JCauto

1 minute ago, Nyezhov said:

Actually, thinking folks know that the failures came from local government. I hear they just found thousands of bottles of water just sitting there undistributed.

 

That comports with what a heard from locals on my last visit there. No matter what their politics, they blamed the local honchos. One taxi drive told me that the Mayor of San Juan and her cronies were stealing funds and black market selling. Another told me that supplies were given first to activists for local government and that if you werent in the Mayors "club" you waited...a la Venezuela.

 

Regardless, the Feds did their job to get the supplies there. Where were the locals? 

 

 

 

Yep, it's just like Truman said, "the buck stops here". So it's always someone else's fault when things go badly with this guy, and always his accomplishment when something goes well even if it happened long before he became president (which is usually the case). So tell me then, why if this was such a mess due to the "locals" that Mango Mussolini is trumpeting what a great success it was? He surely isn't lying again, is he?

8 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

I Trump isn't going to let another Katrina happen. 

Trump isn't going to let his second disaster larger than Katrina happen. FTFY.

47 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

These were obtuse arguments the first time round - but Musk has very helpfully clarified that by "pedo-guy," he meant "child rapist" and by referring to a child bride of 12. 

 

Stick to where it hurts is one of countless expressions in extremely common usage in English which are obviously not literal. They're as old as the hills and all languages have their equivalent, English is absolutely peppered with them. Vern made a mild (though unclassy) insult that means nothing worse than take it away, ditch it or something similar. He meant it no more literally than Vern's mum commenting that Musk should be hung.

 

Just to explain my last paragraph by the way, when I say expressions are as old as the hills, that's obviously not true as hills predate languages. And when I say English is peppered with them, no pepper is actually involved. 

You are a bit pedantic with respect to English but believe his Mum wishes Elon had larger wedding tackle? 

55 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Of course not, and nowhere did I suggest otherwise. 

 

I understand that he was approached to help, but maybe you have different knowledge of how he got involved? At what point was he told that he was barking up the wrong tree? I have no idea, do you? Was he told to back off but persisted in the face of considered advice? That would certainly show he was the idiot he has since been determined to prove himself to be. 

 

But, as I said, I watched the interview with Vernon and I thought he came across as unnecessarily snide. He could have said what he wanted to say without the sneer and the dismissive attitude. If he had responded in a grown up manner, this row would have been a non-event. That does not excuse what Musk said about him, but it demonstrates how one childish remark begets another. 

 

I understand your point. I too tend to be civil and polite as a rule, being Canadian. On the other hand, I can understand his perspective. This was a problem that he had unique insight to offer to assist with that had been gained through years of slogging through the caves. He was working as part of the teams who were cooperating to get the kids out. Then this bigshot flies in promising miracle solutions that turn out to be no solution at all, steals a bunch of attention and in a way that could be interpreted as being in his company's promotional self-interest. I can understand his being pissed off with these guys.

I too have worked in the region for years and gotten to know a fair bit about things in my field, and one of the most annoying experiences is when so-called experts from abroad fly in with their wonderful solutions that work quite well where they are, but aren't at all appropriate for where we are. They ignore what we've been doing and our advice and often proceed to attempt to implement their bad ideas to the detriment of the work we've been carefully building up for years. They always do so on their own, without much involvement of the locals as they don't speak the language, don't know the culture, and once they've gotten what they wanted out of it, they fly away to their next thing, leaving the wreckage of whatever they did behind. Elon has a bit of a hero complex and gets petulant when what he does fails to save the day and leave him covered in rose petals.

19 minutes ago, lovelomsak said:

First lady is spot on with this Twitter.

 

 Cowardly gutless people  resort to things like this when the are losing. They cannot stand to be on the losing end and will do what ever it takes to make others look bad. 

 She is so right who ever wrote this does not care about  the welfare of America. They only care about promoting their political agenda. 

As you appear to have missed the point, let me repeat it.

A "Senior Administration Official" is someone who is a Republican, someone who has a Conservative viewpoint and agenda, someone who is on board with the policy and laws enacted via this Republican Congress, someone who has been appointed by Trump to work within his administration. There are no Democrats who are "Senior" within the Administration. Mueller is NOT a Democrat. Rosenstein is NOT a Democrat. Comey was NOT a Democrat. There are NOT "17 Angry Democrats" pursuing the Russia investigation. This is the few remaining Republicans who actually care about preventing a man completely out of his depth from inflicting lasting damage on the USA and their allies. 

Yes, what he described is illegal. But it's what this mess of an administration has come to, its logical conclusion. Republicans in Congress and the White House completely understand that Trump is a disaster and has to be managed like a toddler, even if it means breaking the law. But rather than be responsible lawmakers and invoke the 25th Amendment, they're using him to get what they want while enabling him to stagger around the halls of power destroying anything shiny that catches his eye, usually something he has a personal grievance with. When what he wants to break is too valuable, they distract him with another bauble and he runs off to chase it while forgetting completely about the old one.

9 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

Careful. The article appeared as an OPINION piece. It is  no different than a letter to the editor. And it is very different from  the confidential information of a reporter. The expectation of confidentiality is different. The opinion section of a newspaper, particularly the large ones like the NYT is separate from the news division. The opinion section is not written by reporters. rather it is  intended to be partisan, hence the use of the term "opinion". It is not held to the same degree of fact checking as a news story. As such, it cannot benefit from the same protections.

A person stating an opinion has to take responsibility for that opinion.  The NYT is on shaky legal ground and may not be able to rely on the 1st Amendment to shield the identity of the person. The 1st is intended to protect the distribution of the opinion. A person who is in the employ of the POTUS is subject to the duty of loyalty to the office of the POTUS, and it is a higher standard than that applied to  John Q. public. THis wasn't whistle blowing about an illegal act. Rather it was an admission of sabotage and betrayal. This isn't going to be protected by the 1st Amendment.

 

That's possible. 

My point was in rebuttal to one of the people who believed that the NYT had published the Opinion of a low-ranking functionary whereas I was pointing out that the NYT would certainly have vetted whether this person deserved the distinction of "Senior" or not. 

13 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Maybe it was my upbringing, but I thought he spoke with neither grace nor class. IMO he was unnecessarily dismissive and snide.

 

Musk was approached to help; granted, his design seems to have been wide of the mark in terms of practicality, but it is not as if he was desperate for the publicity prior to this. 

Right, so being dismissive, snide and classless makes you fair game for being publicly accused of being a pedophile by a guy who's megaphone broadcasts to the entire world?

Regardless of his manners, if you came to me and started trying to solve a problem in my area of expertise in a manner that was completely obvious and clear to me would not work, I would tell you so and why. If you persisted in attempting to do the thing after having had the impossibility explained and had an obvious ulterior motive in doing so, I would start to become rude, because you were ignoring my well-founded advice and your presence was therefore at best a distraction and at worst an obstruction.

This is a life and death situation and while Musk came to help, it should have become apparent to such a clever fellow that it wasn't going to work and he should therefore vacate the premises. He didn't, and when called out on it got angry and lashed out. The first time caused major losses to his company's stock and the Board started to express concerns about his leadership and stability. The second time has strengthened this view. His revealing article in the news that described his mentally breaking down at Tesla trying to keep things moving demonstrated another cause for concern. This looks more to me like a person in the throes of losing it and looking for an easy target to lash out at. This is a real shame, as we need ambitious and audacious entrepreneurs like Musk to expand the boundaries as quickly as possible so we can address the existential concerns we face. Often great intelligence and insight comes with mental issues unfortunately.

14 hours ago, bendejo said:

Can't help but thinking of Al Capone here -- for all he did, what brought him down was tax evasion.

All this Cohen stuff, when you get down to the core of the whole mess, had to do with DT dipping his wick.  And of course yapping off.  You'd think someone over 70 would know when to keep their mouth shut.

 

I take it you don't have older relatives?

And the dominoes start falling...and Michael Cohen is fully turned and singing about...wait for it...collusion with Russia! 

Witchhunt! Best people! How many now convicted felons? And Cohen about to turn State's evidence on Russia. A link direct between Russian mafia money, Ukraine politics, the NRA and Trump. The house of cards is falling in slow motion. What a great show. 

I thought the guy was quite a skilled driver actually. His ability to push the other cars gently with his own and manoeuvre around the others showed much more skill than usually observed. 

Just now, dick dasterdly said:

 

That's not what I said at all...  I was pointing out that some parents were worried about possible autism concerns connected to the MMR vaccine, and so preferred to give the vaccinations individually - but this was made very difficult by the authorities.

 

Why did you change this to parents deciding to not vaccinate their children at all?

Oh, sorry, completely misread that. Carry on then.

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

If we're moving on to the MMR vaccine - then I agree with thaibeachlovers on this issue.

 

There is some evidence that the MMR vaccine could possibly cause autism in a few children, so understandably many parents preferred to give their children the vaccines individually.

 

The authorities tried very hard to stop this, and their argument (IIRC) was that the delay in administering the individual vaccines could cause an increase in the number of these (already very low....) diseases.....

 

One of the worst examples of the 'establishments' determination to enforce their rules on everyone, even when there was no reason to do so.  The three separate vaccinations had worked extremely well for decades.

Right, so because there were possibly but not at all proven to be a few cases where the MMR vaccine could possibly cause autism, then it's permissible and understandable for parents to mitigate that practically non-existent risk in exchange for weakening the herd because you haven't vaccinated your little one. That you are weakening community immunity (herd immunity) is indisputable, and we are already observing how measles and mumps are making a comeback because of this. This is not theory, there is no doubt.

Similar to the Climate Change debate, there is a massive and reviewed body of scientific study and evidence on one side, and the "feelings" of some uninformed and untrained people on the other who "believe" they understand the issues better than these professionals have spent their lives training and gaining actual experience in dealing with the real world consequences of applying their knowledge. This is the Dunning-Kruger Effect in its most obvious and pervasive form. It's no wonder that those who believe this are also those who are the most hopeless about our future and least willing to commit to doing anything personally about it. Like the blindly religious, they give up their reasoning faculties in favour of faith in something that confirms their bias.

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

On the one hand you claim to be a scientist and on the other you state as an absolute fact that a vaccination induced autism in your child. How do you square your assertion with the scientific method? Or with the CDC's massive study to determine whether or not there is a link between autism and vaccination?

Good and relevant one from Reddit today.

Why was the 3-year old child of Anti-Vaxxer parents crying?

She was having a mid-life crisis.

2 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

5555 did you honestly expect the Obama justice department to indict their own folks?

 

And it's not hard to indict someone who can't be extradited.......

Yes, yes I would. Because that's what happened under Nixon. And Clinton. And Trump. These are people in law enforcement. They have this tendency to do their jobs and enforce the law. If they had found something Obama had done, they'd have investigated and indicted him too.

Now compare that to justice in your country. The Magnitsky Affair tells you everything you need to know about corrupt countries and their justice systems.

14 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I don't really care what happens to you and if I had a master plan that could save the future world, I wouldn't bother, you can all die.

As I previously stated, I only have 10 years left.

Well aren't you a fun guy! I hope you'll pardon our attempting to do something for others, didn't mean to disturb your angry descent into death.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If I were an American taxpayer, I'd want to know why an investigation costing millions and lasting over a year, has not produced a single conviction for collusion with the Russians over the last election.

Now that's a good point! After all the Benghazi investigation took over 2.5 years with no fewer than 7 congressional committees investigating it and cost almost $8,000,000 and there was not a SINGLE INDICTMENT OR CONVICTION!

Because the investigation on Collusion with Russia has so far produced five indictments and one conviction in half the time for those who are keeping score. And we're just getting started! So you must be feeling vindicated that the waste of Benghazi has been finally stopped and we're getting some results from Mueller's probe.

3 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I don't see any limit to the food, water and land possible in the short term (500 years).

But the people who grow the food, process the water and own the land don't give it away free of charge, which is the only reason the poor will have a problem. If the west was run the way it used to be run, with armed guards at borders with 'shoot-to-kill' orders, there wouldn't be a problem with 'humanity' moving around. But it suits the globalists current agenda to allow invaders into the west.

500 years, eh? Well then, what was I worried about! You will publish a link to your research I hope so that we ignorant folk who have estimated that we're going to lose an awful lot of that highly productive land to sea level rise and salinization, and a lot of the food production to disruptive storms, changes in temperature and rainfall patterns and other knock-on effects will feel so much better about this new lease on life. Why have the media been trying to silence you and your amazing and unique research?

Just now, BritManToo said:

You assume I'm the ignorant one and you're the informed one.

Yes, that's true. My basis for assessment is my work as an engineer and scientist in natural resources management issues including forestry. As a result of my many years of experience, I have had to read numerous scientific studies, become familiar with the different aspects of natural resources management and the issues that impact them, and engage in scientific analysis of complex issues such as hydrology of sub-tropical catchments to determine potential maximum flood flows. What's yours?

46 minutes ago, ivor bigun said:

To be honest i really do not think climate change is going to be the major ptoblem,as the worlds poor and uneducated breed ,faster and faster and as their food and water runs out,the tide of humanity running to countrys that have these things will be a tsunami, barriers will go up to try to stem the flood and wars will ensue,God help the population in the time to come and i just thank the sky fairy i was born when i was.

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

So you don't see a link to the poor running out of food, water and land and their eventual migration and Climate Change? Hint - it's what will result in the running out of the food, water and land.

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

Not really as they're all paid to prove the same thing and produce papers proving the same thing.

As Rick stated, you are on the 'victim', 'social justice' side of the equation, as demonstrated in every post you make and every 'like' you give, no thinking required on your part, just follow SJW policy.

So your point is that if they're being paid to research something, then they will come to the conclusions of the paymasters because that is in their best economic interest in order to keep their jobs. It's a great point. For those of us who understand science, that is.

You see, someone working for ClimateChangeRUs who discovered that the books were cooked, that the conclusions were wrong, that the actual evidence points to no man-made impacts, that there are perfectly valid natural explanations for the warming of the earth and its impacts, would become instantly wealthy and famous. They would have their own private Climate Research Institute funded by the Koch Bros. as soon as they could put their signature on the contract. They would have Exxon and the Carbon Energy Giants lining up to give them money to propagate more research to prove that anthropogenic climate change is bunkum.

Yet they can't get a single credible scientist to accept these riches, this fame, these powers. Wonder why that is? It's the best possible rebuttal to the anti-science crowd - anyone with scientific credibility willing to twist the results to achieve an end would get whatever they wanted, yet nobody will sell out their principles to make fake research.

44 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Yep, didn't vaccinate my English kids, but you feel free to damage yours.

Thai hospital vaccinated my Thai kids (no choice), and one was damaged (mild vaccine-induced autism), but seemed to recover a couple of years later.

 

5555! Yes, you're a classic case. It's called the "backfire effect", where people's beliefs are actually reinforced by facts that directly contradict them and then they see evidence of their views everywhere they look ("confirmation  bias"). These are symptoms of what is known as the "Dunning-Kruger Effect".

Dunning-Kruger Effects occur when individuals’ lack of knowledge about a particular subject leads them to inaccurately gauge their expertise on that subject. Ignorance of one’s own ignorance can lead people who lack knowledge on a subject think of themselves as more expert than those who are comparatively better informed.

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

As I understand it Sessions recused himself from a Russia investigation because of his Russia ties, nothing to do with bias for or against Trump, or lying.

 

Whatever you or I think, Mueller thought it so bad he removed Strzok from his team because of the overt bias revealed in the texts.

So your first sentence basically is in agreement with my point. 

The reason Mueller removed Strzok is that he knows those desperately defending the President would use it as a continuous distraction to the investigation so he got rid of it before Trumpeters could turn it into a constant drone in the news cycle. Which of course you're still trying to do. But sorry, it's one investigator out of hundreds, and the weight of evidence is such that this straw man will be well revealed for what it is in due course.

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I have no problem acknowledging that human activity may have had some impact on climate, but I have yet to be convinced that it is a primary cause of destructive climate change. I'm more convinced by the science that promotes increased atmospheric CO2 as a result of heat than of Gore's proposition that CO2 causes heat. I also think that the sun's activity far outweighs anything man does.

 

I'll certainly agree that by destroying the forests of the planet, humans have released vast amounts of CO2 and prevented the capture of CO2 by tree growth. A classic case of humanity shooting itself in the foot, yet NOTHING has been done to  reverse the destruction of forests.

I'll agree that aeroplanes are a MAJOR cause of CO2 pollution in the atmosphere, yet far from limiting air travel, every government in the world is doing all they can to INCREASE it.

Nuclear power is the only non polluting ( CO2 ) power source that can actually meet demand ( other than hydro, and that is limited to certain countries ), yet countries like Germany and Japan are trying to do away with it, while other countries ban it outright.

 

All I can gain from the information that is available to me, is that humans are very stupid when it comes to preserving the environment, and governments are very bad at deciding priorities. Probably the worst model of development, ever increasing productivity, is the one most in use on the planet, yet it is suicidal for the future of humanity. Enough studies have been done with rats to know what happens when populations increase beyond the ability of their environment to support them, yet humans continue to overpopulate themselves without any restraint, especially now China revoked it's one child policy.

What is crystal, is that too many humans inhabit the planet, and till that is reversed, we are doomed as a species.

Sorry, "debating" the scientific consensus puts you in the position of those not vaccinating their children because they believe it causes autism even though there's no evidence for that, it's been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked, and the overwhelming if not unanimous consensus among the experts who study and understand the science and medicine is that these are safe and necessary. You are welcome to join fellow cranks in pissing on everything the professionals and scientists are doing but it's pointless to discuss further.

28 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Things are running just fine there, check our economy. But hey, YMMV.

I disagree, Russia's economy has some major structural issues and is dominated by oligarchs.