DanTrentfield

Yes. It does. But it shows people that bigotry is universal, which was my point, and that so long as it has a universally positive affect it shouldn't be targeted.

Hahahahaha. Wait for 5 years until you find those legislators became congressmen who did a single term and took their salary and ran, or brokered a shady deal to line their pockets. It's best to believe good doesn't exist because then you plan for everything to be corrupt, and if it isn't you celebrate. Look, I couldn't care less about it having origins in bigotry, I have no qualms about that unless it affects the way that it changes things. Why? Because everyone is a bigot and pretends they are not. I am a bigot because I am intolerant of indoctrination. Intolerance is looked upon as a bad thing, it can be, but it can also be a good thing, for example the intolerance of incompetence in technical fields like Chemical Engineering. Are they who prevent the idiot from designing our roads bigoted? Yes. Why? Because they don't want people to be killed by faulty engineering. So long as that bigotry affects the outcome positively I will tolerate it. Why? Because I've learned that the world is not equal and have given up the dream of that. It is a damned shame, I would love to see every single person who has no food be fed, but the greed of every single human and the limited supply deny them. It is not that I wish to see slaves and the starving exploited for profit, it is that it is inevitable. Much as we try to help them they will be exploited by someone. Point to an example of the oppression of Trump's Nationalism from a non news source, I will examine that source's beliefs and stance and if they oppose him then it is most likely propaganda. Why? Because they are on a side that perpetuates lies and thus unless I myself verify that they are not lying with the greatest scrutiny their words cannot be trusted by me.

Then what is? And why is everyone so against nationalism? You seem to forget that humanity, despite it's intelligence is a beast in disguise, if you lower your defense in good will someone who wants what you have will take it from you. That is why unless we assert we will be destroyed. We perpetuate the cycle yes, but unless you find a way to stop the natural competitiveness of humans and make them all saints then it will continue. The poor will always envy the rich, the rich will always ride on the backs of the poor. No institution in history has ever been able to curb this. Why? Because power corrupts universally. Also, the correct measuring stick of nationalism and the correct measuring stick of tyranny are often confused. And Trump's Nationalism is making people get jobs. No work, no food. Unless you physically cannot work this is how it should be. Right, children are in the end children. I threw pinecones at people I didn't like and so will these children use their verbal pinecones to bully other children, why? They're kids. If Trump didn't exist they would still find a way. Gorbachev's day is very different from ours. I frankly like 99% of the Mexicans who come here, they're good hardworking people. But, when they come in illegally they hurt themselves more than us, why? If you're a landscaping company and you can get away with hiring an illegal immigrant and paying him $1.00 an hour who are you going to hire? Me or him? The issue isn't just the job competition alone, it's the wage issue. Also, the reason for the construction of the wall in Germany was to keep the German people from running to the west. So we are on the completely opposite perspective because we actually want them to cross over, Granted legally which is the reason for the wall. Frankly I also support streamlining the immigration process so that if you accept an ankle tracking device for the first 2 years just to ensure you actually don't do anything illegal, learn how to fluently read write and speak English, and can pass a basic citizenship test and have papers showing that you have no criminal record in any country and no history with the DEA or Border Patrol you can come in legally immediately and become a citizen with every right except that of voting until you are in the United states for 5 years.

Okay look, I just don't even care anymore. Both sides have become so legitimately indoctrinated that at this point anyone who actually supports any side in politics is an indoctrinated blind fool who cannot even discern the true nature of a single politician. I hate the left, I hate the right, I hate any and all sides because they all line their pockets. Frankly I wouldn't care if Trump was racist so long as he did not do three things: 1. Did not enact laws giving rights to or taking rights away from any one particular race 2. Promoted America First (Because nationalism is a good thing UNTIL it becomes oppressive of other nations at which point it should stop, i.e. don't invade Poland like Germany did) 3. Brought industry back to the states (Look people, too many people, not enough jobs) Let him line his pockets if he chooses, I don't care, all presidents are horrible if you actually look at them for more two seconds, we just need to become assertive again, Russia and China and the EU are assertive, why can't we be? There is no justice after all, only positive action and negative action and fighting for oneself is always positive as long as you show mercy to your opponent. So if you were to call me a racist pig because I believe that all countries should assert their influence instead of babysitting the third world alone (Relief efforts are very good, but you can't provide relief if you don't have anything yourself) then I will be proud, because that is a complement because you're really the racist, you're really the person that believes that every race except whites should be able to have a nice life, that everybody has their turn to be rich and powerful, nobody has their turn, it's everyone's turn, the world is not fair, if it were we would all be drinking martinis and sitting in gold hot-tubs, but it is not, the fact of the matter is, the world is a place of equal opportunity, not equality, everyone regardless of race in this country gets the same basic opportunities, in some cases you get more or less but it all a game of chance. Remember that King Louis XVI of France was also accused of many of the same things as Trump, taking from the common man, giving more power to the nobles (The 1%), and remember how he attempted to better their situation, but the velvet underground (Voltaire etc.) denied this and indoctrinated the masses into revolution, why? For many of the same reasons people riot today, redistribution of wealth, UBI, the 72 genders and like movements etc (It was mostly homosexual stuff and not the modern version of it). The French revolution is about to repeat itself, and when it does everyone will pay dearly on all sides, the mob knows no mercy. And remember that the intellectuals who popularized deliciously derisive barbs about Louis XVI being "obese" and came up with the Carmagnole were among those executed in the September Massacre because they realized too late that the revolutionary liberal ideas that they made widespread were going to be taken to the extreme. Remember, history is like a pendulum, it goes from one extreme to the other until it finds balance, and history always repeats itself, so choose no extreme lest you merely prolong the balancing process. This is why I classify as independent in thought, not an independent, but independent in thought, because I consider all sides before choosing, instead of merely backing one side all the time.

Because he has to preserve the office of the president, if anybody can threaten the office and not receive response then the president and by consequence America is a joke. I realized that and addressed it. But I also addressed the idiotic reason for this coming up in the first place. The fact of the matter is: With the news not being news and being Journalism, (Which is opinion on news not straight news) If I was an editor wasn't patriotic and was being paid to do so I would totally put out that the doctor lied under oath from Trump. What I'm saying is that it has a 90% probability of being nothing more than propaganda which somebody edited in. As with all news. Also I must ask, Stuffed animals?

All I have to say is: Really? With near revolution being drummed up by people and mass murders you're concerned with the height and weight of a president. Who ever cared about Obama's height? Who ever cared about Bush's height? The fact of the matter is: Why should you care? And while I share your concern with not trusting the government, I do trust the president specifically because he promotes America First. Not white America, not Black America, America. America is made up of both and all other races, which is why I simply love the man. And while people are saying "The wall is a symbol of hate and will do nothing" it will do this: It will make crossing the border illegally less feasible and so cause more people to immigrate legally, "But what if they dig tunnels?" Short of placing landmines on the border or building the wall from bedrock up we can't do anything about that but that is still a LOT of trouble to immigrate illegally, and makes it so that in most instances only the most hardened criminals with reasons to stay undocumented do it. You see the wall is not to stop people from coming in, rather it's to make them come in legally for two reasons: Firstly so that they are paid at least minimum wage instead of pennies on the dollar, (No documents means that if you go to court for this they just deport you) and secondly so that the wave of people coming in don't take jobs from citizens because who are you going to hire if you can get away with it and don't care, me working for minimum wage, or Jose who you cheat out of minimum wage and pay him $2.00 an hour instead? This helps both sides because while yes, it does make it so that immigration is harder and takes longer, it forces Mexico to keep it's people, who then while they are sitting there push to fix some of their own problems. This is why Trump is actually being extremely intelligent in his decision, and why you should trust him. You can find the exact same problem of people just heading for the hills and letting drug rings and terrorists overtake their nations in the middle east. While I don't blame them for running frankly who is going to stop them if you don't? Which is why no matter what I am staying in my country, whether it be the French Revolution 2.0 or whether we get an oligarchy that is oppressive. Lie? What evidence? You do know anybody can just drum up a public record and release it right? Freedom of speech. While it is impersonation and is in some instances a crime, anybody can do it. It's called propaganda. And to completely justify America First, Putin puts Russia first, as does every single functional nation in the world. Europe is not really functional unless you count Eastern Europe because they have massive debt and are generally broken. Nationalism is great until it becomes oppressive of other nations. But if those nations declare themselves our enemies then we have a right and duty to honorably fight them until we win or they win, and be fair to the people of the conquered nation as there is always a losing side and to lose is not to be weak or be immoral. While you may be punished for crimes you commit (Nazi Germany for example) you should not be oppressive to any nation (Look what the Weimar republic turned into....)

It is nothing illegal or immoral. It is merely a well backed hypothesis that I am surprised has not been proposed before. This is why I have been concerned over privacy, because people have stolen my ideas before, for example, https://www.google.com/search?q=Interlocking+pool+noodle&oq=Interlocking+pool+noodle&aqs=chrome..69i57.12591j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 I had an idea that was essentially the same when I was about 13 and I spoke with an engineer about making interlocking pool noodles that you could create rafts with and he turned me down then went on to make these. So, yes, I have good reason to be private with my ideas.

I have no background in medicine, I am a chemist, but I can attack this from a different avenue as well. I have a method of getting people interested that only needs my basic knowledge of medicine and my knowledge in chemistry. Frankly, I do kind of have the knowledge to oversee the project based on a couple points which I will explain in a PM.

The days of reporting died when opinion became news instead of news, such is journalism. Typically when "Far-Right, or Alt-Right" pops up one of several scenarios is playing out: A European country is refusing immigrants over safety concerns and interest in preserving it's heritage, The President of the United States opens his mouth to speak, The U.N. is denouncing the U.S. because it's actually acting in it's own interest, Something about Trump's Wall pops up, or something about how a country isn't accepting enough "refugees" pops up. Typically all of it is: A. Propaganda, B. An attempt to cover something up, or C. Fear mongering. Sometimes, however, the "refugees" ("Refugees" implying they are hopping on that plane to a first world country to leave crazy people and cruel regimes behind) are really refugees like how a group of Muslims that now live in my area had to run for the hills because they were helping people of other religions leave the Jordan/Iran/Iraq area because they don't want them to be killed and truly are acting in interest of everyone, in which case the refugees are quite welcome. And sometimes the "Far right, or Alt Right" truly are the bunch of Nazis they're sized up to be. But typically it's socialist agendas that push that title. So my recommendation on all news: Take it with ten thousand grains of salt, remember it's an opinion, not what actually happened.

Sounds reasonable. I can begin with animals that have a disease similar to Streptococcus, and prove or disprove the key "given" in my hypothesis. Upon it being explained to me that proper training is required I am sure that I can pay technicians with said training to perform experiments according to my hypothesis if the animal experiment proves the hypothesis. Then if everything goes according to plan I can then jump through the safety/regulation hoops and move on to the meat of the process. I will also detail what I hope to do to you in a PM if you are interested if you can guarantee that you will not share the information or claim any work I perform as your own.

If by discovered you mean realized to be hypothetically possible then yes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipler_cylinder But if you mean likely to happen and or has it been used, no.

First four legs and three legs, then two legs and a tail, then four legs a pair of yellow eyes and a tail, then the second tail and the first become one.

I don't so much care about an ethics committee so much as guarantee I cannot be legally punished for the experiment. Due to the nature of what I hope to accomplish we cannot use animals as the cells I hope to experiment with are different in animals, and the way in which they communicate is different. While it is a good introductory test to use lab rats or rabbits it would be much work and expense for small results. I have several potential candidates who stated they will consent and I will contact a lawyer for consulting on the issue and have him compose a legal document which the candidates can sign if he finds no law prohibiting introduction of non life altering/threatening diseases into consenting candidates with full knowledge of the experiment. After all it only strep and I would guarantee full disclosure and compensation for any damage or loss that would occur as a result of said introduction of disease. And it would not be painful beyond normal strep and a blood infusion after the strep has subsided.

I have a general hypothesis on something in the field of medical research that I decline to share due to it's promise, but I must ask how does one gain access to a lab with a blood separation apparatus? It is needed for an experiment to test the feasibility of my hypothesis. While this has been said many times before by many prospective medicine researchers this has the potential to cure all diseases if my hypothesis is correct. Also, would injecting test subjects with their own consent and full knowledge of the strep throat strain they are being injected with be legal? I would need to collect and separate a small portion of their blood and would need to inject it into a second test subject to test part of the hypothesis.

But firmly enforcing laws allows for harmony. Any real justice is truly impossible, but we can discourage wrongdoing through firm enforcement of laws and making laws based on the principles I stated.

Yes, but cut it down to it's base form: A system of standards established by a society for the benefit of all, and include in that wording the inclusion of education and basic human rights.

Let's face it, our world today is flooded by a generation of people that put justice before anything in their lives and are allergic to any sense of normalcy, but the fact of the matter is the 'justice' they seek is an illusion. Justice is an abstract concept conceived by man to judge what is right and what is wrong, however justice in this sense always harms someone somewhere because they did nothing wrong but they are not in accordance of what the group that has the most power in society thinks. This is exactly why the power to make and levy laws based on 'right, and wrong according to justice' needs to be destroyed, and why justice itself needs to be redefined entirely. So to start this process lets begin defining what the legal version of justice is: Fair settlement based on the standards of society with the intention of attempting to compensate for damage of some form. Why does this need to be the way that things work? Because it functions. If we're debating every day whether inmate 04071 is guilty or innocent of his crime because he was crying when arrested and picked up the toy rabbit of the girl he molested and gave it back to her instead of giving him the legally agreed sentence we open ourselves to influence from any single group that wants to push any agenda. For example, because I decry the illusion of 'justice' as it is I should be hanged and quartered according to some groups, and if they held power to change these laws I would be. So lets change how the word justice is defined: A fair settlement in attempt to compensate for damages done by any single one party, with punishment carried out to discourage any other party from committing the same crime. If this is the definition of justice then we are protected from groups that wish to eliminate free speech and other basic rights in order to promote 'justice' because their justice is: A not a fair settlement as it is to push an agenda, B does damage, does not compensate for it, C carries out a punishment based on accusation rather than crime. So if we redefine justice as this then it is what it should be: A standard by which all are held based on the dream a society wishes to realize, with said standard being set by the first people of a society who found it. And to top off the cake let me compare the heated climate of today to a statement made by the notorious minister of propaganda of the Nazi Party, Joseph Goebbels: "Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty."

Context. "In the people's interest" is for the general benefit of society in one way or another. Not in the people's interest is signing backroom deals to line your own pockets. I Guess I shouldn't have defined it improperly as "treason" but rather "misappropriation of power" which is defined as anything that is wholeheartedly in the interest of a company or business magnate, and not in any way an effort to better the nation as a whole. Course I see why this charge doesn't exist because then people point fingers and abuse the charge.

I stand corrected. She is. Well I'm not exactly in a rush for a president from either party. I want one that wishes to remove power from government not give the government more. I think basic things like the FBI and state governments and a congress and senate in addition to judicial branch is more than enough with two presidents being elected and given emergency powers when under serious threat of war or other crisis. Basically drum down power to no big fast decisions, and make it so that if anyone in the government practices anything other than what is in the people's interest they are arrested and charged with high treason, the two options if convicted being death or life in prison.

She isn't exactly a high ranking member last I checked. I personally hate both parties for being block headed and blind but it's what gets elected.

Well you can 'teleport it Star Trek style' if you have something like 800TW or so to waste then you can totally demolish that 1 ton steel container over there with 1 ton of anti-matter and materialize that steel container again on the surface when you figure out how to condense energy into iron atoms and modify their structure and insert carbon to produce steel, You can open it up, get what you want, then beam it back up when you have 1 ton of anti-matter again, that's a 56 septillion dollar price tag per trip not to mention energy costs.

Riiiigth, No Republican or Democrat support, and that's all that gets elected these days. Sorry, I just don't see it happening.

Whoops Even people with degrees in science still make silly makes like this from time to time because they are focused on the big picture instead of nuances, which is why peer review is so damn important, because imagine how many brilliant scientists that win Nobel prizes would appear like babbling buffoons that forget that acceleration due to gravity is equal to g=GM/r2 because they are looking at why two planets are in a position in the sky instead of focusing on little nuances like that. I think you'd be correct, because it appears the amount of energy put into the expansion was initially constant in the first few moments (or millions of years, lack of evidence) and then a runaway effect happened. Kind of like you start a diesel engine and it has a runaway and continues until it destroys itself. This runaway effect could be a result of early effects of the big rip which caused the universe to behave like a balloon that is popping but retains it's shape and keeps expanding faster and faster.

I almost never venture into politics, and I have nothing against her (Even though I don't like her shows and think she is kind of misinformed), but I can't take her as a serious candidate. In the same way I can't take Dwayne Johnson seriously as a candidate for president. Nothing to do with who they are, but rather what they do: Entertainers traditionally do not enter or speak about politics because they want the widest range of people to enjoy their entertainment, I am a musician and that is how I know this. So sure, they may run, and they have every right to do so, but I wouldn't expect to see either of them in the oval office.

This is why we have peer review! You see I missed that.