[Tanada]

Came across this, might explain a lot.

118B3A28-43FC-4D66-93F0-30D903DEBB82.jpeg

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.market ... 3C5E6F97B5

Well it was a good joke, gave me a belly laugh!

I mean seriously, to claim that ABC/NBC/CBS are middle of the road unbiased information sources? Seriously? Those 'news' organizations are solidly in the 'democratic party organ' camp of reporting. When was the last time you saw any of them say a nice thing about any politician who was not a Democrat or aligning themselves with Democratic Party talking points? Sure they throw out occasional 'rah rah' stories about non-Democrat politicians, if they happen to be aligning with the Democrats and 'reaching across the aisle', but that is a very long distance from being 'unbiased and neutral'.

HOW you report the facts can be terribly mislead no matter what those facts are. Yes it is a fact that person X claims Y, but that doesn't mean the claim of person X are valid and factual. For example here are two facts. 1) Intense radiation can make you very sick or kill you. 2) Plutonium 239 found in spent nuclear fuel has a half life of 24,000 years so it will detectable in fuel for 240,000 years. Those two facts, without context, leave the average person with the impression that spent nuclear fuel is deadly dangerous for 240,000 years. In reality however it isn't radiation that makes Plutonium dangerous, a 24,000 year halflife is long enough you can play catch with a lump of it with no radiological effect. However like Arsenic, Lead or other heavy metals it is a chemical poison. You don't want to eat, snort, or rub it in open wounds especially as a powder.

Proper unbiased reporting would be clear about the fact that the part of Spent Nuclear Fuel that is a radio-logical hazard are the isotopes with SHORT half lives that cause INTENSE radiation. Things like Strontium-90 and Cesium-137 with half lives of 28 and 30 years respectively are actually short enough to make you sick in high doses, and the shorter lives isotopes get progressively more deadly. HOWEVER because they are intensely radioactive they also pass the 10 half life mark relatively quickly, in this case 280-300 years. So in reality the part of spent nuclear fuel that is a radiation danger fades away in under 300 years, most of it within 30 years. This means storing spent fuel is not a task requiring a vault able to last 240,000 years as is so often claimed, but rather 300 years which is trivial in terms of human achievement.

So whether you are talking politics or science, the 'big three' national news media sources fail badly at the test of being accurate and unbiased, yet whomever created that chart gives them the max score. That says a lot more about the entity creating the chart than it does about the entities on the chart itself, IMO.

[Newfie]

Since I don’t watch TV I don’t have much opinion. I do use Media Bias Fact Check which gives a left-right orientation. They gauge MarketWatch as right center bias with high factual reporting.

Frankly I’m don’t see any sources I like very much.

[Newfie]

Here is an RealClearPolitics piece that does a fair analysis of the USA political problems and offers a sensible fix.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/

[Newfie]

Another left leaning organization recognizing the problem and writing a thoughtful piece.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-c ... al-purity/

[Newfie]

the average adult hasn’t made a new friend in the last five years,

thought provoking comment, may have some relevance here.

https://peakoil.com/enviroment/national ... t-30-years

[jedrider]

Congress continues to investigate Trump with no clear results in sight.

Democrats seems to have a lot of good policy ideas in the debates tonight, but have a history of not delivering much.

This is perhaps the results of the 'partisan divide': Divided, nothing can be changed.

I'm hoping that the country can lean in a better direction, leftward from where we are now.

Of course, this does nothing for facing ecological reality. Still better than ignoring what is in one's face.

[Newfie]

That whole “facing ecological reality”!is a very big deal. Until someone does it doesn’t matter much who wins.

[Cog]

Congress continues to investigate Trump with no clear results in sight.

Democrats seems to have a lot of good policy ideas in the debates tonight, but have a history of not delivering much.

This is perhaps the results of the 'partisan divide': Divided, nothing can be changed.

I'm hoping that the country can lean in a better direction, leftward from where we are now.

Of course, this does nothing for facing ecological reality. Still better than ignoring what is in one's face.

I suspect there are members here wouldn't be happy until the leftward lean leads to the Killing Fields of Cambodia. After all, that is really want you want isn't it. To execute everyone who values freedom and individual rights? I mean after all we are deplorables and not redeemable as your 2016 candidate referred to us as.

I watched the debate last night and saw all the candidates call for "consequences" if we wouldn't give up our guns. What do you have in mind here? Going to kill me for exercising my 2nd Amendment rights? How do you suspect that is going to work out for you? I also read the FBI complied stats for 2018. More people are killed with knives, fists, and clubs than rifles but yet you persist in wanting to disarm people. Well good luck with all of that.

[Newfie]

Cog,

You keep making that “killing field” claim with no evidence.

A while back you got really upset when someone called you a racist without supporting evidence. You are doing the same now.

[Cog]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/12/politics ... index.html

— Presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke reiterated his support for a mandatory gun-buyback program of assault-style rifles on Thursday and said, "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47."

"We're not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore," the former Texas congressman said during the third Democratic presidential debate, hosted by ABC News.

How much more clear do you want them to be? Every single one of the Dems want to ban them. Some with mandatory buy-backs which is the same as confiscation. Don't piss down my back and call it rain.

[jedrider]

So, Cog, what is your plan for using your AR-15? Are you going to use it against people wielding AK-47's?

[Cog]

So, Cog, what is your plan for using your AR-15? Are you going to use it against people wielding AK-47's?

One never knows. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is so that the citizenry would always have the ability to shoot tyrants in the face.

But while we are the subject of rights. Is it ok if we charge you by the word to exercise your first Amendment rights? Or perhaps just imprison you if you say the wrong politically incorrect thing?

[Newfie]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/12/politics/beto-orourke-hell-yes-take-ar-15-ak-47/index.html

— Presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke reiterated his support for a mandatory gun-buyback program of assault-style rifles on Thursday and said, "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47."

"We're not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore," the former Texas congressman said during the third Democratic presidential debate, hosted by ABC News.

How much more clear do you want them to be? Every single one of the Dems want to ban them. Some with mandatory buy-backs which is the same as confiscation. Don't piss down my back and call it rain.

Your accusation was aimed at members of this site. Don’t be trying to change things now, stick to the point.

[Cog]

Ok Newfie it's like this. If you vote for a candidate who supports an authoritarian type socialism, then it means you want that type of government. You are comfortable with sending men in blue to kill people who would perhaps won't turn in their guns. What other conclusion am I to draw?

Socialism/communism killed over 100 million in the 20th century alone and yet some here have learned nothing from that except to embrace it for themselves.

[Newfie]

I don’t vote.

But aside from that the point was, and is, you accuse folks here of wanting to kill billions. Show me where they said that.

[Newfie]

Ok Newfie it's like this. If you vote for a candidate who supports an authoritarian type socialism, then it means you want that type of government. You are comfortable with sending men in blue to kill people who would perhaps won't turn in their guns. What other conclusion am I to draw?

Socialism/communism killed over 100 million in the 20th century alone and yet some here have learned nothing from that except to embrace it for themselves.

Having said the above, and being bored because Im stuck waiting, I’ll entertain this a bit.

You qualify your statement thus “authoritarian type socialism”.

I agree that authoritarian type socialism is pretty bad.

The problem is less the “XYZ” in front, it’s more the “ism” attached. Humans tend to get all wrapped up in this that or the other “ism” (think the Inquisition or PreColumbia Mexico) and you will find folks willing to do in other folks with very little provocation.

In fact there is a Wiki for that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... death_toll

The raw numbers of these events are impressive, even more so when you consider hat the human population was generally much, much lower at the time and population densities were much lower. And these events took place even before communizing or socialism was even invented.

Killing one another seems to be pretty much in our blood, irrespective of our political affiliation. It’s something we do given the chance.

Now this is far from excusing such behavior or desiring such. But if we are to control it then we need to understand it.

I think what folks here are doing is trying to understand what is going on, if not to control it then to survive it.

[jedrider]

Ok Newfie it's like this. If you vote for a candidate who supports an authoritarian type socialism, then it means you want that type of government. You are comfortable with sending men in blue to kill people who would perhaps won't turn in their guns. What other conclusion am I to draw?

Socialism/communism killed over 100 million in the 20th century alone and yet some here have learned nothing from that except to embrace it for themselves.

Authoritarianism killed over 100 million people in the 20th century. Will the White House make the people's Congress irrelevant?

[Cog]

Congress has the power to remove the president. Why not vote to do so? Why are the Dems afraid of this?

[Newfie]

Completely off tomorrow topic. Evasion.

[Cog]

Perhaps dropping this made up impeachment would start to heal the partisan divide.