fauxlaw

You really want to vote for Hidin’ Biden?
 
He told Ukraine if they didn’t fire their prosecutor, son-of-a-bitch, he wouldn’t release $1B in aid.
He said he’s running for Senate.
He told you if you don’t vote for him, you ain’t black.
He said unlike the Hispanic community, the black community is not diverse.
He said Trump’s China and Europe travel bans were xenophobic.
“I will beat Joe Biden.” [The media tried to excuse this by claiming he said [“I will be Joe Biden.” But that’s worse. Who is he now if he’s not Joe Biden?]
He said Trump’s travel bans were a good idea.
He said he has hairy legs. [tmi]
He likes kids running their hands up and down his legs. [TMI!]
He wants to sniff your hair. [TTTMMMIII!!!]
Joe said you should not vote for him.
He applauded the Harris administration.
He said he’s running for the senate. [A second time.]
“I pledge allegiance to United States America, one nation, indivis… under God… for real…”
“Two million… twenty… two hundred thousand…”
He said that when one person sneezes, it travels throughout the aircraft, and, “that’s me.” [What is he? A snot cloud? He said it, not me.]
He said if you do everything right, there’s a 30% chance you’re still wrong. [Is that like truth over facts?]
“Stand up, Chuck, let ‘em see you.” [said to Chuck Graham, who is in a wheelchair]
Have you been to a 7-11 lately? Just asking because Joe told you who you would encounter.
“Am I doing this again? My memory is not as good as Chief Justice Roberts.” [Even Oba’a poked him for that one.]
 
Okay, go register your vote for this fool.

Never was there a more deflated balloon of an anticipated announcement than Nancy Pelostomy's invocation of the 25A. Pelostomy fails to recognize there is already "a process" established, and she needs no "commission" to make recommendations. As section 4 of the 25A already establishes [but the latter of options has never been invoked], either the President declares his inability, or the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet declare to the President pro tempore of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House, their advice of the president's inability, or Congress must pass legislation to declare another body, such as itself, potentially, to make the declaration of the President’s inability to function in office. After all this time [53 years since ratification of the 25A], she should not need a commission. Compose a bloody bill and see if it will pass. But, as usual, though declaring her undying defense of the Constitution [which is not the verbiage of her oath of office], Pelostomy understands not one bloody word of it.

Tonight, I watched an episode of "The Twilight Zone" that first aired in season 1, March, 1960, titled as above. I remember it vividly. It could have been Maple Street in Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, Chicago, NYC, or Louisville. Anywhere where people allow themselves to be captured by the insidious accusations from which this episode grew. Pogo said it best, not too many years after 1960: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

Put that in your social conscience of P.C. speech and incurable re-imagination. There is no new imagination under the sun. But every generation thinks they have cornered the market. No, you haven't. We Boomers, didn't, nor did the Greatest Generation before us. And certainly not Gen-X, Y, or Z, Millennials, or anyone else. Try, sometime, to do and say something new. All the wokeness, all the re-imagine, and all the poundmetoo will never get us there.

You know this game: You have a collection of photographs to which you apply whimsical captions. I did this a few years ago with a collection of Nancy Pelosi photos I gleaned from internet images. You'll have to imagine the photos; I know I can give your reference links, but, honestly, it's too labor-intensive for my likes. Use your bloody imagination for once!

Nevertheless, here are the applied captions. Have fun. Contribute more if you're inclined:

“Never forget the immortal words of Mark Twain: ‘It is better to keep your mouth open to be a fool than to close it to hide what’s in it.’” [Mouth wide open]

“Live long and prosper … and frequent the bathroom of your choice." [fingers of both hands raised and slightly split in the middle - you know how]

“See, according to the palm lines, my head and heart are completely at odds and never correlate; kind of like having to pass the bill to see what’s in it.” [holding one hand up wide open]

“I heard it’s like a bull’s butt at fly time. How’m I doin?” [Mouth open even wider]

“But for this clown behind me, I’d look like her.” [She is pictured with her husband, and a model is also just over her shoulder]

“I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.” [Eyes closed and pinched, mouth in a wide-open, toothy grin]

The logic of progressive thinking is sometimes so convoluted, it is often possible to find it turning on itself, interrupting its path toward whatever nirvana they seek in a perfect world. Case in point: the argument against the temporary travel ban of certain nationalities and travelers through those nations. 

It is an argument of rights. Most progressives — not all, it must be admitted, as will follow shortly — assume without legal backing, by the way, that anyone has a right to travel to the United States, regardless of nationality and condition; particularly refugees. The law says otherwise in both the 14thamendment as well as U.S. Code Title 8, § 1182, (3)(A),(B),(C), among others.

The new debate summary page [specific to each debate] is terrific. Agree? Disagree?

Okay, Biden supporters, do you want to make a valid apology for Joe Biden? Something like he really did not say, "Unlike the African American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly diverse attitudes about different things," https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/06/joe-biden-latino-african-american-remark-392354. like he didn't really say a few weeks ago that he would BEAT Joe Biden? Go ahead: here's you open mike. Tell me he did not say something that, if Trump said it, you'd immediately accuse him of being a racist. You do, anyway. But, this quote is by Joe BNiden, just like he said a few weeks ago, "You ain't black" if you don't vote for Joe. How many times must he hit you over the head before you realize his mouth mirrors his brain, and Biden's brain is the Dems worst disaster.

I'll predict what you're going to say, and it will begin with, "But Trump..."

Go ahead, because instead of making a valid rebuttal, the last argument of a lost cause is personal attack. You cannot, and will not apologize for Joe Biden by trashing Donald Trump. Make a valid argument FOR Joe Biden. He'll never do it himself. He needs you, but he can trash Trump himself. It's all he can do; he doesn't have another strategy. Don't be stupid like Joe. 

I find a growing debate habit disturbing: Claiming victory in a debate during argument rounds. I am of the opinion that such declarations as "I win because... [plug in any number of reasons]. or worse, declare victory with no justification. I believe the better declaration is something like "My BoP is proven because... [plug point 1, point 2, etc.] Debate participants do not decide victory; voters do. To declare victory in argument rounds is arrogant, even when the opponent forfeits or concedes. Some have argued that concession is a conduct advantage when a participant realizes his burden is not going to be proven. I tend to agree. It is honorable under those circumstances. But for the other participant to declare victory dismisses the point that, otherwise, they may not have presented such a definitive argument, sourcing, S&G and conduct, themselves. Further, I'd argue that  eary claim of victory approaches the severity of vote rigging, because it may encourage a voter to be swayed by the declaration. I suggest we wait for the voters' assessment of victory, and leave it at that. Strange things happen in voting, and it may be unfortunate that debate points cannot be withdrawn, thus resulting in negative points. I believe the suggested conduct would raise the level and value of debating.

The media is treating Joe Biden like a fragile china doll. Example: When Joe Biden said he will beat Joe Biden, along comes the media with an instant apology: he didn't say "beat;" he said "be." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_p33LCZ9go But that's worse. If he's not Joe Biden now, when will he be Joe Biden? No one yet has given me a plausible answer for an identity question: when Joe Biden is elected, who will be the President, because it will not be Joe Biden in any guise, even with hairy legs.  Example: NYT columnist says Biden should not debate Trump except under two conditions never imposed on previous presidential candidates. Neither condition has squat to do with debate. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/opinion/biden-trump-debate.html Example: Biden says you ain't black. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/22/joe-biden-breakfast-club-interview-274490

This is a viable candidate? When you stop laughing, you're left with nothing electable. By all means, keep laughing.

If you elect Joe Biden, your taxes are going up, and Mt. Rushmore is coming down. Don't you dare tell me that only the one-percenters will be taxed; that you'll skate. Don't be an idiot. You already want to have free higher education, and medicare for all. Just to cover the current government expense, taxing just the one-percenters, even at 100% [they get no income] you will fund the government for less than six months. Who pays the rest? You, you, and you, and me. Now add your Green New Deal, which estimates are anywhere from $7T over ten years, to $30T over ten years. That's close to, to exceeding an additional $1T per year. Add medicare for all; that's a trillion more. Per year. Add free education, free abortions, free child care, free energy [yes, you're proposing that], and a living wage payment even if you don't work, free benefits for illegals, and on, and on. So don't give me your crap that the one-percenters can pay for all that, so, you won't have a tax increase. Your Marxism is a failed social contract. It has never lasted anywhere tried for more than 100 years. Meanwhile, the system you're throwing away has endured 230 years. You tell me which has a better chance of survival. But, go ahead. Vote for Joe Biden. You cannot even tell me when you elect him who the President will be, because it ain't Joe Biden. He's a puppet. Who's really your Marxist overlord? You don't know, do you?

The PRC has, for a second time within one year, performed badly in the international market, if not for infraction of human decency & rights. First for its lack of appropriate and timely action in the containment of the Covid-19 virus, and now with apparent forced labor, typically known as slavery, in the production of wigs using human hair released to the world market. It is not the issue that the wigs are of human hair; that product is legal to produce and market. But the apparent discovery that China's production of this merchandise is at least partially produce by forced labor is a second travesty. As Oromagi successfully argued in the latest debate on penalizing China on their Covid-19 incident [he argues that there is no international law that would penalize China, and he's right], it leaves a bad taste in one's mouth that no legal penalty is available to use against them. However, against abuse of human rights by way of slavery does have the imprimatur of international law, existing for the last 90 years as the Forced Labor Convention of the International Law Organization [C29]. China keeps proving they are not worthy to be part of the WTO. They are trolling that organization.

There are a number of peeves I encounter in debate that frankly fry my bacon. Here's a few. Feel free to comment by addition, criticism, or retraction.

1. Declaring victory in early rounds of multiple-round debates.

2. Initiating a debate, then declaring waived rounds.

3. Making claims as fact without scholastic sourcing.

4. One of my favorites: using wiki as a source when other, more scholastic sources are available, even within wiki.

5. Declaring a debate by interrogative

Full disclosure: I've probably violated all these peeves, but not recently.

I am officially [?] lobbying for a change in debate policy to wit: Regardless of a countdown schedule [established by the instigator],  a completed debate that ends in a tie with no votes ought to have a vote extension. I further suggest that moderators do all they can [more than just "bumping for votes," whatever that really means] to encourage voting.  There is just no reason why debates should end this way, I don't care how inane or unpopular a debate subject is. As members, we should have more respect for one another. This is a community, not a scattering of individuals. Is this how DDO began it's decline? By indifference?

I suggest we develop a collection of members who take the positive step of commitment / volunteering to vote, and upon whom moderators can appeal to rescue any debate in danger of, or have ended without a vote, and allow an extension to the debate by a schedule agreeable to such volunteers. I understand personal schedules sometime prevent a few volunteers from participating in this rescue vote at any given time, but if a collection of debate rescue voters [DRVs?] is sufficiently large, this should overcome that issue. I nominate myself as a DRV, or whatever we would call it, and encourage others to voice an opinion.

Do DRVs earn rating points when they volunteer to rescue a doomed debate? I don't know, but it might be sufficient motivation to volunteer.

Why do progressives assume that the police system is broken and must be defunded? IN MN, the MPD is 800 offers. Four of them are bad apples. That's 0.05%. Is that a broken system, or a minor number of bad actors. You're going to eliminate the force for that??? Not only is that ill-advised, it must be news to the M-City Council that it also happens to be contrary to the City Charter. oops. 

What happened to working within the system already established. I'm talking abut the judicial system as established by the Constitution of the United States, and that of every State in the Union. You know, the system in which suspects are charge, the prosecution pleads its case, and the evidence either convicts bad actors, or defense successfully denies it. Tat's how it's done, folks, and it has worked for 230 years. What's change? A clock? Sorry, no clocks in the Constitution other than expecting results in a reasonable period of timer. If that's not immediate from care to conviction, that's too damn bad. It still works much more often than it doesn't.

Meanwhile, how many backs have been murdered by other blacks in our city streets since George Floyd was killed, and why is no one marching for them? Don't those black lives matter, too?

Nope and that's painfully obvious, isn't it?

In the Debates section, one of the relatively new features is the "Quality Debates" and "Hot Debates" sections on the sidebar. I don't know if that is one person's input, or a committee decision, but I've noted two issues that bear reflection by somebody. They are pertinent to me because both issues involved debates in which I was/am engaged. One: should a "quality debate" earn a place on the list if it is still an active debate? Two: a completed debate was included on the "quality debate" section even though it garnered no votes and therefore ended in a tie.

Is it prudent to enter a debate still in debate on such a list? And, is it prudent to enter a debate on that list in which no one, including whatever persons listed "quality debates" for which they, themselves, did not vote? It is frustrating to both debaters to put effort into a debate which no one appreciates sufficiently to bother to vote. I have personally begun voting on debates in which I have no interest whatsoever because I recognize that they are, at least, of interest to two debaters, and I should appreciate their time and effort. In some cases [very few] I have acknowledged I will not vote because of some deep-seeded resentment or utter dislike of a subject, and my vote would be excessively biased as a result. However, as a general rule, I have decided it is part of my responsibility as an active member  to participate in voting as much as possible.

If a debate ends in a tie in which voting has made it so, so be it. I am currently in the voting phase with Blamonkey which is in a dead heat with 5 votes. If that is how it ends, so be it, at least there were votes. But to end a debate in a tie in which no one votes, that is a shame.

One problem with citing the 1A as justification to turn peaceful protest into violence is the belief that the 1A is license to do whatever one can get away with doing without reprisal from law enforcement. Nope. We are free to protest in consideration of some events requiring permits [and we are responsible to know when that is necessary], and are free so long as our activity harms no one else, and as long as peaceful means we keep our hands to ourselves and to no one or nothing else.

We all have the right to be offended. That's an unwritten consequence of the 1A, but it is not license to suspend common sense, and our offense cannot replace the 1A with chaos. In particular, it is not license to censure.

First attempt of posting original artwork. This is a book cover [without text] for a historic fiction I've written, and now in editing process. Andrea Chase is my fictitious main character. She's single, wealthy, and wicked intelligent; the most dangerous kind of woman. The story is about her famous Renaissance ancestor and the ancestors friends, who happen to be fairly well known themselves. 

I posed this question in a forum - I don't remember which one. However, after what I watched Biden say in an interview today or yesterday, I have to raise the question as my own topic because what he said was: "I'm going to beat Joe Biden." https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/may/26/blog-posting/biden-beating-biden-social-media-users-misquote-bi/

So, I ask in absolute candor: If he succeeds, even in beating Donald Trump, who is going to be the President? I'm not kidding. 

I also have to ask considering the Biden gaffes that are now coming repeatedly as Biden ages another week, and has now come out of the basement: When are Democrats going to get a real candidate? This is pathetically funnier than having already been in 57 states, and having a few more to go. Oh, I know, y'all are going to tell me that Biden is just telling the truth. Biden is going to beat Biden. Yep. One way or another...

There are some members who insst on conducting debates in which they impose that each participant in the debate waive a round of argument. I've asked, but no one has ever given me an adequate reason why such a format is desirable. All it it does is limit the actual number of rounds of argumet, and that makes no sense at all. Further, the policy of DART prohibits it. 

"The argumentation is the stage when participants take turns publishing their arguments, the number of which is equal to the number of the rounds in the debate." [Information Center, "Debates"]

The bold italics are mine for emphasis. Anybody want to explain their waiving reasons now?

Who can explain why there is both Old and New Biblical Testaments? What is a Testament, or Covenant?

There is a book in the New Testament which explains the answers to both questions, along with the necessity of Jesus Christ in the fulfillment of both Testaments, and the purposes of the Levitical Priesthood [the lower], and the Melchisedec Priesthood [the higher], of which Jesus is the high priest, and the ultimate purpose of Jesus Christ, "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins."

Follow that last quote as a thread to find the book. Read and study it, and the answers to the above questions are offered to the studious.  You need no further commentary.

I've observed at least three debates stalled in challenging phase [two of them of my instigation], and one completed debate accused post-argument phase of being proposals of "truism," as if truisms cannot be debated because they amount to a proposal that happens to be perceived as true. I have two arguments refuting the accusation:

1. What debate standard defined by DART says truisms are not valid subjects of debate? The accusation is hurled that a Pro position in a truism debate is an automatic win for Pro. For example: I might propose a debate that the Sun rises in the east. Cowards who do not have sufficient perception to argue the point, even though generally perceived as true. Some will, and have, argued that the proposal is so obviously true, it is not worthy of debate because it is an automatic win for Pro. Nonsense! Perception is the whole point of the debate. I can think of at least three Con arguments, right now, to argue against the proposition. Will I tell you? No. Think for yourselves. 

2. How many debates would be wiped off the DART if all the debates in one of several types of current status [challenge, argument, voting or finished] had proposals fitting the "truism" claim? Half? More? Hint: the charge of truism does not prevent debate on the subject for anyone who can conceive of arguments against it. The fact is, any truth can be argued. We are not compelled to believe our own arguments; we just need to make convincing arguments. The success of same depends on the validity and strength of the argument and the citation of supporting sources that contradict the proposal. However, debate does not consist of 100 percent sourcing. We are expected to think for ourselves. Why can't we be an original source provider? It behooves providing our own logic for our original thoughts, but what's wrong with that? It just needs to be convincing, yeah?

I am not restricting this forum topic to net zero, by the way. It is merely an example of my argument against "truisms" as unassailable arguments. 

Allah, Buddha, Elohim, and Jesus were a foursome the other day on the back nine. Buddha mentioned, "The American legislature is up in arms, again, over us."




"I tried an eye for an eye. Didn't do so well," Elohim interjected.

Democrats have some major issues to resolve before the Green New Deal has a shot of getting out of the chute, let alone as a rational Democrat political platform plank:

SCOTUS, in any generation of its 230-year history, has always managed to manipulate interpretation of the Constitution; mostly to their detriment [Both the Constitution and SCOTUS]. Take the first amendment. Its very first commentary deals with freedom of religion. it must have been important to founders, namely James Madison, to mention it first. We often refer to Jefferson, who was not the author, by the way, as offering us the language of "separation," as in of church and state.  However, at the time, Jefferson was separated from both church and state while our ambassador to France when Madison wrote the Bill of Rights. But, the full descriptive of freedom of religion enjoins Congress to be forbidden to create a religion in the first place [the "establishment" clause] AND to not forbid practice of its free exercise.
The religion gig is followed directly by freedom of speech, and we manage to understand that one very well, unless we're talking about religion. After telling us we essentially have liberty to say whatever we damn well please, accepting all consequence of such speech, as is prudent, we interpret by back-up and say, arbitrarily, and incorrectly, that our freedom of speech is curtailed in the public practice of religion - any religion. Prayer, in public is taboo. The two interpretations combat one another, don't they? You think that's what Madison had in mind, who was the primary author of the Constitution?

Consume less and save more. If US households or the government reduce consumption (businesses save more than they spend), imports will drop and less borrowing from abroad will be needed to pay for consumption. That’s an Oba’a trade mantra, except that he did not even propose the latter; saving more. His economy did not recover enough to get above a baseline of working for money.  Further, his economic policy failed at the start because the American consumer is used to buying whatever from wherever, so import of goods favors export because we have more goods available to buy. The better answer is to increase exports, not imports. We have been increasing imports for the last 40 years, and why Oba'a declared that 2% GDP was the new norm. Nonsense! When our exports are a net plus, we have greater consumability of American products for less money, and GDP will soar as it is supposed to do.

While we are horrified by the mounting number of deaths from Covid-19, are we ignoring that we are still senselessly killing 37,000 per year in highway deaths per year because somebody is not paying attention? I remember the first car my father bought equipped with seat belts in the 60s. That was supposed to curtail that death rate, but there are still people on the road who can't be bothered, and you want Covid-19 to go away? How badly?

How about that, according to the CDC, 80% of diabetes patients, and 60% of cancer and heart disease patient deaths would be eliminated simply by controlling what we put in our pie holes? Those percentages are applied against the respective totals of 83,000, 600,000, and 647,000 annually, for a grand total of 815,000 pie hole-caused deaths annually. And you want Covid-19 to go away? How badly.

So you complain that we are inconvenienced a little right now with social distancing and wearing a mask if you must violate staying home for a few months? I'll wager that when Covid-19 is eliminated, we'll still be stupid about seat belts and controlling what goes in the pie hole. Just how much do you think we really do not control in our lives to waste them so senselessly?

There are an alarming number of you who depend on wikipedia, alone, for argument citations in debate and forum. Do me a favor: Google "wikipedia reliability" and load the first hit. Tell me that you do not encounter the following: "Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong." [bolding by wiki, not me]

Not a reliable source. Does that sound like a source you would want to have stand in your argument, whatever it is?

By all means, use wiki, but as a first and last stand, well, you're very easily cutoff at the knees because there are a plethora of more reliable sources. Take the extra time to dig deeper that wiki, and discover what a wondrous world you really live in. Depending on wiki is like accepting whatever you hear/read via social media: generally a load of crap.

Since it is April Fools’ Day, I will celebrate by offering a revised challenge of “if” and load it into the Forum. This topic varies slightly from my first loaded debate after joining the site, and will, hopefully, deter argumentative definition of words as a feature of the Forum commentary, although, iunder this format as opposed to the debate, I suppose it’s open season. Never the less, I will address my own definitions for clarification.
 
The full language of the forum topic is: “’If’ is not utilitarian because it only acknowledges what is currently not true.”
 
Definitions:
Utilitarian: Useful by intentional-purpose activity. Frequency of use is not a factor, even when used frequently. A thing may be used frequently, or not, without meeting the intentional-purpose qualification. For example, using a flathead screwdriver as a wedge to pry one object from another, such as a lid from a bottle, may be useful, but that is not the intended use of a flathead screwdriver. Therefore, in the context of the debate, “if” is a word that introduces a non-utilitarian value that cannot attain value until the condition of the “not true” changes to “true.” It is the conditional statement of an if/then proposal that must change; not the definition of ‘if’ and/or ‘utilitarian.’
 
Theory: A scientific concept proposed which has not yet earned “fact” status while still called a theory, regardless of its pervasive use in scientific protocol as a fact. Example: the Theory of Relativity. 
 
Acknowledgement: Recognition of a condition that is currently either true or not true. The ‘if’ statement is the qualifier of a true/not-true condition, but is not the vehicle to change one condition to the other.
 
Argument:
In the debate I challenged on this subject, and lost, the loss was completely negotiated by my then opponent by obfuscation: to wit,challenging a word I did not define, “useless.” I thought it unnecessary, even though I subsequently advised my meaning of its use as being utilitarian in scope and not in frequency of use. However, since my opponent was first to apply a definition, that’s the definition that stuck, and I was unable to convince otherwise.
 
My opponent [Oromagi, my friend] further obfuscated the argument by multiple definitions of ‘if,’ which I had not seen necessary to define. I still don’t.
 
In the debate on this subject, Con argued eight separate definitions of ‘if;’ mostly in scientific use related to proposing a theory. In science, ‘theory’ holds a very respected position relative to fact v. fiction, or truth v. non-truth. The Theory of Relativity, for example, is still considered theoretical, and not a true fact, when compared to later theories, such as String Theory. The Theory of Relativity is a virtual fact by comparison.
 
Given this acceptable confusion in scientific circles, I submit that playing a shell game with ‘theory,’ essentially violates my proposed if/then statement regarding the use of ‘if’ since, in practical terms, ‘theory’ cannot logically reside on both sides of a true/false condition, even if science will bend the logic. I declare it out of bounds for definitional consideration, as I’ve proposed in definitions. bHowever, since this is not a debate frmate, and no pints are at risk, it's open season! Have at it.
 
Further, I argue that when something is currently not true [accepting that this condition could change, but is still bound by the current condition] there is no ‘if’ statement that can successfully alter the condition of ‘not true’ by itself; that is, without external manipulation.
 
I will offer an example; one that I mentioned in the debate on this subject: Star Trek’s Kobayashi Maru; the Star Fleet Academy’s no-win tactical challenge.[1] If you recall, cadet James T. Kirk successfully passed the challenge, but he changed the conditions of the challenge in order to pass a no-win scenario. Rewarded for his creativity, instead of being chastised for changing the rules, Kirk won the admiration of Star Fleet. Or, so goes the story.
 
The deal is, Kirk applied external manipulation to change the ‘not true’ condition of the challenge, which was designed to be an unchangeable ‘not true’ condition. The purpose of the challenge was to conceive the most original, creative response to a no-win scenario. Star Fleet Academy’s issue was that they did not conceive that a cadet would manipulate the test parameters to defeat a no-win scenario. To do so in a logical question is to violate the purpose of the question, thus the change to a matter of utility, as defined, and not mere use, which has unintended baggage.
 
Moreover, I contend that acknowledgement, by definition above, has no ability to change the conditional statement any more than the ‘if’ statement is able to accomplish it. For example, to say, “If I could fly, I would be in Paris tomorrow.” The ‘if’ statement automatically recognizes an incapacity; ‘I’ cannot fly; I am not equipped to do so due to the limitations my body possesses. I can resolve the problem with external manipulation of the ‘if’ statement, but that upsets the paradigm. And, as I am not currently in Paris, it does not matter that my conditional statement is one of a positive attitude; it is still not true. I can ‘if’ until cows return to the barn, but I cannot, of my own facility, change my ‘if’ current condition; I cannot fly. Who knows; with evolution and adaptation on my side, and my longevity increases exponentially, one day, I may have wings, but that is not the current condition. Therefore, the entire phrase is a logical falsehood. Currently.
 
I suggest a read of understanding philosopher Hans Vaihinger [1852 – 1933], whose philosophy of Die Philosophie des Als Ob, [The Philosophy of As-Ifs] supports my contention that 'if' acknowledges only that which is currently not true. Vaihinger argued , “…all knowledge [episteme] is empirical in the sense that our guiding cognitive aim is the prediction and control of empirical phenomena, not correspondence to objective reality.”[2] This is the reason for defining ‘theory’ as I have, and why, therefore, bending its application as science is wont to do to somehow include “fact” as one of its functions. 
 
Finally, as Vaihinger expressed, our desire is to predict and control empiricism, and resulting episteme, but it can do so only within the bounds of what is epistemic; what is known as curently true.
 
So, the challenge is offered: “’If’ is not utilitarian because it only acknowledges what is currently not true.” Or, one might say, using Vaihigner’s Philosophy of As-If, ‘If’ is not utilitarian because it acknowledges what is currently not true, and does not correspond to objective reality. April Fools!
 
 
 

In a period of over-indulged political correctness, there's a concept lost in the obscurity of discontent. It's presence is felt in almost every conversation on every subject; not just politics. It's a shame our society was ever saddled with this particular brand of censorship. What is it? Taking offense. Finding too many excuses to be offended by someone else's this and that.

"You offend me" has taken the place of an old public sentiment that used to be funny: "Where's the beef?" Perhaps the latter is an appropriate question for the former.

Yes, we have the right to be offended. We don't have a First Amendment without it. However. to dwell on being offended is merely to take up time and space complaining about it. It is the mark of Mark Twain's fool ["Better to close your mouth and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."]

While this argument could be placed in a health, or political category, it is placed in economics because a meaningful penalty for a health crisis or political crisis cannot be adequately assessed, nor forced to pay to the world for the worldwide effect Covid-19 has had on the world in the frighteningly short period of three to four months.

Within the first week of outbreak, every affected patient in that short period could be traced to a potential patient zero, and there could potentially be a number of patient zeroes, but all were Chinese, and, are specifically, from Wuhan. That's not racism; that's science. It could have originated from anywhere. That's a recognized potential. But reality is that Wuhan, China was the source of Covid-19.

So, let's stop with the racist claim, as if that is the alleged root cause of every social issue we face. IT is a cop-out argument that has no relation to logic.

What's the value of a human life? I don't think that has a calculated number, and, there is more to the effect of Covid-19 than human life. It has caused health, economic, political, religious, and education consequences, and probably more. 

The WTO [World Trade Org] names 140 nations in its membership, and all 140 are granted Most Favored Nation [NFN] status. China is currently listed. At the very least, China should be removed from WTO and MFN status. Now.

I placed this forum topic in religion only due to the fact that progressives have a religious-like zeal for the subject of climate change. But their article of faith is a simple claim that there must be one, singular, ideal climate sought among the plethora of climates the earth has, and has had, and ever will have, worlds without end. This one single climate, like heaven, is sought at the exclusion of much else in their litany of cross-logic thoughts. 

They have already changed their mind on a concept that is, after all, merely a few decades old; changed by virtue of the discovery that the name of god used to be "Global Warming," but it had the bad manners to exhibit a cooling trend. Well, we are in a phase of an ice age, after all, called, by real science, the Quaternary.

Speaking of science, this religion is based on a science of a mere 200 years of age, while real science, geology, astronomy, physics, are thousands of years old, and none declare themselves "in."

So, argue, if you will, why making the claim of climate change would reduce our myriad of climates to one, as if consolidating the body politick, or is that more appropriately called "a congregation of vapors?" [Shakespeare, Hamlet, II, ii]

Only in a free society can one individual so change his paradigm of uselessness, poverty, and worthlessness as to prosper and enjoy the blessed rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The economy of personal liberty has no limits set upon it. There is no "there comes a time when you have made enough money." There is no "you didn't build that." The fact is, there is no limit on the money supply ecept as determined by individual declaration. These quoted ideas do not have root in a free-market capitalist system, except by self-imposition. These noted Obama quotations are abrupt limitations, and you are free to argue for these limitations, but they are yours if you share them. Put your money to work for you rather than seeking minimum wage to work for it. The latter is a loser's goal. Why be so limited? It is the curse of entitlement. You will find, my friends, that such liberty to invest is not avarice unless that is the intent, and there are a few who embrace that limitation. Nor is it a goal unto itself. It's blessings reach far and wide to improve self, family, community, and nations. It has worked for 230 years. Show me another system of economics with that success.

Trump did what on 7/25/2019? Based on the released 7/25 transcript, He asked Zelensky for a favor. One favor. Then he asked about CrowdStrike, not Biden. He asked about Mueller, not Biden. Then he asked about Ukraine issues, not Biden. Zelensky spoke for a bit, without mention of Biden, then Trump picked up with Giuliani, Barr, and Yovanovitch [not named], but not Biden. Finally, the eighth discussion point between them. Trump mentions Biden. So, that's the opposing rationale. There are seven points of separation between the ask and mention of Biden, but the whole is to be deleted [as Schiff did in his parody], and we go direct to an ask about Biden? In what universe? Not in my republic. Sorry about yours.

I get the routine. Green energy, at a basic level, is considered renewable because all of its sources are naturally recurring energy sources: the sun, wind, water, and geothermal.

However, what is not renewable about petroleum, clearly, not what one would define as green energy?Or is it? What is not natural about petroleum? We don't make it. We process it. However, don't we do the same with wind and water, et al? Which of all those natural energy sources is not processed to convert the energy from whatever its original power to electrical power?

What is not natural about petroleum? It's even organic. How natural is that?

In the 50s, King Hubbard announced that within 20 years, we wold reach a criss mode because that future would signal our peak available crude source. From then, on, our available quantity of oil reserves would begin to deplete. He was wrong, but not without causing a simulated oil crisis in the 70s. At the time, I was feeding my 6.5-litre, 350 BHP 1968 GTO with 42-cent premium petrol. By the time the "crisis" concluded, it was near a dollar, and it never looked back. However, today, our reserves are bigger than ever. The fact is, we don't know how much of the stuff we have in reserve, because the earth keeps making it, 24/7, and has ever since organic creatures, animal and plant, began dying and decomposing, and it will continue as long as there is life on earth. So, what's not renewable about petroleum? 

I'm all for green energy. I have a 39-panel array of solar energy that dropped my power bill to 3% of its monthly charge, by annual average before I had therm mounted on my roof. So, the money I'm saving is obvious. However, wind, tidal, hydro, geothermal, and even nuclear energy turbines are not completely "green" as long as they use petroleum to lubricate their moving parts and to fabricate their plastic parts. And this is the condition of every turbine on earth. Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me that someone will start marketing AlGoreGooeyJuice before we reach AOC's deadline, now less than ten years out.

Until AlGore's juice is a product, green energy turbines are not green, any more than an electric car that must still use petroleum to lubricate its moving parts and to fabricate its plastic parts. Again, tell me I'm wrong.

So, how green is green? Looking awfully crude to me.

Three-plus years ago, I purchased a freeze dryer, expecting mostly to freeze dry my own produce of fruits and vegetables from my garden. Quick lesson on freeze drying: Food is cut/sliced to thickness not to exceed 0.5", put on steel trays and into a vacuum-sealable cylindrical chamber, which pulls a vacuum while also reduced in temperature to -40 degrees for a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The process is call subduction, in which, under the conditions of vacuum and temp noted, virtually all water is extracted from the food in a direct-phase transfer from liquid to vapor, leaving the food size intact. There result is a pleasantly crunchy texture that melts in your mouth. When the food is subsequently sealed in a mylar bag with a desiccant pouch, it remains edible for 25 years. I've found that vacuum-sealed bags are also a good packing technique if you have one of those devices.

However, virtallyany food can be freeze dried with little excption: a butter stick, for example, even sliced, may explode. A block of cheese, the same. However, with either frozen, then shredded, it's freeze-driable. Ice cream, when sliced into small bars, is fabulous. Casseroles, entrees, mashed potatoes, canned soups and vegetables... you name it, as long as cut t size [or liquids just poured into the trays, are all freeze dryed easily. One benefit: all flavors are wildly enhanced because water dilutes flavor.

I may be preaching to a choir among a few of you. If you've ever eaten freeze died, you're missing a treat. Casseroles and such merely have to be reconstituted with oiling water and stirred to restore to your familiar casserole condition, but just eating it in the freeze dry condition is also very tasty. 

The point is, I've found that a freeze dried storage is made to order for this current shopping crisis. I highly recommend the purchase, anywhere from $2,000 to $4,000. It paid for itself inside of two years of use. That's a valid return on investment.

With about a week into the social-distancing result of Covid-19, I observe that the popular items that reman on shelves, are somewhat unexpected. I can understand the lack of toilet paper, although I'm not sure why. TP was gone long before our local fresh veggies & fruits were, although they, too, were soon depleted. I already have an 8-month supply of TP, and almost 3-years of personally produced freeze dried, veggies, fruit, main course entrees, deserts, and powdered drinks, plus two freezers [not including the freezer portions of two refrigerators] so food is not critical to me, either.

However, I am somewhat surprised that items like candy remain plentiful; cookies, too. Still a variety of chips. Ice cream stock is lower than 50% of normal-stocked condition. I have two separate stores which remain open 27/7 within reasonable distance, and I shop at about 2 AM to avoid significant social contact. What are your observations?

In the First Amendment, the religion gig is followed directly by freedom of speech, and we manage to understand that one very well, unless we're talking about religion. After telling us we essentially have liberty to say whatever we damn well please, accepting all consequence of such speech, as is prudent, we interpret by back-up and say, arbitrarily, and incorrectly, that our freedom of speech is curtailed in the public practice of religion - any religion. Prayer, in public is taboo. We argue over symbols; a concrete speech, if you will. The two interpretations combat one another, don't they? Do you think that is what Madison had in mind?

There is a mastery to be had which is too simple in its form for many people to grasp: that men are not angels. Thus we have government. Not that government is a replacement for angelic conduct, for angels successfully govern themselves without the imposition of government - a true republic - but the best government; even a man-made republic ["if you can keep it"], is a far superior form of the practice of government than any other. We still, 230 years later, are not angels, but that does not detract from the need to try. Socialism, by contrast, is a dance with the devil. 

On reflection, the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump ended as a farce worse than any Hollowood boxoffice bomb. Yet, it had its moments. Sidney Lumet, who I consider may have been the best screenwriter in Hollowood ever. However, even he may not have been capable of scripting this clown act. The plot featured a keystone cops' effort to determine adequate impeachable offenses from a Russian peddling scandal to a porn star's knickers, an Inspector Clouseau to a Ukrainian floor show. All this scripted by two clowns in two legs of a mother's bloomers who separately leaped together to the mic to present closing argument.
Hollowood, you have a new, farcical comedy to present to the Academy. It has Oscar in it's sights, let alone in a cameo role. His solid gold silence may make a better prosecution than sending in the clowns.

We have James Madison, who I revere more than just about any other founding father, to thank for establishing age as a qualifying factor for Congressional and presidential seats. The President was set at minimum 35, which, today, seems awfully young, and is. However, it was, coincidentally, Madison's age when he penned the Constitution. Illusions of grandeur? We'll never know, but a sobering thought: life expectancy in the late 18th century was just 37. our founding fathers gre to much older ages, even in their generation, because they were mostly affluent, well educated, and ate reasonable diets.

Are you satisfied by where GDP is right now? How well do you understand what it is, and what factors feed and grow it? Here's a quick primer: [1] Consumer spending, [2] business & individual investment, [3] government spending, and [4] a net plus export-to-import trade ratio. All contribute to GDP. And many of you have a problem with #3. #3 would be fine if #4 were truly a net plus, but our trade deficit [more import than export] has been a growing problem for 50 years, and it fights against government spending so that both result in depressing GDP. About time somebody, like Trump, did away with deficit export. That, alone, will help curtail deficit spending by the government. Trump has been trying to tell us that for 4 years: We need new trade deals. When are we going to get what he's doing and stop complaining that NAFTA, TPP, the Paris Accord, and the Iran Nuclear Deal were supposed to be good for trade? If they were, we'd have seen a far better GDP than we have for the last 40 to 50 years. Time to stop doing insanity, expecting the same results, and try Trump's way.

Roosevelt could have done something for Israel, like predict a US Embassy located in Jerusalem, but he did nothing. He did not even raise alarm about the Nazi death camps.
Truman could have dealt with NoKo directly, and he could have done what Roosevelt didn’t, but he didn't.
Kennedy could have made the largest tax cut in history, and could have done what Roosevelt and Truman didn’t, but he didn't.
Johnson could have have lowered black unemployment, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy didn’t, but he didn't.
Carter could have told Iran where to get off, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson didn’t, but he didn't.
Clinton could have made a better deal with NoKo, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson , and Carter didn’t, but he didn't.
Obama could have recovered our economy, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson , Carter, and Clinton didn’t, but he didn't.
All seven could have dealt with China, but they didn't.
The last seven Democrat presidents could have done these things, but none did. 
Trump did. Inside 3 years. Does he deserve 5 more, or what?

Tell me what is Green, New, and a Deal about the Green New Deal.

It is not green. Every single "green energy" turbine in existence uses petroleum as a lubricant, and as raw material to fabricate plastic parts. The same goes for solar panels and electric cars.

It is not new. We've been hearing about the same old complaints about man's inhumanity to the planet since the invention of plastic, peak oil, the population explosion, global warming, water bottles, and the wall.

It is no deal. $100 trillion. That's a deal?

Show me exactly where in 1A, 3A, 5A, 9A, and especially 14A [all of which except 14A lack the term "privacy" in any variation of the word, and all of which were used to support Roe v. Wade], where a woman's specific privacy, at the exclusion of a man's, is stipulated. Not to mention that, in the 14A, "secure in their persons" does not imply "privacy." One can be private and secure in a crowd, but insecure while private in their own home.
Don't bother looking; your answer s not in the Constitution However, don't let me convince you. Look.
Not to mention that the tissue inclusive of the fetus, umbilical, amniotic sac, and placenta, do not share DNA or blood with the mother; it is a completely separate and distinct entity. Not one whit of it is part of her body.

The proof: when a woman opens her mouth, her tongue does not fall out.

If healthcare is a right, why do people die waiting for organ transplants? If healthcare is a right, why haven’t we cured the common cold? If healthcare is a right, why do I need to have a license to practice medicine? If healthcare is a right, why shouldn’t you play in traffic? If healthcare is a right, why don’t you have ready answers for my questions? Because, if healthcare is not a right, why should it be free?