Are you unironically using MSNBC as a source of information?Originally Posted by sugilite
Oh dear, rats are starting to leave the sinking ship - and in the most bizarre way
.
Are you unironically using MSNBC as a source of information?Oh dear, rats are starting to leave the sinking ship - and in the most bizarre way
Kiwibiker
I try to use fox when I can
Kiwibiker
Speaking of which...I try to use fox when I can
Judge dismisses Trump lawsuit over New York tax returns
.
I get most of my analysis from this guy. Seriously.
L-Plate Rider
Not bad
I like the comments under the second part to that vid.
"Get out and vote. The left, and their dead certainly will be"
"2 things I know for sure.
1. Trump will be re elected.
2. Epstein didn't kill himself"
L-Plate Rider
.
This reminds me of old KB. Just needs someone resorting to death threat in allcaps
L-Plate Rider
Huzatwerk will be off his ban in a couple of weeks.....This reminds me of old KB. Just needs someone resorting to death threat in allcaps
The Majestic Metal Wizard
Not at all, If anything - going Bankrupt and then working back up shows his Entrepreneurial mettle.
Point is, Bankruptcies or not, it's a fair statement to say he's been more successful at Business than anyone here.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
L-Plate Rider
I heard a comedy routine by Dave Chappelle that went along the lines of the Democrats are out here arguing over who's the most communist.... meanwhile Donald is over here grabbing ALL the pussy!!!
Even his hardcore lefty audience laughed their asses off at that one.
Funny thing is I cant find it now.... Those lefty tech companies are really quite impressive at suppressing anything remotely positive to the Don.
Geriatric hoon
Ari Melber is more reliable than a lot of what is posted here.
There is a grey blur, and a green blur. I try to stay on the grey one. - Joey Dunlop
Geriatric hoon
Under the current regime to avoid penalty it is recommended that we don’t use a more offensive insult than “egg”.This reminds me of old KB. Just needs someone resorting to death threat in allcaps
There is a grey blur, and a green blur. I try to stay on the grey one. - Joey Dunlop
Kiwibiker
Calling Mr demon lord, I'm curious to see what you make of this?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...416.html%3famp
The Majestic Metal Wizard
I feel like I've read 3 separate articles:
The Headline.
What the new EPA policy is.
What the Interpretation by Advocacy groups is.
First point to make is that any statement made by an interest group must be treated with healthy skepticism. This applies to all Interest groups, including the ones I'm a part of. I've got my agenda and it's almost always about making things better for me, in reference to what I believe.
Next we have to discuss that certain scientific fields have suffered from a large Ideological tilt. Climate is the obvious one, the Medical field to a lesser degree. Some 'research' is being done to purely to prove a political end, than it is to answer questions about the world as we know it.
An example that stuck in my mind was a published scientific article claiming that Abattoir workers had high levels of PTSD, what was interesting was the large amount of Marxist theory stated, referenced and cited in the article that was used to backup certain claims. Now, it's not secret that I'm not a fan of Marxism - that said, the historical record of anytime Marxist doctrines have been implemented should be enough to automatically refute any article that references them.
And yet, the Article was published. Now, to be really fair, we have to consider the above article, that maybe the constant killing of Animals does take some form of toll on a person and maybe there are those that cannot handle it.
The problem is, when the Author of a paper has a clear a priori political agenda that they are seeking only to validate, we aren't doing proper science.
This also applies to various 'studies' that are funded by Lobby groups etc. so I don't want to make out that this critique is only in one direction, it's not.
Back to the EPA - it seems that they want to have full transparency of any study used for Policy making. The spirit of this (assuming good faith) is to allow independent bodies full access to all data (including patient data) to verify any and all claims.
This seems to be a good idea in part, since if everything is out in the open, it can be checked.
Now, the info in the article on the Policy from the EPA doesn't specify to what degree Raw Data needs to be presented - certainly if my Full Name, D.o.B, Address and Medical history was made publicly available, I'd be more than a little upset - as would anyone else.
However, if it was anonymous data, then I don't see a problem with it.
I do have some concerns over the retroactive nature of the Policy, as I'm not a fan of retrospective changes.
Last comment is to do with the Article itself - and the Advocacy group comments - The anti-Trump bias is clear. If the Headline said 'New rules require increased Transparency for Policy making' - there'd be no furor, no uproar etc. but we don't see that, they are taking the worst possible, uncharitable view, the Headline barely matches what the changes are.
To Sum up: If we take the new policy on Good Faith, then it has a kernel of a good idea. There needs to be clarification as to what degree of transparency they are after (there may be in the full policy, but CBF). This rule would apply equally to both sets of Lobby/Advocacy groups doing 'science' on both sides of the issue - which seems to me to be a good thing as if proper science is done, then the truth will out. If we are using Truth to determine Policy, ultimately we should get better policy.
So that's my take on it.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Geriatric hoon
This is not a first.
When Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin he really didn't do much with it. When WW2 was looking imminent though the Brits decided penicillin would be a good thing to have in industrial quanities, but who to turn to that would have the facilities and the expertise to do the work? Ultimately it was decided that the best people in the world to undertake the task would be the scientists at the US Dept of Agriculture.
Scientists and samples crossed the Atlantic and the staff at the USDA figured out how to churn the stuff out by the 44 gallon drum.
Trump has gutted the US Dept of Agriculture.
One option might be a rambling dissertation - or you could just understand that the ignorant fucker does not like science.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...me-scientists/
There is a grey blur, and a green blur. I try to stay on the grey one. - Joey Dunlop
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks