So everyone in the media is wrong and completely made up a quote. First you blamed the "liberal media" then I posted an article by RedState.
/quote>
I frankly don't care who wrote the article, I care about getting the information right. Just because there are also far right authors out there that also misrepresent what he said doesn't really matter to me. The fact that dupes just accept their interpretation is central to my point, and you are a shining example of how well it works.
Context makes a huge difference. I'm surprised even you didn't know that. If I am asked what ideas I have to suggest if a finger gets severe gangrene, and I say "you could amputate", then it gets reported as 'Mr. D thinks finger amputations are a good idea', then its clearly taken out of context. In this case, you are proving to be the dupe that repeats 'Mr. D thinks finger amputations are a good idea'.
But, if you really, honestly don't understand how context matters when dealing with quotes, then I think we should just end this, because I've not got the time to explain it to someone who clearly doesn't want to understand nor care.
Yup, its a big grand conspiracy against this guy. All organized and coordinated between different authorities on short notice.
And, when breaking the law, it's OK if you had good intentions. That should always be a legitimate excuse. "I gave that money I stole to the poor, officer".
The context I need is the words he actually spoke, not your third party interpretation from a liberally biased source. It appears you decline to present the actual quote. It also appears you are happy to go on repeating those out of context representations of what he said with willful ignorance.
I have searched and read his exact words, at no point does he say he would print money and/or default. In fact, the ONLY thing he says he might do in that regard is buy back debt if the conditions were right.
Its your choice. Find his exact words in context, or proceed with willful ignorance.
It is the law, and you can't just ignore it. I'm not sure how you could change the law to accommodate such "good intentions" hacking. That would give just about any hacker an excuse. Best get permission first, in writing.
You are not repeating what Trump said actually he would do. You are repeating what a liberal news article wanted you to think he said by taking separate sentences and some words out of context. You don't care that you go it wrong, clearly, so you are an easy target for those news writers.
If you disagree, then please in quotes, state Trump's entire statements on the matter in his exact words. Not a few worlds at a time pulled out of context. And also learn the difference between 'could' and 'will'. You seem to have trouble with that.
Before jumping to the fact checks based on the present accounting method to determine the official unemployment figures, did you read more about the context by which Trump defined what he described as the unemployment rate? Honestly, tell me if you did, or if you simply are gong off that one singled out statement.
So what do you think happens when you print money to pay off debt?
Who cares? Trump didn't say he would do that. He said you could avoid default if you did that, but never said he'd do it. But you are so glad to think the liberal reporter found a 'gotcha' on Trump, you still won't read the words he actually spoke and decide for yourself. I assume that you'll never admit you were misled by the article, and if you somehow do admit it, you would forgive and still trust that source in the future.
So I just read the article, and nowhere in there does he say he would buy the debt AND default. He did say it would be good to buy back debt at a discount if the situation allowed. So he is telling the truth. You got fooled by the liberal press, thanks for proving my point.
It's also clear to anyone with any objectivity that conservative ideas have their own billionaire-funded media outlets to promote and distribute right wing propaganda as news. I totally understand any group that wants to screen out the right wing noise machine. You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.
While you're at it explain how Rush Limbaugh has been able to stay on the air for so long with nothing but music playing during commercial breaks.
Sounds like you've been getting all your information from the hard left biased 'news' sources, or maybe liberal funded talk radio speakers. Who give a flying F where Limbaugh gets his paycheck. everyone knows that he's a conservative. Do liberals activists getting funded by liberal backers offend you as much? Frankly, I could care less about either, I don't listen to either and don't lay awake at night fretting about either. If your answer to FB censorship is that Rush has conservative supporters, well all I can say is "good for you" because there is no logical way to tie the point.
It's not censorship. Facebook is not restricting freedom of speech nor are they preventing anyone, anywhere from publishing content of any type in any manner of their choosing.
Facebook provides a service.
If that is your position, then surely you'd at least expect them to clearly state the filtering policy, right? Isn't it somewhat unethical in your mind to act like they are simply presenting results on some objective basis? People don't expect the bias, so its deceptive. A simple disclaimer "we promote liberal content and suppress conservative content". That would be good, right?
^Well said. I understand the apprehension many have with Trump, but I don't understand how there is not even more apprehension with Clinton. The biggest thing most folks don't understand about Trump is that he is always negotiating. He's doing it through his statements. He's establishing positions then getting the reaction and adjusting so he can affect outcomes much later down the road. The press is completely ignorant of that, although I've heard a few smart reporters talk about it. But a huge percentage of reporters don't have a the slightest clue that is what he is doing, because they have no clue how things get done.
So when he says "Mexico will pay for the wall", that's his starting position for negotiating. Its a smart play if he can do it and still win. But it leaves a lot of questions about just what he'll do when he gets there.
p>Just this week he has gone from repudiating the debt to inflating it away.
Did you conclude that yourself from listening to him, and the context of his words? It sounds more like you are repeating an interpretation of his words from some very recent news articles. What you'll find out about Trump is that he's not one who thinks there is only one way to solve a problem or move forward. That bugs far right conservatives, and it gives fodder to liberals.
It does go both ways. But it certainly has tilted toward liberal control in the greater media outlets. At least most of us know the leanings of the major papers and can apply the right skepticism. I fear our younger generations haven't quite figured it out yet. I supposed I was that way in my youth as well.
Yeah, this isn't some grand revelation. It clear to anyone with any objectivity that conservative ideas get obscured, hidden, or simply misrepresented on a daily basis by a lot more outlets than just FB. That is part of the reason why Trump is actually more popular than many would have thought, because it is hard to twist and obscure his words, and even harder to completely hide them.
I never said there were no issues. But I will say they are all manageable.
I believe nuclear power is part of the global energy solution for a number of reasons. First of all, its proven to work, and proven to be economical. I also support it because I understand it, my opinions are based on knowing what it is, and realistic perception of the risks, rather than fear and hyperbole from the anti-nuke ignorant. In practically every anti-nuke rant I've ever seen there were significant errors, misconceptions, or flat out lies. I don't have the same hugely overblown fears of radioactivity that you carry, so its easier for me to accept the risks. Where there have been issues with nuclear power in the past, we have fully understood them and applied lessons going forward. The track record for PWR reactors is stellar. New nuclear designs are even better and safer.. Is nuclear right everywhere, no. But its been great for the United States.
That a tsunami would render Fukushima incapable of operating safely is no surprise. Any nuclear safety engineer could tell you exactly what would happen if that plant were suddenly deluged. It should never have been placed where it could be suddenly deluged. Don' t place where it can be deluged and that problem is completely resolved. Chernobyl didn't have a containment and had purposely defeated safety measures. Those problems are easily solved, and those designs will no longer be constructed.
I am also able to characterize nuclear energy risks in terms of other risk we face in the world. Its clear you have decided that the only risk you will accept from nuclear is absolute zero. This position is one you've arbitrarily place on nuclear because of your perceptions. You likely don't apply that absolution principal to much or anything else where there is a risk/reward balance, you do apply it to nuclear power because it is clear that you carry fears driven by years of FUD being thrown at you. So anything that described the management of nuclear risk in practical terms will not even be considered by you, so there is little point in answering your leading questions.
For instance, that Indian Point may have been discussed as a terrorist target is enough for you to absolutely assume it is likely to happen and likely to result in some major catastrophe. However, you cannot explain just how that could happen in any kind of informed manner. You use terms like 'LOCA Attack" which anyone with any knowledge of nuclear power and security measures simply would laugh and shake their head. Its a big red flag that says "I don't know what I'm talking about!", but you think because you can link to some wiki quotes that you have insight.
You have zero clue as to what a successful terrorist attack on a domestic nuclear plant would entail nor the likelihood of its success, nor the outcome even if they did damage the plant significantly.
Meanwhile, you are probably not telling people to stay away from bananas to avoid ingesting toxic radioactive substances. None of my response matters, as you will be happy to read the nuclear world through a FUD obscured lens through which you have been viewing the world for however many years. You are likely at this point not capable of letting your mind process the information objectively. So, I am wasting my time writing all this.
I'm not sure the statistics presented (the chance of an obese person attaining normal body weight is 1 in 210 for men and 1 in 124 for women) are put in context. What are the statistics for obese people that actually attempt to attain normal body weight? How many lose significant weight but don't make it to 'normal' range? It may not be as futile as those numbers presented would have you believe.
Holy crap. You are all over the map, but still didn't show one reference to a 'LOCA Attack". You did define each term separately. Congratulations for that.
The need for storage is a myth brought up by the anti renewables mafia.
You'll have a hard time backing that up. Its a statement solely from you, not backed up by any facts. There renewable industry themselves acknowledge the need for storage, even they don't try to sell us such hogwash. I'll keep this as a reference for anytime I want to show others just how out of tune you are with reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Crap.. Quote should have ended after first line. My apologies.
So everyone in the media is wrong and completely made up a quote. First you blamed the "liberal media" then I posted an article by RedState.
/quote> I frankly don't care who wrote the article, I care about getting the information right. Just because there are also far right authors out there that also misrepresent what he said doesn't really matter to me. The fact that dupes just accept their interpretation is central to my point, and you are a shining example of how well it works.
Context makes a huge difference. I'm surprised even you didn't know that. If I am asked what ideas I have to suggest if a finger gets severe gangrene, and I say "you could amputate", then it gets reported as 'Mr. D thinks finger amputations are a good idea', then its clearly taken out of context. In this case, you are proving to be the dupe that repeats 'Mr. D thinks finger amputations are a good idea'.
But, if you really, honestly don't understand how context matters when dealing with quotes, then I think we should just end this, because I've not got the time to explain it to someone who clearly doesn't want to understand nor care.
Yup, its a big grand conspiracy against this guy. All organized and coordinated between different authorities on short notice.
And, when breaking the law, it's OK if you had good intentions. That should always be a legitimate excuse. "I gave that money I stole to the poor, officer".
How willfully ignorant can you be? There is no quote in that article at all. This proves my point, and its sad how easy a dupe so many people are.
The context I need is the words he actually spoke, not your third party interpretation from a liberally biased source. It appears you decline to present the actual quote. It also appears you are happy to go on repeating those out of context representations of what he said with willful ignorance.
I have searched and read his exact words, at no point does he say he would print money and/or default. In fact, the ONLY thing he says he might do in that regard is buy back debt if the conditions were right.
Its your choice. Find his exact words in context, or proceed with willful ignorance.
Does it make sense to you that he'd schedule a video demonstration of how to hack the system if he hadn't already done it?
It is the law, and you can't just ignore it. I'm not sure how you could change the law to accommodate such "good intentions" hacking. That would give just about any hacker an excuse. Best get permission first, in writing.
On second thought, it will be interesting to see the number of dupes posting here who believe the headline.
That was my first thought. Why does the submitter feel the need to tell a lie in the headline?
You are not repeating what Trump said actually he would do. You are repeating what a liberal news article wanted you to think he said by taking separate sentences and some words out of context. You don't care that you go it wrong, clearly, so you are an easy target for those news writers.
If you disagree, then please in quotes, state Trump's entire statements on the matter in his exact words. Not a few worlds at a time pulled out of context. And also learn the difference between 'could' and 'will'. You seem to have trouble with that.
Before jumping to the fact checks based on the present accounting method to determine the official unemployment figures, did you read more about the context by which Trump defined what he described as the unemployment rate? Honestly, tell me if you did, or if you simply are gong off that one singled out statement.
So what do you think happens when you print money to pay off debt?
Who cares? Trump didn't say he would do that. He said you could avoid default if you did that, but never said he'd do it. But you are so glad to think the liberal reporter found a 'gotcha' on Trump, you still won't read the words he actually spoke and decide for yourself. I assume that you'll never admit you were misled by the article, and if you somehow do admit it, you would forgive and still trust that source in the future.
So I just read the article, and nowhere in there does he say he would buy the debt AND default. He did say it would be good to buy back debt at a discount if the situation allowed. So he is telling the truth. You got fooled by the liberal press, thanks for proving my point.
It's also clear to anyone with any objectivity that conservative ideas have their own billionaire-funded media outlets to promote and distribute right wing propaganda as news. I totally understand any group that wants to screen out the right wing noise machine. You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.
While you're at it explain how Rush Limbaugh has been able to stay on the air for so long with nothing but music playing during commercial breaks.
Sounds like you've been getting all your information from the hard left biased 'news' sources, or maybe liberal funded talk radio speakers. Who give a flying F where Limbaugh gets his paycheck. everyone knows that he's a conservative. Do liberals activists getting funded by liberal backers offend you as much? Frankly, I could care less about either, I don't listen to either and don't lay awake at night fretting about either. If your answer to FB censorship is that Rush has conservative supporters, well all I can say is "good for you" because there is no logical way to tie the point.
It's not censorship. Facebook is not restricting freedom of speech nor are they preventing anyone, anywhere from publishing content of any type in any manner of their choosing.
Facebook provides a service.
If that is your position, then surely you'd at least expect them to clearly state the filtering policy, right? Isn't it somewhat unethical in your mind to act like they are simply presenting results on some objective basis? People don't expect the bias, so its deceptive. A simple disclaimer "we promote liberal content and suppress conservative content". That would be good, right?
^Well said. I understand the apprehension many have with Trump, but I don't understand how there is not even more apprehension with Clinton. The biggest thing most folks don't understand about Trump is that he is always negotiating. He's doing it through his statements. He's establishing positions then getting the reaction and adjusting so he can affect outcomes much later down the road. The press is completely ignorant of that, although I've heard a few smart reporters talk about it. But a huge percentage of reporters don't have a the slightest clue that is what he is doing, because they have no clue how things get done.
So when he says "Mexico will pay for the wall", that's his starting position for negotiating. Its a smart play if he can do it and still win. But it leaves a lot of questions about just what he'll do when he gets there.
p>Just this week he has gone from repudiating the debt to inflating it away.
Did you conclude that yourself from listening to him, and the context of his words? It sounds more like you are repeating an interpretation of his words from some very recent news articles. What you'll find out about Trump is that he's not one who thinks there is only one way to solve a problem or move forward. That bugs far right conservatives, and it gives fodder to liberals.
It does go both ways. But it certainly has tilted toward liberal control in the greater media outlets. At least most of us know the leanings of the major papers and can apply the right skepticism. I fear our younger generations haven't quite figured it out yet. I supposed I was that way in my youth as well.
Yeah, this isn't some grand revelation. It clear to anyone with any objectivity that conservative ideas get obscured, hidden, or simply misrepresented on a daily basis by a lot more outlets than just FB. That is part of the reason why Trump is actually more popular than many would have thought, because it is hard to twist and obscure his words, and even harder to completely hide them.
I never said there were no issues. But I will say they are all manageable.
I believe nuclear power is part of the global energy solution for a number of reasons. First of all, its proven to work, and proven to be economical. I also support it because I understand it, my opinions are based on knowing what it is, and realistic perception of the risks, rather than fear and hyperbole from the anti-nuke ignorant. In practically every anti-nuke rant I've ever seen there were significant errors, misconceptions, or flat out lies. I don't have the same hugely overblown fears of radioactivity that you carry, so its easier for me to accept the risks. Where there have been issues with nuclear power in the past, we have fully understood them and applied lessons going forward. The track record for PWR reactors is stellar. New nuclear designs are even better and safer.. Is nuclear right everywhere, no. But its been great for the United States.
That a tsunami would render Fukushima incapable of operating safely is no surprise. Any nuclear safety engineer could tell you exactly what would happen if that plant were suddenly deluged. It should never have been placed where it could be suddenly deluged. Don' t place where it can be deluged and that problem is completely resolved. Chernobyl didn't have a containment and had purposely defeated safety measures. Those problems are easily solved, and those designs will no longer be constructed.
I am also able to characterize nuclear energy risks in terms of other risk we face in the world. Its clear you have decided that the only risk you will accept from nuclear is absolute zero. This position is one you've arbitrarily place on nuclear because of your perceptions. You likely don't apply that absolution principal to much or anything else where there is a risk/reward balance, you do apply it to nuclear power because it is clear that you carry fears driven by years of FUD being thrown at you. So anything that described the management of nuclear risk in practical terms will not even be considered by you, so there is little point in answering your leading questions.
For instance, that Indian Point may have been discussed as a terrorist target is enough for you to absolutely assume it is likely to happen and likely to result in some major catastrophe. However, you cannot explain just how that could happen in any kind of informed manner. You use terms like 'LOCA Attack" which anyone with any knowledge of nuclear power and security measures simply would laugh and shake their head. Its a big red flag that says "I don't know what I'm talking about!", but you think because you can link to some wiki quotes that you have insight.
You have zero clue as to what a successful terrorist attack on a domestic nuclear plant would entail nor the likelihood of its success, nor the outcome even if they did damage the plant significantly.
Meanwhile, you are probably not telling people to stay away from bananas to avoid ingesting toxic radioactive substances. None of my response matters, as you will be happy to read the nuclear world through a FUD obscured lens through which you have been viewing the world for however many years. You are likely at this point not capable of letting your mind process the information objectively. So, I am wasting my time writing all this.
I'm not sure the statistics presented (the chance of an obese person attaining normal body weight is 1 in 210 for men and 1 in 124 for women) are put in context. What are the statistics for obese people that actually attempt to attain normal body weight? How many lose significant weight but don't make it to 'normal' range? It may not be as futile as those numbers presented would have you believe.
Well, if Germany or Denmark were 100% renewables, then you might have a point. So try again. your other points are gibberish.
OK, I'll admit that if we revert to not using electricity, we can avoid the need for storage.
Holy crap. You are all over the map, but still didn't show one reference to a 'LOCA Attack". You did define each term separately. Congratulations for that.
>
The need for storage is a myth brought up by the anti renewables mafia.
You'll have a hard time backing that up. Its a statement solely from you, not backed up by any facts. There renewable industry themselves acknowledge the need for storage, even they don't try to sell us such hogwash. I'll keep this as a reference for anytime I want to show others just how out of tune you are with reality.