jakee

Stop being a giant baby.

Sure, but what does that have to do with you reading nutso right wing sites instead of the New York Times? In your post you said it was an example of Antifa moving to direct action. The Justice Department link doesn't mention Antifa, so where did you get that from? It was either from a nutso right wing site or your own imagination, like so much else of what you post. If you had bothered to read about it in the New York Times instead of assuming like a good little right wing robot that the New York Times wouldn't cover it then you'd know they were anti-pipeline, not antifa

I can't tell you how funny it is that the second section of the training they talk about in that article describes exactly what you are doing right now. Sounds like a pretty good course!

No shit Shirley. It’s not what they are, it’s what you said Biden would do about them vs what Biden said he would do about them.

That's a lie. You posted what you said Biden was going to do, then a little later you posted the blurb from his website to prove what you said was true. It wasn't. That you wrongly claim Biden has pledged to confiscate sporting rifles is minutia?

No kidding.

Yes, therefore proving that it does not say what you said it says.

Watcha gonna do, Keyboard Kommando?

It's real. And those state legislators have made it state law that electors are chosen by popular vote. You can't change the rules in the middle of the game. And what will you do when they have come and gone and Biden is still President-Elect? Then seventy-four million American idiots are pissing in the wind. Eighty-one million American Patriots are waiting for them to rejoin the real world and shut the hell up.

What Biden’s says on his website is not what you say he says on his website. You provided the proof for us right here in black and white in this thread.

Yes, that’s why everyone else finds it so peculiar that your original post was so lacking in accuracy regarding both the facts and your opinion. Even your description of the events is inaccurate. You said it was ‘alleged’ that they retracted it so as not to spread misinformation. No, the editors publicly stated they retracted it so as not to spread misinformation. That’s a declaration, not an allegation.

Lol, brilliant. "I just learned of absolute incontrovertible evidence of North Korean boats delivering ballots through a harbor in Maine, the state of Maine," Stone said. "If this checks out, if law enforcement looked into that and it turned out to be true, it would be proof of foreign involvement in the election." Christmas gift ideas for Roger Stone: 1: A flaming bag of poo. 2: A dictionary with the meaning of the word “incontrovertible” underlined. 3: Another flaming bag of poo.

They were certainly more subtle than the indicators of credence. And look, if one person misunderstands you’re post it’s their problem. When everyone misunderstands your post it is your problem. Feel free to check through this whole thread - it’s clear that the problem with your post is indeed your problem. Added to which you have in this one thread both pointed out the importance of accurate information, and responded ‘meh’ when it’s pointed out that the inaccurate way you decided to word your post is spreading misinformation. So what are we to think, is accuracy important or unimportant? We can’t even tell what your message is in that, let alone on the topic itself.

That exacerbated an existing problem with the design of the booster. An excerpt from Wiki: As originally designed by Thiokol, the O-ring joints in the SRBs were supposed to close more tightly due to forces generated at ignition, but a 1977 test showed that when pressurized water was used to simulate the effects of booster combustion, the metal parts bent away from each other, opening a gap through which gases could leak. This phenomenon, known as "joint rotation", caused a momentary drop in air pressure. This made it possible for combustion gases to erode the O-rings. In the event of widespread erosion, a flame path could develop, causing the joint to burst—which would have destroyed the booster and the shuttle.[9]:118 Engineers at the Marshall Space Flight Center wrote to the manager of the Solid Rocket Booster project, George Hardy, on several occasions suggesting that Thiokol's field joint design was unacceptable. For example, one engineer suggested that joint rotation would render the secondary O-ring useless, but Hardy did not forward these memos to Thiokol, and the field joints were accepted for flight in 1980.[10] Evidence of serious O-ring erosion was present as early as the second space shuttle mission, STS-2, which was flown by Columbia. Contrary to NASA regulations, the Marshall Center did not report this problem to senior management at NASA, but opted to keep the problem within their reporting channels with Thiokol. Even after the O-rings were redesignated as "Criticality 1"—meaning that their failure would result in the destruction of the Orbiter, no one at Marshall suggested that the shuttles be grounded until the flaw could be fixed.[10] After the 1984 launch of STS-41-D, flown by Discovery, the first occurrence of hot gas "blow-by" was discovered beyond the primary O-ring. In the post-flight analysis, Thiokol engineers found that the amount of blow-by was relatively small and had not impinged upon the secondary O-ring, and concluded that for future flights, the damage was an acceptable risk. However, after the Challenger disaster, Thiokol engineer Brian Russell identified this event as the first "big red flag" regarding O-ring safety.[11] By 1985, with seven of nine shuttle launches that year using boosters displaying O-ring erosion or hot gas blow-by,[12] Marshall and Thiokol realized that they had a potentially catastrophic problem on their hands. Perhaps most concerning was the launch of STS-51-B in April 1985, flown by Challenger, in which the worst O-ring damage to date was discovered in post-flight analysis. The primary O-ring of the left nozzle had been eroded so extensively that it had failed to seal, and for the first time hot gases had eroded the secondary O-ring.[13] They began the process of redesigning the joint with three inches (76 mm) of additional steel around the tang. This tang would grip the inner face of the joint and prevent it from rotating. They did not call for a halt to shuttle flights until the joints could be redesigned, but rather treated the problem as an acceptable flight risk. For example, Lawrence Mulloy, Marshall's manager for the SRB project since 1982, issued and waived launch constraints for six consecutive flights. Thiokol even went as far as to persuade NASA to declare the O-ring problem "closed".[10] General Donald Kutyna, a member of the Rogers Commission, later likened this situation to an airline permitting one of its planes to continue to fly despite evidence that one of its wings was about to fall off.

In no way was that the message you conveyed with your post. The decisions you made in composing your post left your intention utterly ambiguous and the post itself open for a multitude of misunderstandings. Once again, if you post an article without making clear your own thoughts on it everyone reading is going to assume you agree with the article. Especially when the last thing in your post is your own summation of the conclusion made in that article.

That's too simplistic. Morton-Thiokol engineers warned Morton-Thiokol managers of potential O-ring concerns many times before the fatal launch and management ignored them and whitewashed their recommendations, just as Nasa management ignored and whitewashed Nasa engineers' concerns. On the day, after a Morton-Thiokol engineer recommended scrapping the launch, the decision to proceed was a joint one at management level between both Nasa and Morton-Thiokol. Thiokol failed institutionally at applying their own safety rules just the same as Nasa did, and ultimately they were the ones who designed, manufactured and supplied the defective part in the first place.

Yes. As I said, it gave no indication that you thought the conclusion of the article you both posted and summarised in your own words was not correct, reliable or based on anything other than sound data and methodology. Once again, a very strange way of making sure that accurate information is being relayed.

Just shows how panicked the Deep State are at what she's finding out. Imagine the effort it took to hide all evidence of Edison County so quickly! Seriously though, this is odd. At one point she was if not a prodigy, at least an exceptional student and highly successful lawyer. WaPo did an article on her where multiple former friends and colleagues were quoted as saying very similar things along the lines of "I don't recognise any part of this woman as the person I used to know." Apparently she had a major disappointment in a case against an AGs department 10 or 15 years ago, I wouldn't be surprised if she had either a mental breakdown or serious drug problem as a result to have sunk so low.

The cash for pardon thing is funny. It leaked that the Justice department were investigting lobbyists for acting illegally in trying to put together a cash for pardon scheme but with no indication it succeeded. Justice department sources said no government officials were ever under investigation. Trumps reaction; "Pardon investigation is Fake News!" Hmm, methinks the mango doth protest too much! And lthough pretty much the entire document appears to be redacted, I liked this quote “This political strategy to obtain a presidential pardon was ‘parallel’ to and distinct from [redacted]’s role as an attorney-advocate for [redacted].” I mean, I'll give myself one guess as to which unscrupulous hair dye oozing attorney-avocate they could possibly be talking about there

Since Trump was never really into politics I'm sure that when he put together his campaign he had to ask advice about what Republicans want to hear. I guess someone told him to just be opposed to the Democrats, he misunderstood and decided to take a stand against democracy.

So you posted the finding of the original article, along with your own "in other words" synopsis of the article, without at any point indicating that you didn't think the article was accurate? Because you wanted to provide accurate information?

Hmm, wasting all those tax dollars on a horrible revamp that'll almost certainly be scrapped as soon as the next guy comes in anyway. I'm sure all those small government conservatives are delighted. And that's not even being facetious, I'm sure they're delighted anyway because reasons.

So if I'm to understand this correctly, you're saying you have absolutely no ethical or moral problem with what Tlaib said? The only thing you think is wrong with it is that she's a public figure and so it might be counterproductive to the Palestinian peace process?

That's what you do. All. The. Time.

Why do you care? You regularly post genocidal comments comments against Muslims, so I can't imagine that you think there's anything wrong with it.