All Activity

I did. Again...that Section 3 is very open-ended in its language. Those sort of things tend to get grossly abused...and you know it. It has everything to do with my thread. It has to do with this network and data sharing. It has to do with privacy and security from foreign agencies taking advantage of information that is none of their concern.

And?

Then why did they go after Flynn? Its well established protocol that the incoming admin will establish contact with other nations...especially Russia. Not a new or unusual occurrence. So why? To plant a narrative...that's why. In the end, even after they forced him to cop a plea, they had to reverse the decision. Its rather plain. But you bought it.

No, you have not. You make an assertion, you spam links to other peoples opinions... Israel can't be trusted... to do what? What does this have to do with this thread or this law?

I see you are once again stealing other people's work, plagiarising them, not giving your source or putting things in quotes.

Which I have. Bottom line...I don't believe Israel can be trusted.

And yet God made a woman out of a man.

Well that sort of settles it, doesn't it. Of course, the Demoncrats will hide behind "plausible deniability" but...common sense says different. Call the mayoral primary a wash...invalid...then send in Lara Trump and her crew to monitor the LA and state elections.

I have multiple times now said I have read it. You linking to it doesn't do anything to support your assertions about it or the opinions you are spamming from others. The point is that it is on YOU to cite the parts of the law you think say or do something YOU want to argue against and on YOU to provide that argument.

No story or link? Just more mindless bullshit from Juan Juanston? Did you and Juan come up with this thread all by yourselves?

Oh I doubt that, it’s a matter of when not if. And yet you all turned down the offer of a life time. Unlimited Free market access to the world’s largest market, lower taxes and world currency reserves status, not to mention protection from the most powerful military. All you had to do was formally acknowledge your disposition as American which you already are and costs you nothing. Well that doesn’t sound like anything close to resembling an intelligent decision. Which is even more ironic given the fact that you all put your investment money in America. I have to laugh!

Im praying for fusion. I get what you're saying, it just sounds like replacing one issue with another. And none of this addresses transport. Technically, its doable. But at what cost?

I showed you the law. Didn't you read it? "the Initiative allows for "network integration" and "data fusion" between both countries' militaries." Are you trying to say you're ok with Section 3: Establishment of the United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative? You watch the US government lie to your faces, but this doesn't sound off your risk tolerance? Interesting.

Good 👍 they need all the assistance they can get .

Evidence:

Are you talking to yourself?

Well battery's the way that we know them would be problematic, but remember that at the end of the day a tank full of chemical fuel is basically just a battery as well. You stored chemical energy which you will convert into useful electrical energy. If you think about it that way it changes things a little bit. What we need is essentially a container that holds electricity. What we have right now is a system that Inefficiently stores chemical energy to be converted into electrical energy. You're looking at some really cool and interesting stuff using quantum technology and such that would allow for vastly more storage of energy at much lower rates in a much smaller size vessel that would be even remotely conceivable at the moment We'll have to see how the technology progresses but at the end of the day for solar power to be a true replacement we have to take that energy and be able to contain it in some fashion or another so that we can store it in large volumes and then use it when we need it the same way that we store fuel in large volumes and use it when we need it

The year is 1949. The Nobel Prize in Medicine has just gone to the man who invented the lobotomy. Your doctor suggests one for your sister, who has not been herself since the baby came. It is the most celebrated advance in psychiatry of the age, and he is simply current. By the time the prize curdles into an embarrassment, close to twenty thousand Americans have had the operation, and proportionally more in Britain. The year is 1956. Lay the baby down on his front, the doctor says. So does the most trusted childcare book ever written, the one on every new mother's shelf. On his back he might choke, the reasoning goes. Millions obey. The advice holds for nearly thirty years, long after the evidence has quietly turned, and a generation of cot deaths is counted before anyone thinks to roll the babies over. The year is 1966. A bestselling book informs your wife that menopause is a disease, that she is, in the author's word, a castrate, and that a small daily pill will keep her youthful and tolerable to live with. Her doctor agrees. The drug becomes one of the most prescribed in the country. Nobody mentions that the author sat on the payroll of the company that made it. That detail surfaces decades later, in the same year the landmark trial is halted early for raising rates of breast cancer, stroke and clots. The year is 1979. Your ulcer is caused by stress and sharp food, the doctor explains. Calm down, drink milk, take the antacid that happens to be the best-selling medicine on earth. Two Australians are about to prove that most ulcers are caused by a bacterium and cured by a fortnight of antibiotics. The profession laughs. One of them eventually drinks a beaker of the stuff to settle the matter. The establishment takes the better part of twenty years to stop laughing. The Nobel lands in 2005. The year is 1985. Butter is dangerous, the doctor says. Switch to margarine, it is modern, it is heart-healthy, the experts are united. The spread he nudges you toward is loaded with trans fats, which the next decade will identify as the genuinely dangerous one, and which will eventually be banned outright. The butter goes quietly back in the fridge. No correction is ever printed at the volume of the original warning. The year is 1992. There is a pyramid on the surgery wall, and the very same one in your grandchild's classroom. Bread, cereal, rice and pasta form the broad virtuous base, up to eleven servings a day. Fat is exiled to the tiny tip. The chart was reportedly held back a year while the relevant industries had their say. It is wrong at the bottom and wrong at the top. Now it is today. Your doctor has new guidelines, new studies, a fresh consensus, delivered with precisely the steady confidence of every guideline above. He believes it, and he has good reason to. So did every doctor in this thread. None of them were villains. Each was sincere, most were kind, and all were certain, reading from a map that somebody else had drawn and handed them. That is the part worth sitting with. So when the man in the white coat tells you what to eat, what to fear, and what to swallow every morning for the rest of your life, you are allowed to ask. Who paid for the study. What the evidence says beneath the headline. What he was just as certain about thirty years ago, and where that advice sits now. Then make up your own mind. Call it scepticism, or call it whatever your grandmother called it when she ignored the advert, kept the butter where it was, and lived to ninety-one. It has outlasted every consensus on this list. It will outlast this one too.

True. The scale is immense. Although...it could elevate the popularity of the Energizer Bunny.

LOL, skepticism over what? Why? Once again, this is YOUR argument to make. What blanket information sharing about American citizens? What privacy concerns? Show me the law you are citing here. What "the people" are you talking about here, what usury?

Dude...Romper Room was above the Beave's head. Im quite sure he thinks it was racist. I just see battery storage as the creation of a new problem.

That is speculation. "Data fusion" is a broad military term. NATO allies, intelligence partners, and joint task forces routinely fuse selected datasets without giving each other unrestricted access to everything. The article presents the most expansive interpretation as though it's the obvious outcome. (Responsible Statecraft) A more cautious reading would be: The bill may create frameworks for increased information sharing and interoperability. That's very different from: Israel gets all U.S. military data. "Higher level of integration than any other country" That's another claim that should raise eyebrows. The U.S. already has: NATO alliances. The Five Eyes intelligence partnership. Integrated defense projects with countries like the UK, Canada, and Australia. Permanent joint command structures with some allies. (Wikipedia) To claim this would create a relationship "beyond any other country" requires evidence and comparison. The article largely asserts it rather than proving it. (Responsible Statecraft) Where the article is strongest The strongest argument is not the scary headline. It's this: Section 224 would likely make the U.S.-Israel defense-industrial relationship deeper and more difficult for future administrations to unwind. That seems like a fair interpretation. If you create joint ventures, shared R&D programs, co-production agreements, and integrated supply chains, those relationships tend to become politically and economically entrenched. That's a reasonable policy concern someone can have. (Responsible Statecraft) What I would call fear-mongering These are examples where the language goes beyond what has been demonstrated: "Integrate U.S. and Israeli militaries" as if they become one force. "The U.S. military's data could soon be the Israeli military's data." Suggestions that this effectively makes the countries inseparable militarily. Implications that Congress is secretly handing over control of U.S. defense capabilities. Those are possible worst-case interpretations, not established consequences of the text itself. (Responsible Statecraft) What I think is the balanced take A fair summary would be: Section 224 appears to expand U.S.-Israel defense technology cooperation, joint development, and industrial coordination. Critics are justified in debating whether that is wise policy and whether it creates excessive dependence or influence. However, describing it as "integrating the militaries" in the sense most people would understand, meaning merged command structures, mutual war obligations, or a combined military force, goes well beyond what the publicly described language appears to do. (Responsible Statecraft) So based on what I've read, I think you're right to question the framing. The underlying policy proposal is real. The headline and some of the conclusions are written in a way that maximizes alarm rather than carefully distinguishing defense-industrial integration from military integration. For someone who disputes Democrat actions and policies daily, you sure don't apply the same skepticism when it comes to military actions and policies. Tell me, what possible benefit can any of this have for the USA, and why is blanket information sharing about American citizens, anything but dangerous? Do you really think Mosad gives a rat's ass about the privacy of Americans? Have you learned nothing from the Epstien fiasco? It is not a good idea to get too close to the people who made usury their cash cow.

Another $100,000,000 to Palestine.

Yep. I would love it, but the issue is that you really need to pair it up with solar power so you can have that battery only for night time but now we are talking $$$$$$... and even then, the folks I know who are really off grid, have propane to back it all up because when winter comes around or rain or you live in a climate that doesn't have enough sun, you still need some kind of supplimental power supply to get you through. At that point, the Tesla battery becomes a really expensive UPS.