decision. It seems to me that you are trying to make a distinction between “just being the face of the nation…who engages in international relations (such as imposing bans on russian imports or negotiating with saudi arabia )” and policy decisions, when there is none. Banning Russian hydrocarbons is a policy, as is making the attempt to mend fences with S.A. in order to increase production. And both will have an effect on prices.

    To be sure, the embargo isn’t the only reason for the increase in global oil and gas prices, that’s why I said, “not exclusively driven.”

    BTW, why did you say “if your position is that we should not attempt to severely punish Russia,” when I clearly said “I completely agree with this (embargo policy)? Were you talking to someone else?

  10. 2 hours ago, sidis said:

    are there really people who can find their way to this site that are actually dumb enough to believe that the market dynamics governing oil and gas economics are actually driven by u.s. political leadership?

    Not exclusively driven, but our leadership’s policies undoubtedly have an effect on the oil and gas markets. For an example, you have to look no further than our decision to ban Russian oil, and encouraging our allies to do the same, thus creating an artificial oil shortage and driving the price up (btw, I completely agree with this policy).

    We are the world’s largest oil producer and, as such, our domestic policies, whether to encourage or hinder oil production, certainly have international implications.

  11. 4 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

    every poll shows that fewer and fewer people say religion is important to them and they don’t even identify with any faith

    If you’re limiting your statement to Western societies, you’re right. But if you’re talking worldwide, then you’re wrong, at least according to this Pew Research Center poll.

    Quote

    …the religiously unaffiliated population is projected to shrink as a percentage of the global population, even though it will increase in absolute number. In 2010, censuses and surveys indicate, there were about 1.1 billion atheists, agnostics and people who do not identify with any particular religion. By 2050, the unaffiliated population is expected to exceed 1.2 billion. But, as a share of all the people in the world, those with no religious affiliation are projected to decline from 16% in 2010 to 13% by the middle of this century.

     

  12. 1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

    Wait, maybe I wish for mexicans to be as riled up as angry white people are, so one shoots up a store where YOU shop.  Maybe it's the day your family is there.  Maybe it isn't.  Who knows?  But I know one thing -- as you cry over their shattered bodies, I'll just mock you the same way you mock us.  Again, I won't do anything that you aren't doing right here, right now.  I hope you enjoy it.

    Damn @Brisketexan…such vitriol. Didn’t you get a time-out awhile back for posting something similarly over the top?

    • Haha 1
    • Fuck You 1
  13. Quote

    Ukraine could soon receive advanced ship-killing missiles with a 400-kilometre range that would prove a “game-changer” for the battle to control the Black Sea, military analysts have told The National. Link

    Israel agreed to Estonia's request to equip Ukraine with the Blue Spear (5G SSM) land-to-sea missile system, Ukrainian journalist Rostyslav Demchuk reported on Friday. Link

     

     

    • Hook 'Em 3
  14. Quote

    The University of Texas at Austin is launching a bold and unprecedented 10-year strategic plan — called Change Starts Here

    9 hours ago, deadshank said:

    First fix the shitty football program

    ^^^ Agree. Personally, I prefer Alabama’s one-bullet-point strategic plan, which is: We’re Going To Beat Your Ass.

  15. Not only did Greene and Massie show their ass by voting against the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act, yesterday they also voted—along with six other Republicans—against the Asset Seizure for Ukraine Reconstruction Act, a mostly symbolic bill.

    Not to be outdone by the extremists on the right, four members of ‘The Squad’ (Bush, AOC, Omar, and Tlaib) also voted against the act.

    Any explanation as to why four super-liberal members of Congress (particularly these four) would vote against seizing assets from sanctioned Russian oligarchs to be used to support Ukraine?

  16. 2 hours ago, StassneyHorn said:

    Sad to see a Republican take credit for Joes hard work...

    Give credit where credit is due. Because of Joe’s hard work in crafting and implementing his energy policies, Texas’ oil and gas industry is once again healthy and hiring additional workers. Thanks, Joe!

  17. 6 hours ago, SKJ said:

    It has been said that the underlying reasoning that Scalia used was --and I'm not making this up-- a secret paper from the federalist papers that he had acquired...

    You may not be “making this up”, but “it has been said” is a flimsy foundation from which to form an opinion. Do you have sources (other than hearsay) referencing this secret paper?

  18. 31 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

    How humiliating that you have to plead with Belarus, Syria, and Libya to send troops to finish a job that you are too inept, and chickenshit to accomplish yourselves.

    As long as mercenaries are in play, I’ve heard that there are a few guys in Afghanistan that are tenacious as hell; have experience in kicking Russian ass; and just might be available to help the Ukrainians—for the right price, of course.🙂

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Haha 1
  19. On 3/12/2022 at 10:09 AM, LTbear said:

    Long story short, I'd love to hear honest pros and cons of having kids

    Pro:

    Every woman of child-bearing years has to birth at least 2.1 children in order for the population to replace itself. The current U.S. rate is 1.7.

    So, if you claim to be a patriotic American, then you and your wife will take one for Team America and have at least three children.

    Unprotected sex tonight would be a good start, but future repetition is key.

    • Haha 1
  20. 26 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

    Good discussion, everyone.

    Yes, it is good, but it was better (one of the best in years) until the hard-core CR crowd showed up. Guess they couldn’t help themselves.

    • Hook 'Em 1
×
×
  • Create New...