placeholder

I'm not responsible for the slogan, and given that we're on something called the internet, if you find yourself confused, there's a thing called google which is immensely helpful for questions like this.

I was counting on you to keep your word. Instead you insist on contributing nonsense. I should have expected as much. 15 minute city doesn't mean that everything you want to do is within 15 minutes. It's a goal set so that the things you need in your daily life would be accessible within 15 minutes without need a privately owned motorized. vehicle. And while Bangok may be a 15 minute city for some, it's not even a goal of the administration.

You asked for an answer. I gave it to you. Now, where's your definitio of what makes a nation great and what nations now or in the past are examples of that? Remember you said you would give an answer. " After you answer my original question." I've complied. Now it's your turn.

Well, if greatness is a matter of military power, certainly after WW2. If greatness is a matter of gross economic power, that persists even to this day. Now, what are your criteria and what country embodied or embodies them?

You're the one who claimed that popularity positively correlates with truthfulness. What's your comment got to do with that observation? I do believe you do watch lots of news. And apparently they mostly tell you that the 2020 election was stolen.

Can you share with us what your criteria are that determine whether or not a country is or was great? Do you have any examples of countries that are or were great to share with us?

Really? STUDY: Watching Only Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All They found that someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer 1.04 domestic questions correctly compared to 1.22 for those who watched no news at all. Those watching only "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" answered 1.42 questions correctly and people who only listened to NPR or only watched Sunday morning political talk shows answered 1.51 questions correctly. https://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5

A looming crisis is brewing in China, as hundreds of thousands of unsold, polluting gas-powered vehicles may be rendered unsellable due to incoming emissions rules. It’s another sign that the global auto industry isn’t ready for the shift to EVs and will be caught unawares if it doesn’t ramp EV production fast enough. The new Chinese emissions rules were announced all the way back in 2016 and are set to go into effect in July. https://electrek.co/2023/04/01/ice-car-values-plummet-in-china-and-it-is-the-canary-in-the-coal-mine/

He had a hugely successful first 2 years despite the fact that the Democrats had the slimmest of edges in the Senate. You may disapprove of the bills that got passed, but they were big accomplishments.

So truthfulness is all about popularity, is it?

And if they were legal, then they would be working for at least minimum wage with overtime rules in effect. So less grounds for alleged displacement of workers. Although it's dubious that many native-born Americans would want to do the backbreaking work that constitutes so much a part of agriculture. And in slaughterhouses, too.

Another empty evidence-free claim. You've still got nothing.

This is the issue that supporters of the wall repeatedly avoid. If criminal penalties including imprisonment were to be legislated aganst employers who hire undocumented aliens, then we would see a sharp decline in undocumented immigrants entering the United States. But the dirty not-so-secret secret is that much of the US economy depends on undocumented aliens. And employers like it that way because undocumented workers are far less likely to seek legal recourse in case they are being mistreated or cheated by their employers. And when have Republicans ever gone after the ruling class of the business world?

So, to your way of thinking, ratings are how to determine whether something is factual or not?

"BIden's whole family should be being investigated. - money from China - direct link proven" From the landing page of the World Forum: "Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source." "NO prosecutions what so ever for BLM riots !" From the landing page of the World Forum: "Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

And even if the B.S. you are claming is true, what's stopping you from offering up fact-based reporting to bolster your assertions about election irregularities. And in point of fact, to cite a very recent I recently replied to a poster who challenged my assertions about David Weiss and the investigation of Hunter Biden. What in my reply did you deem to be merely based on opinion and not grounded in facts? What you want is license to claim as fact whatever you believe without being required to provide proof. There are plenty of forums for that. Just not this one. Put up or...

No they link to fact-based reporting which are deemed to be credible sources including Fox News. The fact is that you've got no credible sources. That over and over again the courts and actual recounts have proven that claims like yours are false. You've got nothing.

Can you please share with us the objective measure that was used to calibrate "the level of vitriol posted at Trump." And while you're at it, can you use that same measure to calibrate the level of vitriol that Trump has posted at various persons during and after his Presidency? Obviously, your post here is just another B.S. piece of deflection.

To back up your claim with evidence. That's what honorable people do.

Your question clearly establishes how fact-proof is the new bubble you inhabit. There's a saying that attorneys in a court shouldn't ask questions they don't know already the answer to. Because it's very embarrassing. Maybe you're embarrassment-proof? Here's something from the Marxists at Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-investigation-ag-garland-taking-hands-off-approach-leaves-charging-decisions-weiss And from the Maoists at the Washington Times: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/mar/1/merrick-garland-says-delaware-us-attorney-david-we/ And here's a bit of general informatIon: "On February 15, 2018, his nomination to be the United States Attorney was confirmed by voice vote. He was sworn in on February 22, 2018. Weiss has been in charge of the investigations into the financial dealings of Hunter Biden and was asked to stay on during the Biden administration.[4]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_C._Weiss#:~:text=He currently serves as the,Attorney from 2009 to 2011. And now that I've complied with your request, I am confident that you will do the honorable thing and comply with mine, I await your response with eagerness. EDIT: Well, it looks like 2009 has fled the scene. What a crucifix is to a vampire, facts are to Trump supporters.

Because it's an uninformed question based on a misconception. And it's compounded by the fact that we're in a thread that was based on a misleading premise.. Instead of asking us to inform you about the concept, why not look it up for yourself? Via a thing called google. or maybe GPIChat...

And there would just as good or as little a reason to raise a similar question if the indictments had occurred before Trump kicked off his campaign viz... "Is it a genuine coincidence that these charges have come a few days before Trump begins his election campaign? .Were these charges advanced to spoil the official launching? (Advising me to drink "Kool -aid" isn't an acceptable reply)"

The sad thing is, I can't tell whether or not thaibeachlovers is making a joke.

Well, then we agree.

There's a difference between an inadvertent error and a deliberate one.