placeholder

Did you actually read the article? First of all, the only person who tested positive for drugs in the system was the father. and the drug was marijuana which is hardly in the same league as methamphetamines or opiods. What's more, unlike alcohol, the thc metabolites persists in the blood long after the effect has worn off. So it's not even clear he was driving under the influence. As for the hair follice test, first off it's unreliable. Second, even if was correct, it tests for past use. It reveals nothing about the current state of the person tested. Third, the state couldn't even produce and written documentation for the test results because they claimed that they don't keep them. Does that sound like standard operating procedure. So how do we even know that the alleged findings are even actual? And I noticed you turned "gun" into "guns". Do you know if the gun was loaded? Do you know where the gun was kept?

Actually, I think this whole thing is overblown. It was one thing for Trump to call for a demonstration that was going to be "wild" when he was President. It's quite another thing now. For all the dire consequences predicted in the wake of the FBI's search of Mar y Lago, and the threats made by MAGA supporters, nothing consequential followed.

Tell your American friend to relax. The same thing was predicted for Trump's impeachments and also that the FBI search would result in a Republican red wave in 2022.

I have never claimed that there aren't other processes at work. What I have pointed out is rate of change and how anomalous the present situation is. What I have objected to is those who use semantics to claim that there has always been climate change and that therefore the present situation is not anomalous. Here is a quote of mine from this thread: "Thanks for the silly word game. But the issue is based in science not semantics. It's not about climate change per se, but about rate of change. To make it clear to you, if you had a choice to make 2 equally safe investments, but one paid 1 percent and the other 10 percent, which one would you chose? According to your way of thinking, since both are increasing, it wouldn't matter which one you invested in. Not only is the average global temperature increasing, but it's doing so at an accelerating rate. The last 8 years have been the hottest on record. And that's despite some of those year occurring during a phenomenon called La Nina, which actually make global temperatures lower than they would otherwise have been."

Where was the gun being stored? Was the gun loaded? And, of course, in Tennessee, it's perfectly legal to be in possession of a gun. So how would that constitute legal grounds for taking away their children? As for weed, if parents were to lose their children for having weed in their possession, should they also have their children taken away for having alcohol in their possession? Are these substances dangerous just because they are in the possession of individuals? How many tens of millions of parents would liable for having possession of either of these substances?

At the time, his goal may have been to encourage Chinese cooperation. It may have been a forlorn hope, but worth a shot.

Because his legal appeals have been mostly successful until now?

The follicle test does not show that. What it might show is that sometime in the past they might have had them in their system. And I wrote "might" because these tests give lots of false positives. Also, when the state was asked to produce the test results, they said they couldn't because they don't keep them. So the state can offer no proof that this was the case. I do think it's interesting that the same party who casts so much doubt on documented evidence offered by the govt in some regards, places such trust in govt when it lacks the evidence to support its claims.

If FI doesn't eventually go electric, most likely it will eventually go the way of the dinosaurs.

On the one hand, in Russia, it's a serious crime to call Russia's invasion of Ukraine a war. Which it is. But to call for the extermination of millions is not a crime. And yet Russia claims that it's the Ukrainians who are the Nazis.

So, if some fundamentalist type claims that the earth was created 6000 or so years ago, because I'm not a geologist, I can't disprove that claim by citing what geologists say is the age of the earth? If that same Bible thumper claims that there is no such thing as evolution, that God created all species as they are, because I'm not a paleontologist or an evolutionary biologist, I can't disprove their claim by citing what paleontologists and evolutionary biologists say? Once again, you've come up with another ridiculous objection.

Woman who fled to Thailand for fatal hit-and-run of MSU student extradited to U.S. The Oakland County woman charged in connection with a fatal hit-and-run that killed a 20-year-old college student before fleeing the country has returned to the U.S. Tubtim "Sue" Howson was taken into federal custody after being extradited from Thailand, the FBI confirmed to FOX 2 Friday. She had her initial court appearance in San Francisco and is scheduled for a detention hearing on Feb. 28. The Oakland County Sheriff's Office, which is the lead agency investigating the death of Ben Kable, could not confirm Howson's return to the U.S https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/woman-who-fled-to-thailand-for-fatal-hit-and-run-of-msu-student-extradicted-to-u-s The Bangkok Post also says she was extradited but quoting or linking to that organization is against the rules. But it's easy enough to google it.

Israel has a parliamentary system. And it's a very fractured one. So the country didn't vote Bibi in. The eventual coalition did.

I do hope that whoever the future Republican nominee is, that they endorse what Wyoming has done. We saw how well the abortion issue played for the Republicans in the midterms. It's going to be interesting to see how they wriggle on that issue.

Neither impeachment nor trial in the Senate are criminal processes. And one crucial way they differ is that the juries are not vetted and selected from a larger pool to warrant their impartiality.

Got some news for you. According to Justice Dept. Policy, a sitting President can't be prosecuted for a crime while in office. So those first 4 years don't count. Second, since then, Trump's teams of lawyers have done their best to delay proceedings against him. This has, on occasion, earned them severe reproaches from judges. Most of their attempts ultimately fail, but it does eat up a lot of time. And while he hasn't yet been found guilty, the business he headed, the Trump Organization, was indicted on 17 criminal counts and was found guilty only of 17 of them.

Funny. If it's the best thing that could have happened to him, why has his legal team gone to such extraordinary lengths to prevent it from happening?

How about a president who would rather pay off someone rather than that the truth be revealed? Would you really want such a person in office?

I think those of us who take seriously the threat posed by Trump should be very concerned about Musk's electoral prediction: Elon Musk says he voted Republican for the first time in Texas congressional race, predicts a 'massive red wave' in 2022 midterms https://www.businessinsider.com/musk-says-voted-gop-first-time-predicts-midterm-red-wave-2022-6

I think if a law is going to result in more more misery and deaths, then certainly to those with a religious bent it could be described as sinful. But "evil" is another word that comes to mind. Just to be clear, GAHT stands for Gender Affirming Hormone Therapy. Association of Gender-Affirming Hormone Therapy With Depression, Thoughts of Suicide, and Attempted Suicide Among Transgender and Nonbinary Youth Use of GAHT was associated with lower odds of recent depression (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = .73, p < .001) and seriously considering suicide (aOR = .74, p < .001) compared to those who wanted GAHT but did not receive it. For youth under age 18, GAHT was associated with lower odds of recent depression (aOR = .61, p < .01) and of a past-year suicide attempt (aOR = .62, p < .05). https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(21)00568-1/fulltext

Whether it's true or not, it's not evidence of any criminal activity by Biden which is an unsupported belief rampant among right wingers.

Obvious attempt at deflection. This isn't about what Credo says but what virtually all climate scientists subscribe to. . You're the one who challenged me about that 99.9% figure, and when I prove that it's got nothing to do with a "disinfectant ad", and I provide the link you ask for, you just continue to deflect anyway. You've got nothing.

I do. You've made it clear you don't.

I guess "No, it's not" technically qualifies a rebuttal. But you clearly don't understand what inane means. Since your rebuttal offers no reasoning or factual content, it's lacking significance. And "lacking significance" is a definition of "inane."

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies. The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed. https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change