placeholder

If you think traffic jams and congestion corresponds to your idea of moving freely, so be it. It certainly doesn't allow pedestrians in cities to move freely or breathe freely. Nor ambulances, fire trucks, police cars or other emergency vehicles.

Like so many others on the right, you seem to have been suckered into believing something about the 15-minute cities that is not true. No one is corralling anybody. Anyone is free to go to any destination they were able to go to before.

One of the main goals of the 15-minute city is to consume less. Building new cities is not the way to go about that.

It seems that mikebike didn't take into account when the 13 amendment was ratified.

But why wouldn't they? Because you can never use too much cement?

What was the year at the 13th amendment passed?

You keep reciting the same ploy over and over again. Namely, when the facts are against you, make it personal. You've got next to nothing.

I'm shocked. But, still, now that Mr Liddell has been found liable by the arbitration panel, I'm sure Mike Lindell will see the errors of his ways and own up to the fact that there was no significant election fraud. And I'm confident that goes too for all the folks who shared Mr Lindell's belief.

Does anything think that calling this "Breaking News" was done as a joke?

You sure about that? I'm going to go out on a limb and venture that you have heard of Paris, France. Anyway, here's a link to an article that goes to great length to discuss the pros and cons of the ongoing program to turn Paris into a 15 minute city. https://slate.com/business/2023/03/paris-car-ban-bikes-cycling-history-france.html You might need to use the incognito or in-Private mode on your browser to bypass the paywall.

I can't find any evidence that a nuclear power plant has been dismantled and disposed of.

You're not being fair to Alina Habba. She has had a very unusual experience actually. She was fined by a judge for bringing a ridiculous case to court.

They claim they know how to deal with it. But how do we know if it's never actually been dealt with?

Whenever I see the phrase 'everyone knows this"or "everyone knows that" it's a pretty fair bet that it's authored by someone who has a very strong belief with no facts to back it up.

Nice in theory. Where's the practice?

Thanks for the empty phrase.

"Post hoc ergo propter hoc" "After this therefore because of this" It's a logical fallacy that is a particular feature of simplistic thinking. Believe it or not, what happens in the world does not necessarily depend on who the President of the United States is.

As has been repeatedly noted Garland explicitly gave Weiss a high degree of autonomy in this case. Moreover, it's the usual policy of an administration to replace all the US attorneys appointed by a previous administration with new ones. The Biden administration explicitly excepted Weiss from this replacement policy.

Nigelforbes wrote this: "Good! Now that I know for sure that you have read the article, at least now you will understand the reasons for the current high food prices so perhaps you'll stop blaming everything on Brexit alone!" I asked him to produce evidence that I had ever blamed Brexit alone for high food costs. Here is his entire, unaltered reply: "Blah blah blah PH, give it up and take your anti-Brexit bandwagon home." I wish I were surprised that you consider NigelForbes evidence-free reply to have some evidentiary value.

In other words, you've got nothing.

Actually not. I have criticized somewhere in this forum, EU agricultural policy. What was proposed by Brexiters was superior. Although they seem to be failing to follow through. On the other hand, I can't recall you ever not supporting Brexit. But even if I had never supported Brexit in any way, what's your point?

To "stop blaming blaming everything on Brexit alone" means somewhere along the way I was blaming Brexit alone for everything . I can't find anywhere I claimed that but I'm sure that you, as someone who claims to prefer objective evidence, will point out where I did just that. I await the production of such evidence eagerly.

And I know you won't be pretty sure unless you had some hard evidence to back up your claim. Can you share that evidence with us?

Why should they deny those payments if they weren't illegal? It's the right wing that's been making claims that they somehow were illegal or that some of the money went to Joe Biden. And the payments weren't from the Chinese govt but from a private company. In fact, the head of the company is currently being detained by the Chinese govt on the grounds of corruption. So it seems very unlikely he was an agent for tem. As for the allegations, I guess we have to wait and see. Agan, David Weiss, a US attorny appointed by Trump, is going to cover up Hunter Biden's crimes? Seems unlikely, too. As well as Garland perjuring himself. Right now, they're just allegations.

Well, if they used rare earths that would be first. Rare earths are not used in batteries. Rare earths and EVs — it’s not about batteries https://www.batterypowertips.com/rare-earths-and-evs-its-not-about-batteries-faq/ As for lithium...currently there's a glut. Prices have collapsed. Lithium Prices Have Crashed Spectacularly, Here’s What Next https://finance.yahoo.com/news/lithium-prices-crashed-spectacularly-next-200000652.html