"I'm still not voting for Anyone who finances Murders. Regardless of Party."

I understand where you are coming from. But you'll just sit on the sidelines pouting at us if that's how you're gonna conduct your business.

So think about this:
What if you joined up with the majority party in your area, and in the primaries, voted for the ones who finance murder the least.
That's an opportunity for your voice to be heard, and who knows, you might be able to bring about real change from the inside.

Republicans would rather a pregnant woman die, than allow her get a medically needed abortion.

This is just who these people are.

Anything else, shit for brains?

The Trump administration has effectively frozen 165 new onshore wind farm developments in the US, leaving the projects on private land in limbo, the Financial Times reported yesterday. Combined, they represent around 30 gigawatts of electric generating capacity.

Right, so lets go strip mine the Eastern half of Oregon to get the $1.5 trillion in lithium needed to support this green initiative.
#13 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Huh? You're aware Trump is using Executive power to block every wind and solar project he can, right?

Sadly for America, there's a lot of windmills in Texas. What did we strip mine for that?

"Helium, another gas byproduct, is used to make the semiconductors in green energy systems. In normal times, Qatar produces a third of the world's helium but has shuttered its gas industry. "

Oh, so this is why they were out of Helium at the Dollar Tree the other day. Makes perfect sense. Helium is a truly non-renewable resource; once it's not contained it is so light that it floats up out of the earth's atmosphere and ends up lost in space, like HeliumRat. That we fill children's balloons with this stuff is an testament to how stupid Capitalism is at expecting the market to rationally manage a scarce resource; particularly a non-renewable one.

I didn't change anything.

But you need to change your tampon. You're getting Toxic Shock.

Green energy means the input that's converted to energy is green. Not the associated industrial ecosystem that's already deployed without much consideration for being ecologically adverse.

Solar panels are twenty year life cycle infrastructure investments, at which point they end up in a landfill. No different than anything else in construction.

BuT ThE TrUcK CaRrYiNg ThEm Is DiEsEl, LibTaRd!

Sorry, I was talking about the article. I'll try not to confuse you by commenting on the topic any more.

Where can us Goyim get in on buying up this land?

Glad to see sprouts on the top of the list.

The problem with sprouts is: grown near feed lots to utilize the manure for fertilizer. Better wash that really good.
#4 | Posted by lfthndthrds

But you can't fix sprouts by washing them! Sprouts are just tiny little babies when harvested, a few days out of the ground. They haven't had time to develop an adaptive immune system to fight off the E.coli that are in the runoff water.

Other plants that we eat are mature enough that their immune systems attack any E.coli they picked up from irrigation water. Mature plants might have E.coli on them, but sprouts can have E coli in them, and there is no way to get it out.

That's why sprouts are so much more dangerous than other plants.

Similarly for pre-cut fruit, breaking through the skin means the E.coli can spread much easier.

This is also why you have to cook chicken to 165.
There isn't E.coli in chicken meat naturally.
The chickens are covered in chicken shit when they are slaughtered, and the E.coli gets into the meat when we remove the feathers and break open the skin that's covered in chicken shit.

Pope Leo has a higher approval rating with Atheists than US Catholics.

But Wait, There's More!

Voting Rights Act, we hardly knew ye!

I'd love to hear Boaz's take on all these election shenanigans, in light of the fact that we are not a democracy. I wonder why Boaz thinks Republicans are making so many changes to elections if we are not a democracy.

Perhaps he'd say, "It's to make sure we are not a Democracy."

FALSE CLAIM:
THE FACTS:

FACTS not even responsive to the CLAIM. Refusal to comply isn't assault. Challenging agents isn't a crime. Facts are a word salad.

The fact that no assault charges were filed, on the other hand, tends to substantiate the claim.

VENTURA COUNTY, Calif. (KEYT) " The Department of Homeland Security is now accusing George Retes, a U.S. citizen taken into custody during federal raids at two marijuana grow locations on July 10 of this year, of assaulting federal agents after he shared his experience of being detained for three days before being released without any charges publicly.

Democrats love him
#35 | Posted by lfthndthrds

How have Democrats shown their love?
Any sweetheart deals, any pardons, any foreign investments, any golden passports?

"You altered what I Wrote."

I replaced Republicans with Killers, which is reasonable, since Republicans are Killers.

Did you get the point I was making by doing that?

the strongest anti-2A argument is your average gun owner.
#29 | Posted by jpw

I'll give you three.

1. The person a gun owner is most likely to kill is: themselves.

2. The person a gun owner is most likely to murder is: Their wife, girlfriend, intimate partner, ex-lover, stalking victim, etc.

3. The person a gun owner is second most likely to see killed with their guns is their own child; be it accident, homicide, or suicide.

All of these things weaken the security of a free state.

While Black children are mostly victims of homicide, white children are more likely to die by firearm suicide.
Two different reasons needs two different actions.
#28 | Posted by Petrous

The same action, getting rid of the guns, would squarely address both problems.
As we observe when looking at other modern countries.

If that helps the Killers, I don't give a shit.
I'm not voting for people who help Killers.
#28 | Posted by Effeteposer

Not giving a shit if you help the killers is a pretty good way to get more killing.

"The Democratic Party is supposed to be Better than the Republicans Morally and Ethically."

You can't win 'em all.
But you can lose 'em all.

But I'm not sure I would even put it in the top five reasons she lost considering those types weren't going to vote for her anyway.
#126 | Posted by jpw

I think it works like this.
If you are racist, and you see a black pilot, you'll think "Boy, I sure hope he's qualified!"
So you start by seeing a black woman candidate, and you find reasons they're not qualified, that you wouldn't go looking for in a while male candidate.
I think it applies some extra weight to those criticisms. It makes them all a little more concerning. We see this type of reaction from cops and judges every day. Or famously in Katrina, when white people were "gathering needed supplies" and black people were "looting."

This isn't something that should take any convincing. It's like like how the NAACP had to find a squeaky clean black person with no criminal record whatsoever to do their bus boycott. Because if if it had been someone with a criminal record, someone who wasn't well spoken, or someone who mouthed off to the cops, well, that would have just been uppity and nobody likes those ones.

This is also how Jackie Robinson who broke the color barrier in Major League Baseball. The owners actually had another player in mind; I can't remember the name. But when they asked him, you know you'll get called all kinds of names, how are you going to react to that, he replied he'd punch someone out if they called him a n-----. So they picked Jackie, who was more willing to let those insults go by and not take them too personally.

People want someone who is as angry
#121 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

It creates a Catch-22. People want someone who is passionate. But when a woman is passionate, she's accused of "acting emotional."
Meanwhile, Trump's twitter storms at 3AM and never gets accused of "acting emotional."
He might be accused of being a bully, or a racist, but he's never burdened with the mere observation of "acting emotional."
"Acting emotional" is an accusation which is only ever levied at women.

For example, whenever Kamala expressed anger, her message was quickly characterized as Just Another Angry Black Woman by right-wing pundits. And that's all they need to say. They don't need to engage with her messaging because the appeal to sexism and racism is sufficient to discredit the speaker and nullify any policy discussion.

So, does that mean Harris lost because misogyny?
#119 | Posted by jpw

I'd put misogyny on the list of reasons for her loss.
I wouldn't strike it from the list. Would you?

JPW, can you give us a quick yes/no on which of these Democrat women you think could be elected:
(For the record, I don't think any of them could be elected, and that's because they are women.)

But you're right, it's simply because she's a woman.
#111 | Posted by jpw

So you are saying a Democrat woman could win, after Hillary, after Kamala?
Can you name that woman? Surely not AOC.
I don't think you can name her.