If that's the case and its super easy, then how damning is it that you couldn't find a single source corroborating what you said?
You'll be waiting a while then, since you didn't make a solid case in those either.
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
I can, just waiting on your to actually concede something you were wrong on.
Unanimous decision from SCOTUS isn't a solid case? So nothing can convince you on anything ever...
You can? You promise you can provide those 6+ sources corroborating the claim that overeating sugar is the sole and direct cause of type-2 diabetes, if I just concede the other stuff first?
That's an odd thing to say, since you were griping that consensus and authority are meaningless a few posts ago. But now you want me to value the consensus and authority of... political appointees?
Anyway, some light reading:
Last edited:
Ohio officials turn down billions of dollars in federal aid • Ohio Capital Journal
Ohio has removed nearly 400,000 citizens from the Medicaid rolls since pandemic-era continuous enrollment ended, including nearly 115,000 children. This means Ohio lost nearly $1.9 billion of federal dollars from denying continued Medicaid coverage, writes columnist Rob Moore.
ohiocapitaljournal.com
Poor choice of title, the Republicans ended the COVID-19 Medicaid expansion and the government pays for 2/3s of Medicaid. But they have done that for a while now. This isn't news and isn't that interesting. If you want to stop Republicans doing Republican things vote for the Democrats.
Edit: Spelling and other errors.
Last edited:
The moment a single dollar from BlackRock touches anime, it's over.
Imagine saying that in China against the CCP, or Russia against the Russian Government/Political Party United Russia. In China, they would send you to a crazy ward, and in Russia, they would throw you out of a window.
But since he's a person of color we have to accept it because
Well, you are living in the land of free speech.
Of course, if you prefer the way Russia or China handles things, just say so. You are allowed to.
Of course, if you prefer the way Russia or China handles things, just say so. You are allowed to.
I never said consensus is meaningless, I said your version of scientific "consensus" is meaningless because that's not an actual consensus (hence why I always put it in quotes). It's a consensus of scientists that agree with you while ignoring the ones that don't, thus it's not a consensus. You think scientists aren't appointed in some manner or work on studies where there's no influence for a specific result or conflict of interests? Regardless of whether the Supreme Court justices are politically appointed, are they not actual judges or not experts in law? You're acting like the Supreme Court is a kangaroo court.
Do you not get basic legal framework (the very thing you accused me of)? States have election powers and all but not in deciding a federal law. You can't have states interpreting a federal law differently from one another, it's just basic logic. For example, if there was a presidential candidate that was 34 years old right now that turns 35 right on Inauguration Day, you can't have some states saying they must be 35 on the date of the election while other states allow them to be on the ballot since when they would be president if they win, they'd be 35. That would be a federal decision, not a state decision. Same thing with the Trump ballot case. Hence, why both right and left leaning judges all agreed, there's no other way to interpret that law. Just because cases get overturned doesn't mean the Supreme Court just does what they want and disregards law, there's grey areas in law just like anything else and different interpretations of said law as well.
If you can't admit you were objectively wrong on the Trump ballot case, then there's literally no point in discussing anything with you.
That's a lot of words to avoid the question I asked, about whether you actually could provide those sources and would be willing to.
I don't agree with oil and gas entirely, but I agree with Texas.
If people can stomach working with the Saudis, they also should be able to stomach working with Iran.
This weird Iran hostility particularly prominent in the US is the primary reason Iran has not long had normalized its relation to most of the rest of the world.
This weird Iran hostility particularly prominent in the US is the primary reason Iran has not long had normalized its relation to most of the rest of the world.
Oh, yes.
The old Iranian leaders also keep that particular feud alive.
But it is the US that forced "the West" to join it and abandon friendly relations via its powerful financial sector and sanction regime. And it is the US that got out of the one treaty that aimed at laying the groundwork to end the animosities.
There's literally no point unless you admit being wrong on your Trump ballet case take.
I asked if you'd provide those 6+ sources if I conceded the other stuff. You didn't answer-- presumably because you have nothing to offer even if I did.
These discussions were prior to that. You should just admit you're wrong when you're wrong.
....and if I did, we could move on, and you'd provide those 6+ sources that you promised then, yes or no?
MBS is a dictator, but he's given women more new rights than the mullahs of Iran did to their woman. I would rather be a woman in Saudi Arabia than Iran.
You do realize the Mullahs executed all the left-wingers, and are worse than the Shah. If you're a pan-shia Islamist they are great if not, they aren't.