fauxlaw

Three different presidents in two parties proposed across-the-board tax cuts and in all three cases, tax revenue increased substantially. Therefore, plenty of precedent suggests Trump, being the last of the three presidents in a former administration, will see the same accomplishment with far more evidence than a tired CBO theory, which has been thrice proven wrong. Broken record against gold records. Get it, yet? I have personal memory of Kennedy's accomplishment, let alone Reagan and Trump. Many of you, I'll wager, have no memory of Reagan and believe Shoofly. That's on you. Remember Shoofly also predicted the demise of the Supreme Court on the steps of that building as if he owned the place. Wrong, again. Twice more. How manat fails are going to allow to Shoofly before you admit he's as worthless as a pregnant man..

I made an error of a claim in current debate in which I am engaged. The error had noting to do with the debate subject itself, just am observation of a factor of the site: country of origin. Here is my observations. recorded in the debate comments. I taught they might be interesting to you as an observation of the memebershhp:

"Correction [not critical:] I realize that I made a minor error in the introductory paragraph of my R1, saying, "As this site is headquartered in the U.S...." The fact is, the site makes no indication of residence, so I'll offer a correction:

"I made a survey of the membership of four random pages of members who engage in debate, but not a page on which I am [a total of 200 members' sample size, a statistical qualification sample, considering just the membership who engage debate, 50 members per page] and find that 52%, a majority, indicate the U.S. as country of residence, and the claim of jurisdiction still holds. This is immaterial to the debate subject; but since the erroneous claim needed correction, I have done so. This also demonstrates the site draws internationally to a high degree, though less than a majority. That can only be good for variety of opinion. 

"An additional coincidence noted, by the same data collection noted above, a majority of members who are currently under a ban, regardless of duration, also do not identify a country of origin, choosing to remain "unknown." Correlation? I offer no opinion, just the casual observation."

FYI, I am going under the knife next Tuesday, 7/8, for R knee total replacement surgery, and will need a few days recovery/rehab. At my age, this is a bit of a risk, but it is essential surgery, not voluntary. My cardiologist says I have a 6% risk of having a coronary during surgery, which is a very low risk as far as that goes, but 6% isn't zero, so... Later, about 2 months, I'll need to repeat for my L knee. 

Have a happy 4th.

In advance, I appreciate your thoughts and prayers on my behalf. "I'll be back," as Arnold once said. "No, it's not a tumor."

Four years ago I posted  this titled post as quoted below, at a time when Kamycakes was a couple of months into her failed attempt at being a Veep, knowing even then, because I grew up in CA, in L.A. and San Francisco, in that order, and knew what a klutz she was as a DA and AG, so, the following post was only a little tongue-in-cheek. Now, failing to acquire donations for her CA failed-before-it-starts gubernatorial campaign, I wonder what you think, now? I'm choking on my own tongue, but laughing off my ares:

Is a serial killer smart by avoiding capture, or just sufficiently evasive, or are they the same thing?

Joyless Behar has nothing on Melania relative to consideration of men. She says of her 2nd husband, “I met my husband at a semi-nudist colony. It’s true... He was naked, I was not. Because for a man to see me naked, I have to be in his will." https://people.com/who-is-steve-janowitz-joy-behar-husband-7565737
Yeah, for all her useless mouth, a willow sapling of a backbone.

The little pistachio is literally a miracle in a tiny shell on a tree. It has so may properties that can increase health, wealth, and sex. Not a bad combination, all things considered.There are not that many food sources that can provide all of the following just  by the consumption of a single ounce [about 49 nuts in the shell - but don't eat the shell.

What it can do:

1. Nutrition:carbs, protein, fiber, mono- and polyunsaturated fat, potassium, phosphorus, manganese, thiamine, copper, Vit, B6 [blood sugar regulation, formation of hemoglobin]]

2. Hi-antioxidants for cancer prevention and lutwin [eyes]

3. lo-cal, hi protein, essential amino acids

4. weight loss

5. provision of good gut bacteria

6. reduce cholesterol and blood pressure

7. vascular function, including erectile disfunction prevention

8. reduce blood sugar [diabetes prevention]

9. sleep aid: contains melatonin, tryptophan, and magnesium

10. aids libido [one result of #7, and has aphrodisiac properties.

THe Supreme Court found against Planned Parenthood today in South Carolina: In Medina v. Planned Parenthood, a SCOTUS 6-3 decision determined that abortion cannot be funded by Medicaid after 6 weeks beyond conception.

Does it call itself "Planned Parenthood" as a deliberate deception that it's primary aim in counseling potential parents that parenthood should not be their resolve? Isn't that what's called an oxymoron; emphasis on the latter two syllables? It's as dishonest as abortion advocates claiming that abortion is a reproductive right since abortion, by definition, does not result in reproduction? Doesn't anybody use a dictionary anymore?

In the US Constitution''s Preamble, Madison wrote of achieving "a more perfect union." Is it just a pipe dream, or is it actually achievable?

It's an either/or. Is repentance a turnstile by commission of the same sin over and over but without changing our habit, or abandonment of of evil if favor of righteousness?

There are strawman debates and forum topics created, such as abortion v. homosexuality, or illegal immigration v. slavery, which exist as fallacies of misrepresentations or exaggerations of an opponent's argument to assume advantage over that opponent rather than the proposition of debate and forum topics that truly represent district differences in approach to society's many problems. in the latter case, both proposals may be beneficial, but one may be more beneficial than another, and that is an argument that suits proper use of either formal debate, or open-season forum  topics that could be the norm of this site's endeavors.  It takes people more dedicated to the free exchange of ideas for the benefit of most or all the people rather than a petty argument between opponents whose aim is strictly to gain advantage over a weaker opponent by belittling the opponent more than making valid argument for their burden of proof. Thoughts? Is this a better site by the strawman approach, or honest, direct discussion of not necessarily opposing ideas [but they are valid, too], but ideas which may have superior results over others?

The core conflict arises from the question of whether our choices are genuinely our own by free will or are the inevitable outcomes of a prior, deterministic cause, maybe elven as far reaching as the “big bang.” Well, first of all, there is no balloon without a needle somewhere, so, there’s your b.b. origin. Beyond that, when you're thinking the determinism side, what makes you think what is suggested to your head, and not originating in it is credible, because, there is certainly a lot of chaos out ther? Whereas, when you're of the belief that you're not a lunatic, at least you ought to know by now your thinking is relatively sound.

If God had wanted man to fly…
Those among you who know me well know that I think if/then logic is illogical, at best, because the logic structure is flawed. Generally, whatever follows if is currently not true, and, therefore, cannot justify then until if is modified to what is currently true, but then, why ask the question?

The then in this set-up “logic,” of course, is: [then] he [God] would have given him wings. The intended story is that God gave no man wings; we chose to make them ourselves, and also, therefore, chose the consequence. No wings have yet been genetically produced, it’s all the result of tool-making; an ability science once told us was unique to man. 

Well, we know, now, that is not true, either, so, so much for “science,” which also once told us the Earth centered the universe. Y’all also know my thinking on that little gem.

Here’s the point. It isn’t IF God wanted man to fly, because he gave Adam and Eve, and therefore us, dominion, and that means he wanted us to decide if we wanted to fly, and would allow that, because by dominion he gave us free will, so it is our decision to think of, and act on making our wings, even of a tool variety.

An homage to Democrat control of Education.

I posted the following in another string, and then thought [a dangerous activity] that it belonged as its own topic:

In view of the air strike against Iran, lets do some congressional math relative to a piece of legislation passed in 2001: the AUMF [Authorization for Use of Military Force], giving the president even broader power in using military force against terrorist regimes, of which Iran is and has been a ready and willing partner. These powers are in addition to the War Powers Act of 1973.

Let’s do some math. The average age of members of Congress by chamber:
House: 59 Senate: 65 Avg: 62   https://info.legistorm.com/blog/members-of-congress-by-age
However, though not completely accurate, because 24 years have passed since 2001, when the AUMF was passed and enacted, so members of Congress have changed. By today’s numbers, members would be, on average in 2001:
House: 35. Senate: 41. Avg: 38. These are numbers that should suggest that members of Congress remember passing the AUMF, but it appears Democrats have selective memory, and re tossing accusations. Again.. In the case of AoC, excessively vocal in criticism of the president's action last Saturday in the air attack of Iranian nuke facilities, is, today, 35. In 2001; 11. She was not in the House to pass the AUMF, so her ignorance is noted, and potentially excused, except for the fact that we should expect her research into the matter rather than her vocal outrage in accusation of constitutional violation and deserving impeachment of President Trump. Ah, the folly of youth.

One of the difficulties of dealing with biblical scripture is that none of it was written originally in English, so we deal with the blur of meaning by translation, whether done correctly or incorrectly, and innocently, or by intent to deceive.

One of the best examples is John 4: 23, 24, both of which, in English [KJV] contain the English word “spirit,” but the two verses in Greek, allegedly the original language, but who can know for sure as no original text has yet been discovered.

In Greek, v23 says πνεύματι [pneumati] and the other, v24 says πνεύμα [pneuma]. Though the words are related, v24 is the root word from which the v23 is derived.

V23 interpretation is “in, or by the spirit” whereas the root in v24 interpretation is the “spirit being a physical breath, or wind, such as saying God is a physical breath or wind.

But the more valid interpretation, since the NT has numerous references to a Trinity, where, again, in Greek, these are understood to be three gods: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, unified in purpose, but three distinct beings, the third being a spirit, πνεύμα [pneuma], .which is still physical matter, but refined, as implied by the distinction of John 4: 23, 24.

Once again, context is king since no language has the exact lexicon [library of words]  as another language. Therefore, correct interpretation from one language to another is critical for correct understanding.

Democrats are falling over themselves to impeach Trump. Again. This time, for acting within the law [specifically, the War powers Act of 1973]. Dems will raise the sword anyway, but will fail this time even to approve even one article of impeachment in the House for the unconstitutionl declaration of war against Iran. But Trump did not declare war. He declared to Iran over 60 says ago to negotiate a peace deal with Israel. They chose to ignore the opportunity for peaceful reflations with Israel, let alone with us. Iran has stated multiple  times they desire to wipe the U.S. and Israel off the map, chanting "death to..." both of us.  The War Powers Act, contrary to Democrat chanting, allows the president to activate the armed forces to strike another country on a limited scale, with the only proviso being that Congress must be notified within 48 hours of the strike and its objective. Trump abided by that law. =Congressional leaders were notified within the hour of the attack last Saturday. Obligation met.

Does a sentient universe exists just so you can blame God for your miseries?

Isn't that an oxymoron? Yes, it is, and yet, many espouse that belief, limited though it is. If your only purpose in determining a sentient universe is to eliminate free will, and to eliminate God from your life, then those who determine such blame God for their own responsibility for their miseries in life. Blame God, only. In all other respects, God does not exist, according to this featured philosophy. Anyone care to explain?

Need anymore be said? Clinton, Oba'a, Biden could have done this years ago when it would have been much easier. None of them did. Trump did. Any questions?

Is a human omnivore diet [vegetable/fruit and meat] a biblical concept? We often read  the Genesis creation story that we are told in [KJV] Chapter 1, verses 29 - 30 

"And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."

Well, that's fine for the counted-days of creation, and these verses occur as part of the sixth day, but then there was a seventh day; God removed his hat and rested, but putt the hat back on for an eighth, and so on uncounted days, continuing creation, and, I interpret, instituted a concept that endures to this day; the Darwinian process called natural selection, or evolution; where changes in form and function began to occur. Thus, we encounter, in Genesis 9: 3 [KJV], the following:

"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."

You note, we are still in Eden. God is still revealing things to Adam & Eve.

If "every moving thing that liveth" was added to the human diet, why, then, later, was diet restricted as recorded in Leviticus 11 [KJV]  [I'll not quote - go read the chapter.] And yet later, in the NT, Peter has a dream that effectively dispenses with the dietary Law of Moses [Acts 10: 11-16 - including v. 15: "And the voice [of an unseen angel] spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common" or, as might be interpretred, "unclean."

Dietary law may be considered not as a strict cleanliness issue of one sort or another of available foods, but of a means to judge our acceptance of obedience to whatever law is given from God, which is why, in our day, my own religious faith [LDS] has certain restrictions of consumption such as liquor, and smoking. Personally, I add soda but on very rare occasion, and only occasional red meat, preferring fish, chicken, and pork loin.

Zut alors! It's Solstice, not Equinox! My error. 

Yesterday, June 20, marked the first day of summer, and last night was the shortest night of the year in the Northern hemisphere. Did anyone celebrate? The Moon's phase was a waning crescent, meaning that it is less than the half-moon and becoming smaller toward New Moon in four days.

I don't need to hear anyone's dancing oaken in the waning moonlight, but, if you did, hope you enjoyed yourself. Me, I was illustrating a dark red lunar eclipse featuring my avatar's detail of a pair of frogs as the featured "seas" of the Moon.

To all Mods, in particular, but I invite any relevant commentary:

I am currently voting on a debate, on this very subject of debate veting, but am interrupting the process to make a comment now, which I have suggested to Mods before with no effect, to date, that voting, being a privilege, because there is restriction on members who can vote, and I agree it should have restriction, but a problem exists that too many debates are fully and honestly debating on good subjects, without forfeiture of a single round, and yet manage to clock-out without a single vote, while, at the same time, votes are granted to debaters who offer poor arguments, or next to nine, amid still have a win, often with con tribution by Mods, simply because the opponent forfeited. That’s ~@$#@#!
I am personally affected by this outcome, and have complained about it before, with Mod response like "we need to look into that," but without resolution. Voting is a metric counted on the Debate Leaderboard, but I have my doubts that it moves the needle in rating, because I personally rank 7th among almost 1,300 active debating members after active membership of only 2.5 years [I joined in Mar. 2020, achieved about 10th ranked when I left voluntarily in 2022] and, as an experiment, have increased my volume of voting, but my rating has not moved a bit. Voting simply does not carry the weight that it should be encouraged to have, and thus these personal results:

https://www.debateart.com/debates/3183-a-stopped-clock-would-still-be-considered-right-two-times-a-day
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3132-resolution-there-is-no-end-to-the-body-of-knowledge
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2698-in-the-scriptures-jesus-christ-did-not-die-for-everyone
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2566-resolved-two-separate-species-of-relatively-equal-intelligence-one-humanoid-and-one-not-can-cohabit-a-planet-maintaining-peaceful-non-threatening-cohabitation
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2244-resolved-methane-silence-the-rice-and-save-the-planet
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2130-money-can-bring-happiness
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2042-i-can-t-isn-t-necessarily-a-defeatist-attitude
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2021-there-should-be-a-limit-to-the-number-of-debates-a-person-can-be-engaged-in-at-a-time
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1990-resolved-the-house-should-vacate-its-impeachment-of-president-trump


These are nine debates I participated in with various opponents over a period of about 6 months in 2020 which were all multi-round, full debate participation in all rounds which clocked out as no votes. 9 of 80 debates. I initiated most, but not all of them. 
My current win percentage is 69.4% of total debates, meaning, on average, I should have 6 more debate wins, but I don't. I may have lost all of them, and that's fine. Of course I debate with the goal to win, and I accept defeat, when honestly defeated, but I do not accept more than 11% of my effort, and my varied opponents, to prepare debate rounds just to have a no-vote result. 
Mods. please give more credentialed weight to the privilege of voting, or leave no-vote results by clock-out on the clock until at least one vote is registered. I suggest that a debate in danger of clock-out without a vote have an auto-message  sent to all mods and even maybe the top 10-20 ranked voters on the leaderboard who have demonstrated willingness to vote before the clock-out, or else code it to remain open a period of time longer to allow a vote. I think most debaters who have tried to use all rounds to argue/rebut, etc, deserve to earn a vote for their effort. Otherwise, what's the point of debating in the first place, or using voting as a metric in the Leaderboard? 

For those committed to the idea that free will does not exist, but that all decisions are made by a sentient universe, why are such insistent that gender fluidity is a personal choice?

Freedom bears personal responsibilities and consequences, even for illegals, and even for Palestinians, and even everyone else who claims to embrace it. If you cannot bear the heat of price for freedom here, then adios muchasos. This nonsense in Boulder, a former residence of mine, must not happen anywhere by anybody claiming the embrace of freedom. It's a bloody lie of convenience, only, if freedom is embraced only by it's assumed consequence only for who shout longest for it, but offer none of it for others. Soliman is no man. Not a child, either, just a savage in perennial savagery. No room for that, here, nor indeed anywhere.

We have been rained upon over the past decades, long before even JoeBiden was a discussion point at national political level among the progressive woke, with claims by Democrats that they enjoy a more elite status having been educated in blue states. I was educated in a blue state. I was also educated in a red state. Only, that was one state. The state was CA, whose identity as "elite" has lost its luster. So, I inquired of Duck-Duck [I've abandoned Google ever since it declared that AI is its new search engine brain] why Democrats think their education is superior [sorry, "elite" ] and was given a website declaring a Joshua Zingher. Never heard of him. "I am a scholar of elections and political behavior, with a particular focus on race, class, and identity" is the response  by instruction from the man, himself. Yeah, that sounds elite alright. The very words I have come to understand are the hot-buttons of today's Democrats duped by JoeBiden, who claim he was totally not the derelict he was claimed to be by his political rivals. Yeah, as if his claim in 2019, launching his presidential campaign, that he was "running for US Senate" was not an obvious tilt to dereliction. He said it multiple times, so it was not a Freudian slip. Thus, according to Zingher, the diploma divide, only, he's still of the opinion it is a conservative problem.Yeah, that's surely a divide, right between the brain.

Since time immemorial, in fact, since creation, we have known that accounting of seasons of planting and harvest, and any other annual social gathering exercises, such as at Stonehenge, were established on the 4th “day” when the sun and moon were created for the purpose of “…let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years.” 
But that is long justification for the failure of the Democrat Party to grow adequate players capable of Oval Office territory in a post-Obama period, realizing that Hillaryous Balloon Girl, not a particular first choice of Oba’a, was not that player. So instead of proper soil prep, the Democrats, instead, decided their #1 party objective was to 86 Trump. They tried by manipulation of Constitutional principles, failing to understand them, because at every turn, they failed even to abide by House Rules [stipulated constitutionally] let alone by constitutional rules. So… Biden. And the choices made for a Cabinet was just the beginning of his failures. And still, the party ignored soil prep. 
They could not employ the 25A, because the party knew Kamalala was not Oval material, either, but were ultimately backed into a corner to nominate her. Pelosi was next in line, but the party was apparently disenfranchised her, as well. So, no 25A. And so, they also lose the 2024 election, and, still, soil prep is only grudgingly considered. The Democrats are in serious trouble. A cadre of dead and dying seeds. Soil prep? What’s that? Dems better figure it out, because '28 is tomorrow. Hint: Trump is not gong to have a 3rd term, and attempts to literally "86" him have failed. Try a different tactic. Y'all know the definition of insanity, yeah? -  because y'all have already decided being a farmer is beneath y'all.

By the way, don't blame me for your nemesis; I'm an indie, and was, at one time, a Bobby Kennedy campaign volunteer [1968]. I supported his son's nomination in '24, but y'all 86'd that, too. Pure soil prep failure. Well done.

There have been numerous debates on the existence of God on DebateArt, both in debate and in forum. I have participated, both by debate and by forum topics. 

For example, if the sentient universe is so smart, why did my house just burn down? A valid question, and what is the typical response relative to blame for the unfortunate event?
Worse, it seems to be about the only time people who believe in a sentient universe need to be reminded that they are supposed to blame the universe for such misfortunes, and not their typical blame-God-game, because, otherwise, they need to remember they have already decided the sentient universe is in charge because, they have also conveniently decided, there is no God. I am personally amused by that reversal of logic so easily entertained that God exists only to be blamed for our misfortune, but not credited for anything.

There is ontological argument that God exists by necessity, but if even that argument settles  justification on a convenience only for blame; that is shameful even for ontology. Ontology is the branch of philosophy which examines existence of entities. Does Earth exist? Do we exist? Does God exist? These are questions answered, among other methods, such as faith, by examining the classification and explanation for things, for entities. One explanation is in the necessity for an entity to exist. But that can be abused, as by considering the necessity only for purposes of blame, which entirely absolves personal responsibility in the equation.  That, I resolve, is entitlement, and nothing more.

It seems there is an entire crew on board our ship of state who claim to have evidence of Trump misconduct, not just on 1/6/2021, but from 1/20/2017 to 1/20/2021, and again from 1/20/2025 to the present day [we're 5/22/2025]. "Evidence," mind you, not hearsay, they claim. So, after two failed impeachment convictions, a re-election defeat, and daily gagging to the gagging media, for the last 8+ years, what have they to show for their gagging? And, no, not even just from 1/20/2017, when. the Washington Post declared in headline font that Trump's impeachment had begun, when all he had done since his inauguration. since an hour before the issue of the paper, was to walk in a parade hand-in-hand with his wife, clearly an impeachable event [to a fool]. No, the impeachment began in 2014, when Trump was fired from NBC, and he began public banter that he might run if no one else was going to fix D.C., badly, tragically in need of being fixed. That is how long the S[c]hi[ff]p of Fools of Democrats have expressed their waterlogged hate of Trump, and have yet to give a coherent explanation; not from NBC, to the Cartoon News Network, to Al Green, and all the Pequod shipmates inbetween, from Nancy Pelostomy to Adam Schiff to JoeBiden [with the hand of Oba'a rammed up his blowhole to move his mouth] to Kamalala to AOccasional Cortex to Al Green.

Anyone care to offer justification, because no one seems to have evidence.

Let’s dispel the rumor that Social Security, initially set up in the 1930s in the Roosevelt administration for the benefit of retirees, is a socialist program. It is not “an entitlement,” because all the money paid into the S.S. Trust Fund is out of private industry, not public money. The paycheck stub calls these payments “FICA,” [Federal Insurance Corporation of America], and consist of payments we make out of each personal paycheck from our employers to cover future retirement expenses in the form of monthly Social Security and Medicare payments. Our employers match our paycheck FICA contributions  over the course of our careers, which should be considered as additional income, but slated for investment purpose rather than in-pocket, like a private savings account. 
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL33028
So, none of the input is public money, so the payout from the government is not an entitlement; it is our private money, earned by working [ours and our employers’ money]. It is therefore not a socialist program, as many today accuse.
The government is often accused of robbing money out of the Social Security Trust Fund that our private contributions, and those of our employers, feed. The government denies the “theft,” but, they do acknowledge “borrowing” money from it.  To date, as of the end of fiscal year 2024 [September 30, 2024], the government owes the Trust Fund $2.5 trillion dollars. The robbery accusation appears to be a reality given the size of the debt; it is just called “borrowing.” By the way, the congress.gov reference from above stipulates that, by law, the borrowed money must be reimbursed by the government. Past time to pay-up, and given the size of the incurred debt, Congress is, once again, dragging its feet. How about changing the law that allows government to “borrow” from the Social Security Trust Fund in the first place? It is patently unfair to impose this debt on taxpayers whose own future access to Social Security they are currently paying into is at risk to be utterly lost to them.

With regard to the US Statute  18 USC §2383, are there any Democrat members of this site with sufficient lack of bias to explain, while there were charges of insurrection against a few of the hundreds of people charged with a variety of crimes for Jan 6 involvement, why there is not one single conviction for insurrection, yet your political-finger-pointing talkers continue to call the incident an "insurrection?" Some of you do, too. Since there are no convictions, it didn't happen, did it?  Something did, but that is not what it was, was it? Can you call it what it was please? Don't ask me; I not the one giving answers.  Don't wait for your talking pointers; they're sold down the river. Keep a decent head on your shoulders, huh?

FYI, for my 20th year running, I celebrated Earth Day [4/22] by turning on every light inside and around my property for five minutes just to snub Mr. Al Gore, the Inconvenient Truther, whose AlGoreGooeyJuice to replace petroleum I await with panting breath. Without it, net zero ain't happening, my friends, no mater how long at hard you howl at the moon that claimate change [yes, that is spelled correctly] is an ongoing, existential threat to life on Earth. Bullshyte. Tell me the cause of Snowball Earth, and how, in spite of covering the Earth in ice, volcanism continued, and that for the last 28 years [since 1997, when NOAA began measuring Earth temperature - surely by using all the same continuously calibrated equipment with well-trained operators who always use the same measurement technique at all the same measuring stations all over the Earth, and all the equipment used is accurate to 10x the measurement specification tolerance [all the foregoing is necessary, or your data is insufficient to demonstrate that those 28 annual measurements all demonstrate continuous warming of the Earth...

Bullshyte.  NOAA began measuring Earth temperature annually from 1970 - 55 years ago [through 2024] of those 55 years, there is a general trend of rising temp, but actuary measurements show 28 years above the trend and 27 below it. That means 49% of the measurements are cooler and 51% are warmer. That is, statistically, an indication of normal variation, not spiking hot temperature. 1.1º C rise in temperature in those 55  years. Whoop-di-doo.

Within other topical posts in which I have participated with regard to AI, I have opposed the general use of that tech. While I recognize there may be valid use of AI, I have several concerns that it represents potential for harm. Here are my resins of opposition:

In later junior high school [8th, 9th grade] I began writing reports, essays, term papers, etcd, and also later in high school and college, which were seriously researched, which meant, then, frequenting my local library. We did not yet have the Internet in the 60s when I was in  school, graduating from high school, and beginning college. While it would have been easy to plagiarize, even then, not having the facility of copy/paste, unless by the laborious re-write, I always cited my sources when not enlightened by personal written record of my own thinking. I determined early on that plagiarism would not represent my efforts fairly. I did not fool myself that others original thoughts will never be used by me without citation for their effort. Ignoring all that, just to get a paper written, is easier accomplished today, even without use of AI. With AI, the effort is easier still, but I cannot ignore that it amounts to cheating my own education if I indulge in it, even now. I will not do it.

I wasn't paid for my education efforts of writing such essays and reports ion school. I am paid today for the books and articles that I write, but I will never indulge the use of AI to do my thinking and writing for me simply because it is not representative of my own thinking. I cannot, in good conscience, take payment for printed or online publication over my name. I will not do it. Nor will I do it even when I am ghostwriting for another to publish over their name. They are paying me for that service, but I will not be paid for others' thinking, even if it is merely an artificial brain. 

The same is true of illustration, which AI can now do, for the very same reason. 

There is another concern. Once I have published anything with my name under it, I have announced publicly that it is my work. Even if what is written or illustrated  is merely personally opinion, particularly when  about another person, or about a specific point of view  that I may not personally share, I have opened myself to legal consequence if it is considered libel or slander. If I have done so by use oof AI, who else knows that is the source, and not me, personally. I am still libelous or slanderous and can suffer the legal consequences. I will not do it.

Is the U.S. currently being run by an oligarcy, i.e., the Trump administration, as some Democrats accuse?

First, do we know what an oligarcy is? You tell me. I have a definition from my Oxford English Dictionary [OED], unabridged [20 volumes; the moist authoritative dictionary of the English language in existence], but, since this question does not represent my claim, I charge those who do make the claim to admit that which is claimed by definition.

Seems simple enough: do you know what you're talking about? This is something like the question: do you know where Moscow is found? [no, I do not mean the cities in ID, KS, ME, MD, OH, PA, TN, or TX]. Justify your definition by explanation.

If you cannot justify your personal value to a private industry company or to the government by calculation and description of your personal contribution to the bottom line value  of that entity, then move over, be entitled, and accept your worthlessness, because reality demands it's one or the other.

I have reviewed a number of “debates” in which the instigator issues a subject challenge, then proceeds with a fluff R1 that makes no effort to argue any point in support of, or against the Resolution, and then the opponent either forfeits the round, or makes an equally off-topic statement that neither argues for or against the Resolution. 

The debate proceeds through the argument rounds as in R1: nothing for or against the Resolution through the last round.

Voters are not given an option to offer a no-win vote; I.e., both opponents lose. As it is, because one or the other opponent is awarded even 1 point, that participant effectively wins the debate without actually offering a single argument for or against the Resolution. I believe this is a cheap win. I favor voters being given a no-win option to voting because this condition as described above ought to be classed a dual forfeit. Example: debate #5735.

The first paragraphs, chapter 1, of a new historic fiction novel  currently being written by fauxlaw.

Dateline 1: New Year’s Day, 1921

"When the Ambassador Hotel opened in Los Angeles on New Year's Day, 1921, Wilshire Boulevard did not yet exist. It was a dirt road through bean and barley fields. The 24-acre site was once a dairy farm. By whatever name the dirt road was then known, prior to 1921, it did not care to be remembered.

"Forgetting may be appropriate because, although the eventual hotel at 3400 Wilshire Boulevard was a grand palace, it was virtually inaccessible until this major thoroughfare of Los Angeles, from the hotel’s location 12 miles inland to the ocean at Santa Monica Beach, was fully paved. The hotel’s Coconut Grove nightclub became the hunting ground of elite Hollowood.[1]  But the hotel’s demise began less than 50 years later when the kitchen pantry off the long, north side of the Embassy Ballroom became the assassination field of Robert F Kennedy [Bobby], who just won the 1968 California Democrat primary election for the presidency of the United States. He was destined to be the Democrat Party nominee, but he was dead before ever making that dateline in Chicago. 

"'So…' Bobby Kennedy said, concluding a victory speech to the crowded, boisterously joyful room, his last public words, a few minutes after midnight on June 6,' … my thanks to all of you and on to Chicago and let's win there,'" he exulted, referring to the upcoming Democrat National Convention."

When is water wet?

This is not a trick question. ChoirI offer this question as a valid science; not a joke. The implication being that H20 has condition[s] rendering water not wet. Invalid answers are its conditions as solid, liquid, and vapor  as we all learned in chemistry., because wetness can be demonstrated in all three conditions. I mean wetness as a factor of construct, not merely temperature. I will say no more relative to clarification.

All answers will be entertained, but the win goes to the first contestant who answer the question correctly. I will confirm there is a singular correct answer, though an answer given I have not learned previously may be consulted for correctness if not the condition I have in mind as the correct answer. Appeal is allows given my response to you, I will respond to all replies.

You are free to inquire by whatever means are at your disposal other than asking me outright. 

Is there a prize? How about satisfaction of knowledge? Is that not worthy of competition?

A poem by my 11 year-old granddaughter, published in 2022 [will be 14 in March]

When I'm by myself

And I close my eyes

I'm a chicken pecking at a wall,

A girl alone at a ball,

I'm a petal floating in a pond.

I go far and beyond,

A sly fox looking for prey,

A tree that will sway.

A cat in your face,

I'll win in a race.

I'm a girl who will listen,

A wand that will glisten.

I'm whatever I want to be,.

Anything I care to be.

And when I open my eyes,

What I care to be

Is me.

No DebatArt policy prohibits last-round new argument, but the practice is flawed, particularly for the debate initiator, whether Pro or Con. For the initiator, leaving new argument until the last round is self-limiting, not advantageous, because, while the opponent can still rebut that last-round new argument in their last round, the initiator has no remaining round to defend their last round new argument. One constant is that initiators always have the top frame of each round.

This condition has been attempted to be rectified by calling waived rounds, but that practice is flawed as well, not to mention prohibited, since Policy dictates there shall be argument [including rebuttal and defense] in all rounds designated by the initiator. It has the further imprimatur of cowardice by the initiator by not rendering the first argument in the first round, preferring to see the opponent's argument first. If we initiate a debate, we ought to take the first crack at argument and stop playing waiver games.

We have the opportunity in Description of all debates we initiate to define rules of the road. These are not binding, so say Mods, but, as voters, we can choose to abide by them or ignore them, making it a risk for either opponent to break initiator-defined rules. I have attempted this, myself, and was willing to accept consequences. One rule should always be: No new arguments in the last round, whether or not it becomes policy.

There have been many debates on this site with the charge that systemic racism exists in America. Those making the charge often even include definition of systemic racism, and that definition is reasonably consistent that systemic racism, or institutional racism, as opposed to individual racism, includes the necessity of there being current statutes and procedural policies that allow racial animus in this country.

Those debates supporting the proposition that system racism exists all cite documents of government agency reports, academic studies, and industrial reports of demonstrated racial animus, complete with statistical data. The flaw in every one of these arguments, in every debate, is that none of these reports and studies include citation of a single current legal statute or procedural policy that stipulates the allowance of racial animus. None. Zip.

If you claim that systemic racism is based on such laws and policies, why don 't any of you cite them? Your claim, alone, by your own definitions, fail to impress.

Until someone can cite such current laws and policies, by which virtual all proponents of the notion define their cases, all your reports ands studies and statistics are sounding brass, full of fury, but signifying nothing.

Cite a law. Cite a policy. That's all. The caveat is that they must be current. Jim Crow is not current, I couldn't care less what SloJoe says, because he cannot and does not cite currency, either. Find one and give it voice. Then, you have case. Without it, you got squat.

So, while wearing her black mask, Kammie tells us if we've been vaccinated, we don't need to wear a mask. She's been vaccinated. Oh, never mind, in spite of Kammie, the CDC says even vaccinated, a mask is recommended, again. Who's following the science, anyway? They're all following the Pied Piper of political science, which is science in name only. Kind of like climatology. 

And when is Fauci going to model his mask as a diaper? Not soon enough.

Competency, anyone?

How many of these blatant gaffes are y’all going to allow before you start counting them like you did alleged Trump lies?

Breaking away from my typical ranting, here's a story for which you will provide the best and funniest ending. Better yet, you are the judge. Here is the beginning of the story; you do the rest:

My wife and I decided to split the household chores. One night, it was my turn to do the dishes. When the table was cleared,  the dishes, utensils, cooking gear stacked at the sink, I opened the tap, ran the water over my hands, closed the tap, dried my hands, grabbed my car keys and drove away. I came back with...

Biden's Town Hall last night [7/21] on CNN was a joke from start to finish. 'Moderated' by Don Lemon, a very center-of-the-road guy [and pigs fly], and, in a Republican district [although Cincinnati, itself, voted for SloJo], the event was so well attended, it probably had every voter who legitimately voted for Biden. So, it was not well attended. At all. Not as if CNN, itself, showed the empty seats; more than most of them. Many more. Trump would have filled the auditorium, even as a post-election event. But then, CNN would never host Trump in such an event, even-handed news organization that it is.

Biden, of course, was Biden, if only he knew who that was. 

Just noticed your avatar change, and the use of the Tri-Coulour. Thanks; much appreciated. Also just noticed in your profile that your birthday corresponds to Apollo 11 landing on the moon. Cool! Happy birthday, tomorrow!

When telephones first began converting to touch tone from dial tone in the 1970s in the US, via AT&T, there were two added keys to the digits of the touch tone units as opposed to strictly 10 digits on the dial, 0 - 9.  I was an employee at AT&T at the time, while an undergrad.  The two added keys were [*] and {#], called "star" and "pound" by AT&T. The # sign was also in use prior to the 70s as a symbolic abbreviation for lbs [pounds, as in avoirdupois [having weight].  My world did not begin. quite as late as yours. Your generation should ask why, in a world no longer having typewriters, your keyboard entry speed is impaired by the key arrangement, dictated by the need to avoid locking up the  type bars [aka "strikers"]. There is a faster key entry arrangement, but your generation thought it too hard to adapt the keyboard. oooh, poor baby, just as my generation blew it by not adapting to the metric system.

This is a justice issue, and not politics, as Dems claim the current make up of SCOTUS is. They've been making the claim for many years, but particularly since Trump took office in 2016, with the likelihood of having at least two SCOTUS picks. As it happened, he had three. "The Supreme Court is not well," said a group of Democrats in Congress in 2019, again charging Trump with biased picks. Curious, then, isn't it, that with two cases left before the Court to decide before their 2021 season ends, that the last 32 cases SCOTUS has decided have 12 unanimous cases decided, 37.5% of the 32 cases.  Only 3 of the 32 have been along the 6-3 alleged ideological divide. The history of the Court, since 1789 indicates that 59% of their cases are unanimous. Tell me what's sick about that? For all the claims of political bias by the Court, and both sides have claimed it, not just Dems, but it happens to be Dems now, they are wrong, wrong, wrong. The Court measuring stick happens to be something the Dems do not give much credence: the Constitution. Give it a read once in a while. A full, investigative read for fuller comprehension. I do once a month, and have for the past fifteen years. I started after thinking that Oba'a was going to be a presidential candidate, and his keynote speech in the 2004 DNC scared me to death. That's a Marxist, I said to myself, having never heard of the man before that speech. Of course, he was a Chicago Dem. Not a constitutional scholar, in spite of the claim. Nor am I, but my familiarity has never beensuccessfully assailed.

To my thinking, DebateArt already has a president, if that is the nomenclature to use, and I don't see that elections for a new President are warranted. DEbateArt is the President. I acknowledge that President, alone. The rest of yous are counterfeits. Fuggetaboudid.

Always wanted to use Hugh Grant's most famous attempt at speech.

Please, Mr. Putin, these 16 enterprises are really important to us, so if you could please not hack them? The others are open season.

That's Biden's approach to peace through strength: give concessions. You know, kind of like giving Putin open season on a pipeline to Germany, but shut down ours. Maybe we could cede Alaska back to Russia? Why not? It's just a State. We have too many for Biden to count now, anyway. No need to stress the man out. Certainly, Oba'a didn't know how many States there were, so its all good.