Page #1
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#234
New Comment Rating: 2 Similar topics: 1.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF 2.A Forum Topic 3.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF II 4.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF,, ANY STUFF III 5.NEW MONGO STUFF, OLD MONGO STUFF, ANY MONGO STUFF III Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
--------------------------------------- added after 11 hours
only registered users can see external links
A white male of the age between 45 and 65, so you don't get to do your racist, sexist and agist hate-propaganda.
He should be very pro working class and pro SMALL business and solidly against the oligarchy. He should be a tough corruption fighter, and support solid anti-corruption laws on the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, especially ALL the horribly corrupt politicians, judges and Supreme Court justices. They should be indicted, arrested, and prosecuted for their criminal offenses.
He should promise that Trump, Elon Musk and all of their Epstein class co-conspirators should never see another day outside of a jail cell, until justice has been served.
Names? There are so many strong fighters who are fed up with your bullshit, that it will be a big primary to pick the best one. The American people by a large majority are awake now. A strong anti-corruption, anti-oligarchy fighter will obliterate any of your goons.
Still, there are a lot of scammers who can play one convincingly and then turn like a top.
I hope the American people have finally learned to see through the bullshit.
I remember voting for Reagan. I, a diehard Democrat, voted for a Republican because HE was the better choice. I’m saying this because I vote for the good of my country and not because of some misguided support for , well, what we have now. And, if by Election Day, a better choice comes around, Democrat, Republican, or Independent, I’ll vote for that candidate.
but I can at least vote in either primary since I am unaffiliated. on that note, a couple of my friends and i were talking around a fire barrel the other night and we have about decided to vote in the democrat primary for president. Because we could place a vote for the lousyest 1, and maybe that would be a nip in the bud for their "best" candidate.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. 🤣🤣🍆
a great, coherent and motivational speech, communicating values, explaining exactly the problem with the corrupt Trump regime and who propose clear solutions to put the US on a path of recovery.
Trump has never been coherent and motivational, he has been chaotic and inflammatory. Besides the base, he only attracted the disillusioned working class voters with false promises. He has lost all of them, and only the cult remains.
There is no one who can fill the shoes of the cult leader, but there is certainly
no one who can win back the disillusioned working class voters.
Who do you have? JD Vance? He only fools the base, but he doesn't inspire it. Even Trump has had it with him. Do you think that Marco Rubio can pick up the cult? He has even less charisma than JD. You have no candidates left who can replace the "strong charismatic leader", all you have left are his minions.
Maybe one stands up after Trump finally kicks the bucket, but I think that people
aren't fooled by a new one anymore. They know the type now, and they learned
how useless and destructive they are.
People who become deeply committed to a political movement, religious group, ideology, or even a cult are usually not there because something is inherently wrong with them. Human beings are social creatures whose beliefs are influenced by identity, belonging, emotions, incentives, and social environments as much as by logic.
Whether someone becomes deeply attached to a movement is rarely explained by a single factor. It emerges from an interaction between circumstances, individual characteristics, group dynamics, and chance.
High-control groups and strongly identity-based movements often use mechanisms such as:
- Gradual escalation of commitment.
- Providing community, purpose, and belonging.
- Creating a strong distinction between insiders and outsiders.
- Encouraging loyalty to the group or leader.
- Framing criticism as hostile or illegitimate.
- Increasing the psychological cost of dissent.
- Normalizing ideas or behaviors that initially seemed extreme.
- Rewarding conformity and punishing deviation socially.
Personal addition:
Trump is using these mechanisms to perfection. He is probably not doing it all deliberately, the behavior may arise naturally from his personality, instincts, worldview, and interpersonal style, rather than from a calculated plan.
These mechanisms can produce behavior that outsiders find puzzling. Members may defend actions they once condemned, overlook contradictions, or reinterpret events in ways that protect the group. This is not necessarily because they are unintelligent. Similar tendencies appear in many human groups.
At the same time, susceptibility is not entirely random. Some factors can make a person more resistant:
- Comfort with disagreement.
- Strong independent social networks.
- Tolerance for uncertainty.
- Habitually questioning authority figures.
- Willingness to revise beliefs when evidence changes.
Yet even these traits do not create immunity. Highly intelligent, educated, skeptical, and independent-minded people have joined cults, political movements, ideological causes, and organizations that later proved harmful.
When people observe strong loyalty to a leader—whether in MAGA, a revolutionary movement, a religious sect, or another cause—they often conclude that supporters must possess some defective character trait. Usually the reality is more complicated. What often looks like a character flaw from the outside can emerge from ordinary psychological processes such as identity formation, social belonging, fear of exclusion, confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, and sunk-cost thinking.
That does not mean all movements are equally healthy or equally prone to these dynamics. Some organizations and movements encourage independent criticism more than others. But the existence of intense loyalty, rationalization, or hypocrisy by itself does not prove that members are fundamentally different kinds of people. More often, it shows how powerful group identity can become when personal identity and group identity start to merge.
So if a movement exhibits cult-like behavior, the most useful explanation is usually not that its members possess a special "cult member personality." Rather, it is that ordinary human tendencies—belonging, loyalty, conformity, identity protection, and motivated reasoning—have become unusually strong within a particular social and political environment.
only registered users can see external links
So, you killed someone when you were 7 y.o.,
is that the only person you've ever killed?
Thinking long and hard....
"Well, I would say, as a child, yes!"
"Do you think you have killed people, as an adult?"
"Does it matter?"
They are not collaborators, if they were never on your side.
They (CBS) are just big business, even if they act liberal.
only registered users can see external links
Africa is the origin of several severe infectious diseases, most notably other viral hemorrhagic fevers like Marburg and Lassa, respiratory illnesses like MERS, and widely spread diseases such as HIV and Malaria , zika, ,mpox, ebola, ecoli,
etc,
what else needs to come from there before we stand up and say enough?
Calling them 'the ebola people' is damn racist.
Lots of Americans don't want to vaccinate for anything. How about Europe closes
the borders to Americans, unless they can prove that they got all their shots?
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Winnie the pooh and friends are very ill.
only registered users can see external links
Winnie-the-Pooh: Diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) due to his severe fixation on honey and repetitive counting behaviors. The authors also suggest he may eventually present with Tourette's syndrome.
Piglet: Diagnosed with Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) because of his extreme, pervasive nervousness.
Eeyore: Diagnosed with severe, chronic depression (dysthymia) and "anhe(haw)donia"
(a clever play on anhedonia, the inability to feel pleasure).
Tigger: Exhibits classic hyperactive and risk-taking patterns, including impulsively ingesting unknown substances (like thistles and haycorns) when he first arrives in the forest.
Owl & Rabbit: Owl shows signs of dyslexia (jumbling his letters and spelling his name
"W-O-L"), while Rabbit is overly narcissistic and micro-managing.
Christopher Robin: Though not yet presenting a clear condition, the authors express concern over his lack of parental supervision and the fact that he spends all his time talking to animals.
The paper was written by a group of Canadian neurodevelopmental pediatricians;
Drs. Sarah Shea, Kevin Gordon, Ann Hawkins, Janet Kawchuk, and Donna Smith.
They were affiliated with the Developmental Clinic at the IWK Grace Health Centre and Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Despite being a joke, it was written so convincingly that it made global headlines and even won a Canadian gold prize for journalistic excellence in the "One-of-a-Kind" article category.
No one funded it, because it was a parody written for holiday entertainment rather than a clinical trial or real research project, it received zero financial backing or research grants.
This phenomenon is widely known in the academic world as satirical science or academic parody. It represents a unique tradition where serious, highly qualified scientists apply rigorous research methodologies, complex statistics, and flawless academic writing to completely absurd, fictional, or lighthearted topics.
It requires an immense amount of intelligence to pull off effectively. To write a successful academic parody, you must understand the rules of scientific research so perfectly that you can bend them to create humor without breaking the format.
Scientists generally do this for three main reasons:
- A Mental Safety Valve: High-level research (such as studying terminal illnesses or climate change) is emotionally heavy and highly stressful. Writing a satirical paper is a crucial creative outlet that allows academics to blow off steam and show their sense of humor.
- Critiquing the System: Many of these papers carry a hidden, sharp message. By using flawless statistics to "prove" something completely ridiculous, scientists subtly mock the academic publishing industry. They are showing that if you manipulate data or ask the wrong questions, you can make "official science" look like it proves anything.
(That's why independent peer review matters, because unconnected experts can catch both honest mistakes and deliberate attempts to mislead. When reviewers don’t share incentives or biases, weak logic and bad‑faith, claims are far less likely to slip through, which keeps scientific results trustworthy)
- The Ultimate Inside Joke: It is a celebration of wit within the community. Appearing in a prestigious journal's holiday edition (like The BMJ or CMAJ) with a brilliant piece of satire is a badge of honor. It proves to their peers that they are not just smart, but also clever enough to make the rigid world of science laugh.
I have seen several of these. The first one I saw was many years ago, although this was
a variation made by a lawmaker. It was a brilliant parody of Dutch laws and regulations.
It is written in the typical, bone-dry, and complicated legal language (official Dutch) full of articles, paragraphs, and formal exception clauses. It was called the "General Sinterklaas Ordinance", a legal paper which supposedly regulates the entire logistics and enforcement surrounding the Sinterklaas celebration (Dutch character based on Saint Nicolas of Myra, who is also the basis of Santa Claus). Some people write small stories for fun and others write fake science or legal papers for fun.
And I'm sure that it's not that hard to find some study that is legit stupid AF.
If you want to find people spending money on stupid studies, look for pseudoscience
or better yet creationist 'science'. Creationists spend between tens to hundreds of millions of dollars per year globally, and the only thing that they end up doing is giving evolution biologists topics to debunk, which they do at a 100% succes rate. Some might have taken a lot of time, but all their supposedly “irreducibly complex” claims have been decisively falsified.
but this clip is pretty good.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Critics argued that:
- valuable real estate and brands were sold off,
- stores were underinvested,
- staffing and maintenance were cut heavily,
- and the company focused too much on extracting asset value instead of modernizing the retail business.
It's vulture capitalism and it's very bad for the economy.
Whiskey & Jazz. — Vintage Noir Jazz for Late Night Drinking & Slow Hours
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
8 Months Later Scientists Were Shocked
only registered users can see external links
Thanks America!
only registered users can see external links
Trump is doing the exact opposite of that. He is prioritizing more expensive fossil fuel energy, making energy more expensive for American citizens, and polluting their air and water, and accelerating climate change for everyone on the planet.
I would wish that there was ANYTHING that I could cheer for Trump over.
I could forgive him his toxic character, if he had some general positive effect on the world.
A silver lining like promoting those cars cannot compensate for his onslaught of
stupidity, cruelty, divisiveness, authoritarianism, corruption, chaos, existential threat,
and utter incompetence, in which only the last of his malignancies provides some relief.
If he was competent, his harmful effect would probably have been irreversible already.
You fools, you got snookered and the rest of us are paying the price. Thanks.
I am not happy about 142 dollars to fill up my truck either but i also would not be happy glowing in the dark with my skin falling off after some asshole terrorist got ahold of irans nukes and launched them hollaring alley ackbar
HE SHOULD BE REMOVED AND REPLACED.
How much more provocation do we need.1979 hostages , backing terror attacks on allies and us.
There’s never a good reason to go to war with a country without provocation. You, Phart, can try to make excuses, but, the truth is the truth.
There country would be a big pile of rubble and wreckage there oil fields would be burning 🔥 there people would be dead in the streets our ground crews would be covering there dead with American flags and our national anthem would be ringing in the air
--------------------------------------- added after 3 minutes
Remember the night dessert storm touched off keep that picture in your head
But, let’s say we go on with the war. The next step is boots on the ground. Are you enlisting or are you going to hide behind some poor 20 something? Someone who doesn’t want to be there nor knows why we’re there.
Go on, Dgraff, call me a dumb blond, but, from where I stand, you are a lot dumber than me or a whole bunch of people.
--------------------------------------- added after 7 minutes
What would have Biden and Harris of done send them pallets of billions of dollars to quiet them down for a while that only worked a short time listen president TRUMP is not the kind of man to roll over and pretend he don’t see what they are doing
Look at what this illegal war has caused (and you know what I mean) and tell me why it’s wrong for Democrats to oppose it.
Biden and Harris are knowledgeable and honorable people that would have not gone to war on a wim. This Clown has a problem keeping his diaper clean let alone governing the country.
So they are already having issues with charging electric cars?
Sheesh,what about in 5 years? The power company are not permited to build new power plants.Solar and wind are going to be important to keep the grid up. But that didn't work in Texas did it?
They make a lot of energy in Texas,but how many folks died over the winter this past 1?
Angel1227!
So a private, for profit, company did not plan on a hard winter so their production of electricity was not sufficient? And this utility, regulated by the states, failed to meet the demands? This state (Texas) governed by Repukers was not regulated correctly so this company spent less on production and got richer because of it? This sounds very much like a Repuker business idea.
I fault the power companys in texas to a point but I also fault the citizens for lack of preparedness.
Face it, sometimes you need regulation, especially for basic facilities like power.
And I then mentioned the issues in texas with electricity.
What everyone is missing here is the fact there is NOT enough electricity being produced to meet CURRENT demand.As Ananas has indicated.So imagine if you will,5-10 years from now,when there is GREATER demand? What a mess we are in for.
Regulation is not the solution. that is how you GOT TO THIS POINT. To many regulations preventing new power plants being built and trying to snuff out coal,a effective energy source.
You think that if they are running short they won’t try to catch up? The regulations you protest are there to protect the people and the environment. But, knowing how you think, fuck that. Let coal continue to pollute. We’ll be dead by the time our grandkids die of poisoned air.
only registered users can see external links
Only 2 under construction according to this chart.
only registered users can see external links
The US shut down how many? lets see
only registered users can see external links
Now, we shut down 39 and we are building 2. Does that sound like regulations are helping any? 2, there are 50 states. So state regulation is not changing anything where it may be either.
If you want coal gone,you need to have a replacement handy before hand.
Nuclear power is not the solution. There are 80 sites in the United States where nuclear waste is stored. Some of it is stored temporary in a location that is not safe long term. The best uranium sites are already running out and it's getting ever more expensive to mine the stuff.
That waste has to be looked after for the next 20,000 to 1M years, before it's safe. Humanity probably kills itself before that or there might be a few survivors that don't know how to keep the waste safe and radiation will finish them off. But who cares, right?
only registered users can see external links
Like nuclear is the only alternative to coal.
I just used nuclear here because MOST tree huggers-liberals,think nuclear is the answer.And it has Ooodles of issues that take Many years to deal with.
Actually, I even prefer fossil fuels over nuclear, even though I'm a tree hugger-liberal. Nuclear might be a bit better on carbon emissions when the reactor is built, but building new ones creates so much emissions, it takes 20 years to recover.
Another problem is that nuclear reactors take ages to start up and stop again, which is not practical as backup for solar and wind. Fossil fuels are at least needed until we have enough geothermal, hydro (incl. wave), biofuel, biogas, hydrogen, chemical storage (formic acid), thermal energy storage, battery storage and whatever I forgot or they think up next.
Then there is off-course the waste and the risk.
Eh so more electric cars will reduce demand?
I know you are not a engineer,but even you should be able to figure out that can't work.
groas violations of human rights, so the US or Europe don't need them as an ally.
If they can't sell us oil ,they will make their money on interest from loans.
We could afford to use fossil fuels if we could finish our pipelines and drill in otherwise useless lands like up north in alaska where there is nothing but woods.
The alaskan pipeline built long ago,was supposed to be such a wildlife disaster,ha,the animals love it,it is warm near the pipeline.
California has MILES of coast line,Why are they not looking into this tech?
only registered users can see external links
Instead of wasting all that coast line for half naked people to lay around and spread covid,there could be power plants there!
NO pollution! No noise that is not already there,and erosion control! WOW,
Kansas,could be using wind and solar to help of course.
Another non polluting power source,
only registered users can see external links
When I build a green house,yep,I will use geothermal to help with temp control.
Every bit you can use of it is better than none at all.
Here are some fun do-it-yourself builds on YouTube.
I had seen them before and it made me regret living next to a stationary ditch.
Maybe there are some ideas you can use:
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
I DO NOT quite understand the amount of AMPS he is getting from that washing machine motor.
only registered users can see external links
How many Chernobyl’s do you know? One in the states, one in Japan, and one in Russia. Here, in Miami-Dade county, FP&L has been operating the local one over 50 yrs. Same in other cities around the state. And no pollution
You don't hear about the Mcquire plant here in NC getting to hot but it did a few years ago. The tree huggers were angry because a type of fish was dieing from getting caught in the cooling system water.So they put a screen over the intake. Worked fine for a while. Until the screen clogged up with little fishes.A employee told me about it.
Here is a long list of potential accidents and how to deal with them
only registered users can see external links
Yea,I know,I got dizzy after 10 minutes of readin!
I can't see a coal plant being any where near as dangerous to operate
They can't even take in water, without sucking up all the fishes
According to the Rainforest Action Network. For decades, climate change has been a global crisis that will impact every single person and living being on this planet. Now, according to the latest UN climate report, we have less than 10 years to cut global emissions in half.
Burning fossil fuels isn’t just bad for the climate, these industries also violate countless fundamental human rights. From frontline communities facing a fossil fuel pipeline on their land to Indigenous people facing fires in the Amazon to worker rights violations on palm oil plantations, the industries fueling climate change are also fueling injustice.
Coal, tar sands, and fracked gas show everything that’s wrong within the fossil fuel industry. These extraction practices are harming people and planet every day, and big banks are fueling this destruction of the planet and negligence of life.
So what’s so bad about coal, tar sands, and fracked gas? Basically everything, from start to the finish these fossil fuels are disastrous. For decades, climate change has been a global crisis that will impact every single person and living being on this planet. Now, according to the latest UN climate report, we have less than 10 years to cut global emissions in half.
Burning fossil fuels isn’t just bad for the climate, these industries also violate countless fundamental human rights. From frontline communities facing a fossil fuel pipeline on their land to Indigenous people facing fires in the Amazon to worker rights violations on palm oil plantations, the industries fueling climate change are also fueling injustice.
Coal, tar sands, and fracked gas show everything that’s wrong within the fossil fuel industry. These extraction practices are harming people and planet every day, and big banks are fueling this destruction of the planet and negligence of life.
So what’s so bad about coal, tar sands, and fracked gas? Basically everything, from start to the finish these fossil fuels are disastrous.
Like I said, “What you don’t see can be more dangerous.”
only registered users can see external links
chernobyl didn just happen and stop.It is still happening today.
Smog will go away at some point.
coal smoke can be filtered.Try filtering radiaton.
So we only would need half that exclusion zone filled with solar panels
and that would cost about 78 Billion Euro's. That would raise our national debt from 56.3% of GDP to 66.2% of GDP.
Jobs for all our unemployed people will pull that debt down soon enough.
Accidents happen. Even if the chance is 1:1M (historically proven it's much higher), when you multiply that risk by the number of nuclear power plants required, something catastrophic will happen at some point. Such catastrophes could cost more than the complete energy transition.
That's not worth it, because nuclear power is only a temporary solution, because the uranium will run out at some point. It's already becoming more and more expensive to mine the stuff.
Even if all those problems didn't exist, it still takes 10 years before any nuclear power plant has compensates his own build. But it first takes 10 years to build any. Then after 20 years, they are just as CO2 effecient as wind and solar. That's too late. We need to lower CO2 emissions ASAP.
Anyone with some money to spare can invest in their own solar panels,
lower their costs and be less dependent on power companies.
It's nice to have air-conditioning in a heat wave, when the government
is telling you not to use power or you can't afford it when power companies are charging you 100x the normal rate.
only registered users can see external links
There are al sorts of natural disasters, but it can also be a terrorist attack or a hacker or just basic human error.
BTW, instead of Kansas I could have picked West Virginia
--------------------------------------- added after 4 minutes
As far as anything else, we have to trust security will prevail. Every thing is a crapshoot. Hopefully we don’t roll snake eyes,
only registered users can see external links
I also don't like nuclear energy and my arguments are in line with the science on climate change. That uranium has to be mined, which also emits CO2.
A nuclear power plant takes a lot of energy to be built and maintained.
Then afterwards we have to keep the waste safe for the next 20,000 years.
On the short term nuclear is about as energy/CO2 efficient as wind power and even less than solar. In the long term nuclear has a horrible energy/CO2 efficiency, because keeping the waste safe also costs energy. Also, building nuclear power plants takes a long time and lots of materials. It takes about 10 years before a nuclear power plant compensates his own build. That's about 1-1.5 years for wind energy and 2 years for solar. However solar is cheaper
on maintenance.
Other than that, I agree with most of what you said.
All energy technology costs money, materials, energy and land to build and maintain. All energy technology has downsides like pollution, mineral shortages, exploitation of people and CO2 emissions. We just need to stop with the worst energy technologies first and expand on the best ones the most.
It doesn't require completely changing our life or have impact on the quality of our life. However climate change already impacts our life and it will only get worse. We can either choose to accept some changes now and prevent total catastrophe later or we can deny the truth until catastrophe proves us wrong.
New Comment Go to top