The Right Side of the News

I hear and understand what you and other conservatives are saying.It's evidence-free horseshit. It's contradicted by reality. And by the evidence I and others have ported.

Taking out Soleimani perhaps had the positive result of replacing him with a less adept implementer of Iranian terrorist policy, but that policy continues.One positive development is that Iran is giving external indications that they'll be more restrained in their terrorism efforts going forward, but if true it's temporary. Before the end of the year they'll be right back at it.That's especially true if their efforts at refining radioactive materials for nuclear bombs bear fruit. They likely have bombs all ready to go just waiting for nuclear material. They already have ballistic missiles, having demonstrated their range and accuracy just a few weeks ago.A nuclear Iran will be much more aggressive than the current Iran. Announcing a successful bomb will provide a great boost to Iranian prestige and give the government a great boost internally.So I can't agree that the world is a better place. I think it's a more dangerous place now. I think that's why he did it, too.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

What makes you think that? Here's a page with a lot of cancer data: Cancer - Our World in Data. The UK, France and Germany are all within 5% of the US as measured by lost years of productive life due to cancer. Italy, Switzerland and Austria fare significantly better, and Sweden, Norway and Finland, countries with the strongest social programs in Europe, fare best. Embarrassingly, Mexico, Nicarague, Panama and Peru all fare significantly better than the US. It did neither you nor your country any good for you to suffer both health-wise and financially for something that was just the luck of the draw. It is far better to spread the costs across the country as a whole, making the entire country richer because you're able to return to a full and productive life more quickly.--Percy

Not with Trump in the White House they won't, or if they continue in secret we'll know about it and be prepared to undo their efforts. They only get away with that stuff when we have a weak appeaser like Obama in the White House. But they know Trump is ready and willing to knock out their means of terrorism. Which of course our intelligence people are keeping their eyes on and keep Trump informed about. Trump does not want to have to do any such thing so the hope is that they will not continue on their track to improving their means of aggression, but if they do Trump will be prepared to discourage them from it again.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is no military means to discourage terrorism.

That all sounds fishy to me but I'm going to have to see what the conservative sites have to say. For a while the idea was that there was a warning of the attck that allowed those on the bases to take cover in tunnels. There was some claim that the Iranians had not really aimed to cause harm because they knew the retaliation would be ferocious, and then we started hearing about this advance warning as the reason nobody was hurt.Your report only mentions a few men injured anyway, not killed, so the main information that thousands were not harmed seems to be true.If anyone had been killed Trump would have retaliated and that doesn't seem to have happened.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The military means to discourage terriroism includes such actions as taking out Solemeini, destroying arsenals and delivery systems. Terrorism is endemic to Islamicism so the motive will always remain but we can certainly destroy some of their methods of harming people.Trump said he has 52 targets in mind to attack if necessary. I'm sure the Islamic State took notice.And the nonmilitary means of sanctions is no doubt a discourager too.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If anybody had been killed....But since several of our folks were merely injured, we just said that nobody was injured and surpressed the news that they actually were for a couple of weeks. Got ya, loud and clear. Thanks.

All these years socialising and working with Muslims, and I've clearly not been noticing all the times they've blown me up, shot me and stabbed me. You would have thought I'd have noticed, but clearly there must be some miracle going on, where every time it happens, I get resurrected and healed and my memory gets wiped.From here on in, I'm keeping my camera phone switched on !

The jihadi commands are in the books of Islam, but that does not mean all Muslims are even aware of them or would obey them if they were. Fortunately. But the commands are there and sometimes you get Muslims of a strict mindset who feel they must obey to be good Muslims. The Ayatoallah Khomeini preached clearly that it's only cowardice and disobedience that keep Muslims from following these clear commands of Allah in the Islamic literature, and of course we know he determined to obey them himself, shich is how the Iranian Islamic State was formed in the first place. Sometimes "liberal" Muslims who ignore that part of their religion get captivated by it and become terrorists. Because the commands are there to be obeyed if anyone decides to do that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The only connection between his list of 52 targets and terrorism was that his boast was terrorism writ large.

The 52 represents the number of hostages taken in 1979.

Remember? Well, after pissing off South Korea by canceling exercises and shaking them down, the net result is:North Korea abandons nuclear freeze pledge, blames 'brutal' U.S. sanctions | Reuters

quote:

---

North Korea said on Tuesday it was no longer bound by commitments to halt nuclear and missile testing, blaming the United States’ failure to meet a year-end deadline for nuclear talks and brutal and inhumane U.S. sanctions.[... ]

​

As it became clear now that the U.S. remains unchanged in its ambition to block the development of the DPRK and stifle its political system, we found no reason to be unilaterally bound any longer by the commitment that the other party fails to honor, Ju told the U.N.-backed Conference on Disarmament.

---

Thank you Donald Trump!

You're off in la-la land again. Neither nationalism nor ultranationalism has anything to do with climate change, and there are no serious proposals for the government "to take over most all decisions in how energy will be produced and used."Was government in Pittsburgh in the 1940's alarmist when they instituted changes to clean the air after too many days like this? Was the government too authoritarian? This image was taken around noontime: I lived in Pittsburgh for a few years while in grad school. I would often leave one of the windows in my bedroom open a crack for some fresh air. In the morning the edge of the window sill would be covered in black soot.One of the main buildings of the University of Pittsburgh (I didn't attend there) is the Cathedral of Learning (from down the street we called it the Tower of Ignorance), a many storied building whose westward side (the windward side) was perpetually blackened by soot. Every ten years or so they would clean that side of the building. They no longer have to do that.Because the climate changes we're already seeing in the form of rising sea levels and and melting glaciers and sea ice and more frequent powerful weather events are real, those calling attention to them cannot be called alarmist, just as those calling attention to Pittsburgh's pollution problems could not be called alarmist. They're realists. Climate change is very real and very threatening and on the verge of reaching a tipping point where there is no going back.Your worries about government becoming too authoritarian are contrived. Your inability to accept climate change as real and human-caused forces you to invent reasons for doing nothing. Climate change has already affected millions of lives personally, and the numbers will only go up, and they already include you. Here's what the EPA says about how Kentucky's climate has already changed at What Climate Change Means for Kentucky:

quote:

---

Kentucky's climate is changing. Although the average temperature did not change much during the 20th century, most of the commonwealth has warmed in the last 20 years. Average annual rainfall is increasing, and a rising percentage of that rain is falling on the four wettest days of the year. In the coming decades, the changing climate is likely to reduce crop yields and threaten some aquatic ecosystems. Floods may be more frequent, and droughts may be longer, which would increase the difficulty of meeting the competing demands for water in the Ohio, Tennessee, and Cumberland rivers.

​

Our climate is changing because the earth is warming. People have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the air by 40 percent since the late 1700s. Other heattrapping greenhouse gases are also increasing. These gases have warmed the surface and lower atmosphere of our planet about one degree (F) during the last 50 years. Evaporation increases as the atmosphere warms, which increases humidity, average rainfall, and the frequency of heavy rainstorms in many places-but contributes to drought in others.

​

Natural cycles and sulfates in the air prevented much of Kentucky from warming during the last century. Sulfates are air pollutants that reflect sunlight back into space. Now sulfate emissions are declining, and the factors that once prevented Kentucky from warming are unlikely to persist.

---

And you can read here what climate change will do to Kentucky in the future: Climate change in Kentucky - Wikipedia I'm affected by everything Trump and the Republicans do because the country I live in is affected by everything they do. Let me count the ways:

• Dirtier air and water
• Less regulation of business increasing likelihood of abuse, e.g., 2008 financial meltdown
• Huge deficits increase the potential for a financial crash and/or hyperinflation
• Cutting off sources of immigration, thereby threatening our future both economically and as a nation of influence
• Reduced access to abortion
• Reduced access to healthcare
• Cutting back the social safety net
• Making corruption acceptable
• Making nepotism acceptable
• Making lack of honesty and integrity acceptable
• Chipping away at the separation of church and state

Of course I've heard of Antifa. I'm on record as denouncing them and their tactics, possibly in this very thread somewhere. There are crazies on both ends of the political spectrum. So what? Assuming David Limbaugh isn't talking about crazies on the left, liberals are not calling conservatives fascists. No, Republcans don't seek anything as sensible and rational as gun control. They seek to control women's actual bodies. What's next, adultery and sodomy laws? Well I see you've learned your Trump lesson well, just keep repeating the same lie over and over again. No one on the left is seeking a government takeover of energy production and use. "Complete government control" is an exaggeration, but socialized medicine is widespread around the world providing people with what should be a basic human right, access to healthcare. You of all people should know that. What would have become of you had you had no insurance instead of 50/50? Yes, that's clear from what I just said. They've been bamboozled. That would be the freedom to die in the unregulated coal mines of the rich who own them, and suffer from the effects of the polluted groundwater these unregulated coal mines cause? You're speaking for the poor in West Virginia now? I very much doubt the poor are monitoring their own water or air quality, especially air quality which requires specialized equipment. And let's say they do discover that their air or water is polluted. What are they going to do about it given that the EPA regulations preventing it are gone? Once again your answer has nothing to do with the question. How does trading carbon credits cause money to flow into Democratic coffers? I didn't say anything about Obama. I'll condemn any president who acts as a divisive force. The passage the title refers to is this one:

quote:

---

He [Obama] said Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. Now that progress has been made, he said, "we can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."

---

It seems particularly tactless to say the Republicans have to sit in back like blacks during Jim Crow, but the factual portion of what he says is accurate. The Republican repeal of Glass-Steagal is what led to the 2008 financial meltdown that Obama had to deal with when he became president the following year. Obama successfully led the country out of that mess with the Republicans kicking and screaming all the way. Economic growth resumed in 2010 and continued right through the end of the Obama administration and on into Trump's. You've been misled on this one, plus you obviously didn't watch the video because clicking on it brings up the message:

quote:

---

Video unavailable
This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated.

---

You can get the straight story here, and it includes working video: https://www.washingtonpost.com/...ed-to-bankrupt-coal-plants This is untrue. Democrats want the society they are a part of to pay for them, sharing the wealth so as to enrich everyone. The plight of the rural Republican poor seems more like a prison. There's no jealousy there.What you say is very strange. If Democrats were truly jealous of Republicans they'd just become Republicans. There are no laws keeping people from changing parties. Happens all the time. Just because poor areas of rural America have a much lower population density than cities doesn't mean they aren't slums. Again, where are you getting your information from that Democrats seek to avoid work and live off government handouts?--Percy

You obviously don't know when Trump is flattering an enemy tyrant. I'm sure he was hopeful that what he said was true but he's not stupid, he knows such a personality is not likely to hold to his promises. It's not a failure/lle at all, it's a hopeful statement designed to mollify the tyrant. That's Trump's style, it's a businessman's style.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.