Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Wait... what political power did Joe Biden have via his son? The VP of the US has a lot of power and I can't imagine that Hunter inserting himself into a company he's not qualified to operate somehow increased Biden's political power as VP of the USA.
Hunter does come across as a bit of a slimeball and for some reason the Republicans eat it up. You know what though? Hunter's not our President! Our President is so unimpeachable they need to attack his family. That they are so unapologetically doing so is the real disgrace.
Right. Since you have not even provided one Word of evidence for your quackery let alone "proof" (another word that escapes you) I will consider your tirade a win on my part and (may, unless taunted) exit gracefully. Yeah, although I have some coin, spending 10's of million's of dollars on weaponry and battling military red tape on your unlikely edification is not going to happen.
Bye, bye now.
This is incorrect in multiple ways. They weren't "remote villages". Hiroshima was in the top 10 largest cities in Japan at the time and:
Again, I'd urge you to look some of the "after" photos. Some of the masonry buildings remain standing but you're acting like they were pristine and only the wooden ones burned. That's simply not true. In fact in this image you can see some of the masonry ones are seriously damaged. That building at the bottom looks like wood actually and is standing, maybe it was protected in some way by another structure.
Your claim of firebombing makes no sense. How would you deploy enough firebombs to wreak that much damage in one go? The witness testimony clearly describes a single explosion.
That's firebombing, is it?
And you surely understand about the half-life of a radiation source?
Again, the physics is similar but not identical.
Yes, that is one of your ridiculous claims, and your evidence for it is ... ?
That's pretty much my point. So why then would that be part of the evidence you would accept. "They" could show you anything, you wouldn't know what you're looking at.
And then they'd either have to cut to another camera to show the explosion, or there would have to be a long shot of them retreating to a safe distance. Either way it would be easy for you to claim it's not the device you were shown the inside of that exploded. It's just a bizarre criteria you set for the evidence you'd accept. It makes zero sense.
You dismiss the mountain of evidence already available to you and then set a level of evidence you would accept which would be far less compelling than what already exists.
It makes me think that masonry is stronger than wood. The three little pigs know that, dude. As for survived the blast easily, have a look at the pictures. Some of the buildings are standing, but they're hardly pristine.
EDIT: I don't think "small wooden villages typically have populations of a quarter of a million people, at least 90,000 of whom died in the explosion. That's quite the fire bombing...
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/peace-and-war/the-manhattan-project
That isn't what I suggested you provide evidence for.
We agree that Hiroshima happened, right? You've said it was "fire-bombing", but have provided no evidence of that. The best you've come up with is that less strong structures were more easily flattened than stronger ones. But your thesis doesn't work. For that level of destruction to have been conventional explosives there would have had to be thousands of tons of them. How was that dropped on them? It was a single plane which delivered the bomb.
There is witness testimony of it being a single explosion and there was a radiation signature from the bomb. Evidence of all that has been provided.
It is a feature of the willfully ignorant that they will reject any evidence that goes against their beliefs.
This here is 100% pure bunk. Do you realize this proves, beyond any shadow of the tiniest doubt, that you do not understand the slightest thing about where nuclear energy comes from. Yet you still feel qualified to discuss it and taunt me for wanting out of this discussion? It is now obvious why you don't accept any of the evidence presented - because you are not able in any way to see that it is evidence. So, again, no point it having a discussion with you on it. You have just put in writing you don't understand any of it.
Nobody is asking for that. You have made some monumentally ridiculous claims here. We are asking for evidence for those claims. You have provided exactly none. Which leads us (me, anyway) to think you have none and you were really just speaking out of your extreme lower digestive system anatomy.
Update here: Let's add to this the fact that you are asserting that something that is already accepted as an established fact does not exist. In this case, yes, the onus is squarely on you to provide evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the established fact is wrong. Into other words that nuclear weapons don't exist. The best way to do that is to use your superior knowledge to show they can't exist. Another way would be to provide irrefutable evidence (in the true meaning of "evidence") that all the things that happened that are currently explained by the use of nuclear weapons are better explained by some other means (that's the thing you have not done).
There is no longer any point in arguing about nuclear weapons. The only evidence you say you will accept is not something anyone here can provide.
But more than half of Americans do have one. No one is required to get one but then they end up working low income jobs and you get people like Bishop who might say they don't deserve to have a liveable wage if they didn't want to get a "real job."
But it's not just affordability. I would argue that it's more necessary to get a college degree in this country then it is to buy a home as without a college degree you will likely not earn enough to ever be able to afford a home anyway.
Also, more than half of American households have two incomes so generally the burden is shared at least. And there is definitely a difference between starting your adult life in debt and choosing to go into debt because you decided you can buy a home later in your adult life.
And if you say again that you can choose to not get a degree, you are technically correct but I'd refer you back to my first point: No one is required to get one but then they end up working low income jobs and you get people like Bishop who might say they don't deserve to have a liveable wage if they didn't want to get a "real job." So damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Sounds like a good idea to me. Also, why are we "slinging out free money"? You had to qualify for Biden's student loan forgiveness program: You must earn less than $125,000 a year for individuals, or $250,000 for married couples and/or head of households.
Young adults who are debt free contribute more to the economy and would probably be more likely to start a family. But yeah, I'm also all for a general debt forgiveness program. It'd be more of a bandaid then solving any issue but as you pointed out, no one here is qualified or capable of fixing the situation. Shit just sucks.
Ok well you can try to have an imagination and maybe agree that things need to be regulated more. Or just say you think things are going great now and we should continue on without trying to improve anything.
Also, "Economists do know, however, that price controls can be theoretically beneficial when imposed appropriately on a monopolist or monopsonist, and they do tend to work better in imperfectly competitive markets."
https://www.stlouisfed.org/en/publications/regional-economist/2022/mar/why-price-controls-should-stay-history-books#authorbox
A price cap on insulin, for example, was extremely necessary btw and the government finally realized that.
If universities don't fall into that category then fine. Let's just all continue to spend ~120,000 for a degree or whatever it is now. Young adults definitely deserve to enter into the work force with that level of debt in order to get a job that pays maybe $20 an hour.
Many people can't even afford to buy houses anymore so maybe let's stop making that comparison because I can't see how that helps the argument.
Paradoxically, I believe that if student loans were either more expensive or more difficult to acquire, you'd see college costs coming down.Or we just regulate shit more. Force price caps. Same goes for hospitals that want to charge you $60 for one ibuprofen pill. People will overcharge for as long as they can get away with it.
Oh no, it turns out Biden isn't using American taxpayer money to pay off my loans after all. I'll have to pay them back myself, oh the humanity! Responsibility for my own actions? Gross. I perish the thought.Slapping a bunch of 18 year olds with huge debt because college is ludicrously expensive is rather gross. I would rather our taxes go to making us better than other places. But I think a more important goal is to make college/universities not so stupidly expensive and then implement debt programs.
And how would you determine that? How do you know what the inside of a nuclear weapon would look like? Your only source of information for that would be what "they" tell you, and you clearly don't trust "them"?
All those things ARE evidence. They'd all be accepted in a court of law as such. How credible you find them is an exercise for the reader.
I'd note you have provided no evidence for your assertion that Hiroshima was "firebombing".
Do you also think nuclear power stations are fake? It's a similar physics with those.
As I noted in the aliens thread, it's interesting how now we all walk around with HD cameras in our pockets there hasn't been an explosion of clear pictures of UFOs and bigfoot.
So sure, witness testimony alone may be suspect but it depends what the person is claiming to have witnessed. Certain claims are more credible than others. That's subjective, obviously. But when you combine the witness testimony with the fact that the Hiroshima bomb is on film as are many of the other nuclear tests. Then you have numerous sources outlining the radioactive effects of nuclear bombs and tests. For example
https://www.science.org/content/article/how-atomic-bomb-survivors-have-transformed-our-understanding-radiation-s-impacts
And the fact it's based on well understood and accepted physics. Like most things we can't directly witness we base our opinions on balance of probabilities.
You have provided no evidence for your alternative explanation and your entire argument is one from incredulity.
Yeah, it's almost like I'm asking for evidence of something that doesn't exist!Personally, I think that it’s far more likely that you know full well that nuclear bombs do exist and you’re just trolling.
Hilarious! Yeah, like you must believe nuclear weapons are fake without having any evidence for it whatsoever? Okay, I can see how you'd be an expert in doing that.
See, here's the issue and why I assume you'd reject any attempt at proof. There is already ton's of evidence. You just don't trust it. What would ever make any of us think you would trust any further evidence?
Anyway, this thread is going off the rails. From my perspective I'll give you the last word.
I like how, rather than provide the evidence I ask for, you'd prefer to presuppose it will be rejected. This is, of course, because you don't have it, and you're acting defensive about it and rationalizing it as "you wouldn't think it's true anyway!!!"And I like how you ask for evidence that you know full well is impossible to provide and then get all smug when people do try to provide what evidence is possible to provide.
You want to see the "internals of the device". What would that tell you? I wouldn't know what the internals of a nuclear weapon should look like. They could show me anything, how would you or I know that's real?
And then you want to see it detonated. OK. You understand that these blasts are very powerful so that would need to be from some distance away. The person showing the "internals of the device" and the camera would need to get that distance away and from that distance how could you know it's really the device you just saw the internals of that exploded?
This continues to be incorrect no matter how many times you say it. You have been shown a lot of evidence in this thread. You can reject it all of course and call it inadequate, as is your right, but to say we don't have "any evidence" is simply incorrect.
I actually disagree that religious beliefs are not based at all on evidence. I mean, let's say there was no historic evidence that Jesus even existed. Let's say the Gospels talk about people and places which just never existed. Let's say that there were no known versions of the Gospels before 1900. Then I'd be taking a pretty big leap of faith believing any of the New Testamant stories. But none of that is true. There is extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus existing, the people mentioned are known to have existed and many of the places mentioned still exist. There are copies of fragments of Gospels going back to reasonably close to Jesus' time. So while sure, I've had to take somewhat of a leap of faith it's not a completely blind leap with no evidence to back it up. Many of our beliefs are evidence based, you can't verify everything first hand.
I'd suggest it's a lack of rationality to disbelieve all the people who have witnessed at first hand nuclear explosions, dismiss the explosions as caused by conventional explosions - something you have provided no evidence for - and to ignore the radiation signatures of the bombs. As I've said multiple times, your entire argument is one of incredulity.
Of course if one was provided it would not be accepted. Either the "CGI!!!" cry would resound or Rushy would be busy moving the goal posts.
It is not possible to convince a conspiracy theorist their conspiracies are wrong. This should be obvious. Since their theories and their thinking are not based on established fact (IOW the lies we're being told) then established fact cannot shake them. More likely you will be accused of being part of the conspiracy and only serve to make it more concrete in their minds.
So how do conservatives feel about Hunter being guilty of the two things Conservatives love: buying guns and not paying taxes?
