YJ02

thanks any suggestions? re wording? word choice? this was OP minus the quote I put in from elsewhere "I believe in the science that states the planet is warming, and warming faster then any natural cycle of warming in the past. I do have issues with those corporations who seem to be looking very hard at finding a way to profit from this. I mean, this issue is very serious. In the past, when faced with a serious crisis-though not as bad as this- the 'fix' was not monetized. It may be now, but back when vaccines were first introduced to combat issues like polio, MMR, and other serious public health threats, didn't the government(s) just do what was necessary? They paid/subsidized the vaccines and instituted a nation wide program of vaccination at no cost, or very low cost, to the recipient. So why do we not have a similar plan now? "

An interesting article on DNA research potentially indicating our social and political inclinations. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-genes-of-left-and-right/

I typed I did not say that the location of the observer made someone BE on the right or left, just 'how far' right or left I would guess that Bernie Sanders would place Al Gore on the left, but much closer to the center then he is. Sander's location puts Gore to his right; Gore's location puts Sanders' to his left, yes?

ok,( bolded), my fault for the source but lets re-start the question without reference to Thunberg and activism as a Scientist, what do you think of the potential for Vague's research to be put into actual use? https://www.reed.edu/reed-magazine/articles/2018/bacteria-eat-plastic.html ok, why don't you give me an approved list of what I am allowed to talk about according to you? as for the rep, I didn't know I was not allowed to use it. Why is it there? How do you know it was me, when I cannot see who is giving me ratings? and why do you find it so necessary to swear and name call so often? what have I done to personally offend you? thanks You see I tried to discuss on how corporations should be compelled by governments to actively research and develop tools and methods for dealing with MMCC. I added to your example of WW2 industry, where car companies (and others) were made to manufacture war material and halt car production, to show that the same should be done now in this crisis that is far worse and has far greater implications for mankind then WW2 did. But you choose to once again focus on the TIME article ,where, in my previous post I had agreed with you on it. Why do you choose to snipe instead of discuss?

Phi.. as you can see from the qte of iNOW, I was just posting what he challenged me to produce. He made no qualifications of where it could come from or who. He only asked "Where do you see this happening?" I have seen that here- CT, in other threads. But a good portion of what is being said in the political ones are nothing more then repeats of GOP and DEM party talking points As for critical thinking by me. Well, CT is defined by looking at all sides of a topic, analyzing the info, then objectively forming an opinion on it. I did that in this thread with all of my external sources of bias from both sides of the S/P spectrum. I shared my opinion, formed by looking at different sources, identifying their bias, consulting both the bias chart I and iNOW provided, and then formed an opinion I believed as objective (but of course that too is biased) I am a trained mental health and addictions counselor, ad area where so much is based in subjectivity with a very loose adherence to a relatively small body of objective-yet ever changing- reference (like the DSM 5). In my previous career, I have many years of experience in leading, managing and training others. One thing I have learned from all of that is that human behavior is both biased and subjective. Even when there are hard and fast -objective rules and regulations- laws, that are in place to guide and sometimes dictate acceptable behavior and processes ,that is not always the way things go. I have learned that there are nearly always 'gray areas', non binary, in many rules, laws and procedures. And the way many people interact with the rules or behave due to them, is also gray. I have long since held it is best to approach everything by viewing, if possible, both sides of a story/incident before making a judgement of my own. I have also learned that so much of what people do is motivated by their personal or organizational bias and sometimes, prejudice. One place that is very apparent for those who manage to disengage from political party gamesmanship, is in politics and political behavior of voters. It is also in the news media and even in the way people make the decision as to what source of news they should look at. I realize that my worldview and way of thinking is not in congruence with many of the people here. As so many of you are either trained scientists or you process info in the same manner as scientists, my way of thinking --as I expect it to be-- is not just incongruent with some of yours, it may be utter anathema. I am observing the divide in today's socio-political activities. If you could provide me with an example from my posts as to what I typed that is divisive, I will do my best to present my opinions differently in the future and, are you referring to the quoted FB posts people made to me, or OP I made here or responsive posts I made here? thanks this one below the one i posted above after you asked me where I had seen binary bias and hyper partisanship. i gave you a example of it from my experience on a FB thread. none of the posters answered or attempted to answer. they only came at me with statements that had little or nothing to do with the question. and, I believe the question to be legitimate. Let me ask you (anyone here), now, the same question re-posted below: <<and BTW, I would look at any such investigation results from the Ukraine with a lot of skepticism, thinking that it was indeed heavily done with bias and pressure by the Trump admin>> "after all of this (impeachment) and the dems now saying zelensky is a trump hostage and stoolie, would any of you accept a ukrainian run investigation that did find corruption involving Hunter Biden, or would you just see it as trump forcing ukraine to fabricate the investigation results?" thanks for your time!

true. But as I said, she worked on an actual fix for part of the issue and Thunberg rallied people and spread a message. I think both are important Vague wasn't on the nominee list, but you see how a right wing site, with people who may or may not believe in MMCC will throw the proverbial 'spaghetti at the wall' and see what sticks? and though the final choice is with the editors, this year they went hard against the 'people's choice'. so, basically Greta won with just 2% of the vote..another indication- although an outlier- of just how much so many people believe in the 'kick the can down the road' methodology for dealing with climate change? a TODAY show poll on the question https://www.today.com/news/who-will-be-time-s-2019-person-year-see-shortlist-t169374

I am flattered by your attention..really,i am. but you are so temperamental..now I can't even agree with you without you still disagreeing.. so, in effect, you are disagreeing with you but the TIME p.of the year is a fluff fest every year for the media. they portray the winners as if they were gods google search tells us that there are quite a few 'fussy' people out there on the topic : "About 7,870,000,000 results" well, i know you like evidence, so here's some. i won't go and post the other 7.87 billion links though https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/12/11/time-person-year/ https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/greta-thunberg-bad-choice-times-person-year-105012 https://www.npr.org/2019/12/11/787026271/greta-thunberg-is-time-magazine-s-person-of-the-year-for-2019 https://heavy.com/news/2019/12/time-person-of-the-year-2019/ .

how far to the right someone is depends on how far to the left you and your perceptions are. all relative to the location of the observer. ---ok, bring on the hate Rudy Giuliani the way he was basically 'fluffer in chief' for both candidate and pres-elct Trump, one would have thought that he was to have a official position in the government some people, back then, did wonder why he didn't now, with his continuing travels, it seems apparent he was always meant to be the hatchet man and dirt digger in charge. If he had been appointed to a cabinet post or some other official govt position where he were subject to stricter rules, he would be far less effective (i did not say successful) then he has been and, now he seems pretty confident-with all of his chatter and appearances, that he has something important in his possession is this a head fake or something real? Is it just more trolling of the democrats?

but it was not voluntary in WW2. companies could not continue to build cars or trucks for non military uses, and the rationing of steel and rubber would have stopped production if the govt had not, only cars built by january 42 were allowed to be sold after and then only to those deemed necessary for civilian use with MMCC issues, we are allowing corporations to choose if they will turn their efforts to help ameliorate or reverse the effects of this crisis that goes to my statement that we cannot allow corporations to decide if it is in their financial interests to stop production of items unneeded and begin work on products needed to fight MMCC effects. no matter the impact on its profits in ww2 the US govt-and other govts- required industry to contribute to the war effort; the same should be done now from: https://www.teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24088 exactly!! i agree with you, but one only need look to the coverage by the media every year and the fuss they make over the announcement what you and i think about it is apparently in the minority opinion. sadly more people care about fluff than substance

yes, we did, and it seems we never got anywhere. some tend to believe that a site's bias or political leanings have no impact on how the story being reported is received by a reader but in this article i posted, we can see that it (a site/writer's bias) clearly does have an impact on reader reception one is instantly turned off by the way it is presented, the writer(s) are obvious in their views < warning!!! opinion ahead >> as for who should have actually gotten the 'honor' -- I mean, it is only TIME not the Nobel- that is why I ask you, the scientists as to which person's actions have a greater impact I would say that Vague's project has the potential for physical impact while Thunberg's activities has had a impact on how people think and approach MMCC, perhaps they should be judged separately?

notice how no one answered my question, but just came after me for asking the question? Seems in many segments of our society today, unless you just parrot the status quo with "impeach,impeach" then you get attacked and called a Trump supporters same on the other side-try to point out to a trump supporter that trumps' behavior is far from presidential- or civil, and you get labeled a 'antifa c#ck sucker' what ever happened to the notion of having a discussion about topics without this supercharged emotion? I don't know if Americans will ever be able to have it again.

I just see it has yet one more way our tax money is being spent on a nation that doesn't seem to know how to prioritize its issues. crimea was invaded in 2014, the donbas revolt began shortly after you really dont see any issue with Ukraine "helpless and desperate for western help" still shipping things like main battle tanks to thailand or any weapons any where else while the weapons the US and EU either paid for or physically donated to ukraine, are being used to equip their army? we are giving a handout to a nation that has the means to defend itself from the limited war it is fighting. and if russia was ever serious about taking all of ukraine, no amount of aid we give would make difference unless that has been the notion all along by Trump and the military-industrial complex- give just enough so that Ukraine feels safe but also enough to provoke Russia to feel threatened by our aid? then the excuse will be at hand for deploying thousands of Americans and other nato troops to ukraine to die for someone else's fight in a war that will benefit no one but western arms manufacturers glad i won't be on that trip

This article is based on the state of current american politics and the grinding political intolerance it is creating https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/201910/can-polarized-american-politics-find-the-middle-way?fbclid=IwAR1jtWLWc4VUpMrjkC6ZzL_-sezinyQsi1keECjzjZbSdrgWf2fw-wSpGyY Or, just go to any page on facebook or twitter or wherever people are talking about this. join in and say something like " i didn't vote for trump" or "i dont like trump, but i think he has done a few good things. i also think the impeachment process is bad for our nation..." and see what kind of response you get. here is one response i got after i posted a question that went "after all of this (impeachment) and the dems now saying zelensky is a trump hostage and stoolie, would any of you accept a ukrainian run investigation that did find corruption involving Hunter Biden, or would you just see it as trump forcing ukraine to fabricate the investigation results?" responses to me directly but they were also referring to someone else as well in the thread (I am Ted btw) ---

I completely agree with you. let me refine that a bit to ->>>> I don't think we can spend our way out of this with government waiting on private corporations to make the right choice for our continued existence instead of making the right choice for their profit and loss statements and reports to shareholders. ----------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- Meanwhile, to the extent that TIME magazine matters and to whom it matters to. Did TIME make the wrong choice for person of the year by selecting Thunberg-the talker, over Vague,- the actual scientist with a process that will be very impactful on the environment? from: https://100percentfedup.com/time-chooses-angry-teen-climate-actress-for-person-of-the-year-overlooks-college-student-who-discovered-way-for-bacteria-to-eat-plastic/

On all the variables mentioned, long ago I came to view the inclusion of these with politics as variables being forced into the political discussion. As if, at some point in time in the past, the two parties felt a need to simplify the decision making of voters down to lists of party beliefs, bullet points from their platforms "If you are for- gun control, abortion rights, liberal welfare standards, health care for all....., then that is what we believe, you should register as a democrat" same for the GOP with their 'pros and cons, for and against'. It is like the both parties decided they no longer trusted the American citizen to make the decision for themselves in a subjective manner and instead gave them a checklist to use to make the decision for them. And this has made the process one where tolerance of the other side's positions is less and less accepted. Like how, those liberals in rural areas who own guns may be automatically labeled by urban liberals as some type of unknown and incomprehensible entity. "how can you be with us when you own a GUN?!" For people like me, firmly in the middle, I reject the attempts to be put onto a political team of democrat or republican. I also reject the virulent partisanship that has been growing over the last 3 decades as a result of this simplistic method of political self identification. I register as an Independent, then select the candidates I will vote for based on THEIR positions and goals. Not their party's. I realize that there is often times a very small distinction in this regard, but for me, to just go into a booth and vote straight party anything is just a lazy way to claim one has exercised their right. If my chosen candidate has some positions I do not like, i look at what I do agree with as well as the person's demeanor and character/record. If those outweigh, in socio-politcal importance, what I do not agree with, then that is my selection. This is a compromise one must do with yourself and it seems that many people do not or can not get their heads around the idea of balance and finding a middle way. of course, in 2020, this decision will be far easier and require far less scrutiny for obvious reasons. ----------------------------------- On firearms ownership in particular. A few things= I do not think that the mere status of gun owner, makes one a conservative or a liberal in belief or a democrat or republican by party affiliation. I do know too many people who are single issue voters and, as gun owners, always vote republican no matter the candidates stance on other issues. This is an asinine position to take. A firearm is a tool, and like a hammer or a saw, it should be treated and cared for as such. Of course, one must secure a firearm far more then a hammer, but both tools have specific purposes and applications to be used as needed. Nothing more. There are however, and I do know a few of them, gun owners who venerate their firearms, nearly to a religious level. This too is asinine. It seems somewhere along the way, they distorted the meaning of 'respect the weapon' -meaning it is dangerous, treat is as such- to 'worship the weapon'. On semi automatic weapons, there is so much distorted information out there. Incorrect or imprecise info the media spreads about them and too many people, on both sides of the issue- go with this incorrect info and get involved in '2nd amendment fights' sounding like asses the entire time. All driven by emotional reaction from both sides.

you are not answering the question. In previous wars, where the attacked believed they were under a great national peril, industry was either nationalized or subsidized so that cost did not hamper the war effort. If you are under attack in your house, are you still going to be concerned about preparing dinner? yet they are still ranked the 11th/12th top arms exporter in the world Foreign nations are supplying their military while their military industry is selling abroad. I believe it is combination of the corruption there with a lack of government leadership or a lack of will to lead, to tell industry they must contribute, 100% to the war effort. As a result, they are having issues with priorities of national importance and relying on the west to do things for them. We are creating another western dependent nation, when that is not needed.

Binary Bias.. the phenomena in psychology and sociology that concerns the 'all or nothing', 'my way or the highway', 'no gray areas' and 'you are either with us or against us' position people and society often take on certain things. to this, I find it very interesting/frustrating/dishonest that the segment of our society that DEMANDS that there be no binary bias applied to their gender or sexual activities, is all too often the very segment that applies binary bias to every other socio-political position like how you can't say "I think that Trump has done a few good things for the country, like the First Step Act, but over all I do not approve of his performance as President". then the aforementioned segment of society applies the bias by demanding you either be totally against him or totally for him. this is also done by them in many other areas of the socio-political realm. Like in entertainment. If we have a great female singer who everyone seems to like quite a bit, but then some odd bit of news comes out about her (say she's a Scientologist who has shunned her family) we are all expected to immediately hate her and her music, despite her talent.. that is dishonest to do so. And if one applies it and accepts the bias assigned, when were you being dishonest; when you said you loved her or now, when you say you hate her? When I was growing up, I only ever saw this behavior in very strict and conservative families led by a "Archie Bunker" type of father/mother. Now it is embraced, full on by the segment of society that claims to be for freedom but yet acts so illiberal and intolerant in their actions.

from the pictures i interpret it as the doubt and naysayer crowd increasingly having less and less (evidence) to stand on? So, are you saying that there should be no monetary involvement, either punitive or supportive? I would agree, I think if there was EVER a cause in need of government (or a collection of govt's) to take a complete lead in taking action, this is it. Like for them to nationalize ("globalize?) the technology needed that companies have and then,maybe, pay them later. (???) I don't think we can spend our way out of this situation--and corporations will always find a way around fines, fees and taxes.

yes, though i was looking for how either of you would counter this type of thing? what would your opening salvo be? thanks << it would be an interesting read if you could reply to him directly. >>

I can accept that in part. Though as a libertarian who feels we should become disengaged from the World Police business (the main reason I support Tulsi Gabbard) I would like it if the EU and others took care of their own business. But, what I was getting at is that from 2014-2018, Ukraine was ranked as the 11th or 12th (depending on what organization is making the list) in military exports (please see my links above regarding the Tank and Counter fire radar systems they produce there). So, are US and EU taxpayers paying to equip and arm the Ukrainian army while Ukrainian private industry exports equipment for profit that could/should be used to defend their own nation? I understand it is necessary for them to make sales to get foreign currency,etc (but they are getting loans and grants form the US and EU) , but shouldn't they focus all of theirr esources on securing their nation first? Seems priorities are a bit askew there. I think it is a reasonable question to ask the rankings on exports: https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2019-03/fs_1903_at_2018.pdf associated info: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/why-no-major-western-defense-company-will-invest-in-ukraine/

Since I was posting about the Ukrainian military assistance package and what was in the packages, I'd like to ask if anyone has considered the following (I did put this above but it was buried in the already large post)? The question is: No matter who our President is, why are we giving military hardware to the Ukraine to begin with? I could understand if it were a nation without means and incapable of either procuring weapons on their won or producing their own. Like Iraq, or Afghanistan or a NGO like the Kurds of Rojava. But the Ukraine is and has been a nation with a massive weapons industry. They were one of the largest military weapons manufactures during the time of the USSR and they still are. Before the Dombas and Crimea issue and since, they have been producing weapon systems- much of it for export. Now, if a nation, that claims to be under severe threat from Russia (which is also questionable since Russia could enter into Ukraine from 3 fronts and take the whole nation in a few months) and also says they cannot defend against that aggression on their own, why does it's government allow domestically produced weapons and supplies to be sold as exports? Why not nationalize the weapons industry until the war is won or stabilized? So, what is the Ukraine doing with all of the money they have received? In one year alone, the EU gave them a package of loans and grants valued at $16.5 billion,and they say that the domestically produced OPLOT tank is non-affordable for them. Why are we and the EU giving them millions of dollars in equipment,weapons and ammo when they make their own? I understand at the onset of war, the nation was poorly managed adn the President had been accused of 'scuttling the military' and selling off its weapons, but they should be on their own by now. The OPLOT: https://www.newsweek.com/ukraines-new-tank-can-take-russias-best-kiev-cant-afford-it-665972 They even make their own counter battery radar which os on par with the Q-37 radars we have gifted them?; https://www.janes.com/article/87863/ukrainian-1l220uk-counter-battery-radar-completes-field-tests On total arms exports, prior to the war, Ukraine was ranked as the 11th worldwide for exports. They did slow down exports a little, but they are and have been fr from 'defenseless and helpless': "Helpless" UKR army: https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukraine-says-its-forces-are-helpless-against-pro-russia-gunmen

I believe in the science that states the planet is warming, and warming faster then any natural cycle of warming in the past. I do have issues with those corporations who seem to be looking very hard at finding a way to profit from this. I mean, this issue is very serious. In the past, when faced with a serious crisis-though not as bad as this- the 'fix' was not monetized. It may be now, but back when vaccines were first introduced to combat issues like polio, MMR, and other serious public health threats, didn't the government(s) just do what was necessary? They paid/subsidized the vaccines and instituted a nation wide program of vaccination at no cost, or very low cost, to the recipient. So why do we not have a similar plan now? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And there is stuff like this below, how should one respond to this? (from another forum----please remove if not allowed)

Why do you people 'upvote' posts that contain information that is not true? Like the one where the poster is claiming that a scope is a weapon? Like the saying goes "You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts" As of now, no one has offered any facts or evidence that shows that what I have said about lethality or weapons and weapons systems as being wrong. I have given, on two occasions now, multiple links to fact evidence, as well as my personal knowledge on these topics; you have provided none. Just a link to some "butwhataboutthis-ism" article on non lethal and mainly crowd control used, items.things that would have little to no use in a war zone. on my first day here, when I did not include a source or 'evidence' I was asked "Where's your evidence?" Now that I provide evidence it seems no one is reading the evidence, just checking to make sure I post some link, so if I didn't, they can pounce with the "Where's your evidence?" question again. If you did read the links/evidence I provided,and you do not agree with the information provided in that evidence, then argue that and not on some type of semantically based "issue". example "What is lethal?" "What does weapon mean?" If you do not know what those things mean, then, I think you are being dishonest and are just trying to bait me into saying something in return that is insulting to you. But, that won't happen, I'll stay up here on the high ground--with my facts-- and out of the "mud".

your response is nothing but add- on "butwhatifisms" and, since you bring it up, no, a scope IS NOT a weapon. a scope is not necessary for the operator to perform the primary function of the weapon. same with a sling. they are both superfluous equipment items. this is why i dont like spending time finding citations/sources. discuss first and then if needed, cite. cite first and apparently no one reads the info linked. if you don't like my words ,fine, but at least read the cited links and discuss

Since we are talking about a war, I assume you want the definition of weapons of war? https://www.dictionary.com/browse/weapon https://www.britannica.com/technology/weapon As for how the Dem's could stll elect one of their own as President well, since 'don't do an impeachment and alienate so much of the American political middle, is out.... then Nominate one the moderates Yang or Gabbard would be my choice. In fact ,I am hoping against hope that Gabbard does get the nomination. Her positions on stopping our role as 'world cop' is very important to me among others. I think that if they were to do this, and NOT nominate someone from the left side of their lineup- like Sanders or Warren, and not nominate Biden, who would be an albatross to them. If he won, well... put it this way. Is it entirely inconceivable that somewhere in D.C right now, there is some uber conservative "think-tank" somewhere near C street, that is crafting articles of impeachment against Biden? With blanks in key spots for "insert applicable impeachable act here" in the text?