All Activity

Do you really believe that... You can't be this ignorant to think that man isn't the main cause of climate change, are you?

Jonathan Turley agrees with you if you go to the 3 minute mark. He's an actual constitutional lawyer, unlike Hodad the blithering idlot.

Being ignorant is not a crime. You're not the only person in America who doesn't understand how the SCOTUS works. But to be such an a-hole while being totally ignorant is a rare gift. Ignorance can be cured. The a-holishness seems to be permanent. Go fark yourself, loser. Hodad - this sums you up perfectly. The lack of self-awareness is amazing!

No. And if you have no idea how the SCOTUS works, why the fark are you going to argue about it? Get educated. The majority opinion is the official opinion of the court. It's authored by one justice and then co-signed by others. With 5 justices signing on, it has the force of law. Each justice has the option to write another opinion (there are three main types) that expand on their thinking. These are separate opinions that have no holding power and set no precedent--no force of law. A concurring opinion (yes, and) expanding on their thinking. A dissenting opinion--the majority got the decision wrong, and here's why A mixed opinion--the decision on the case is correct, but I disagree with the reasoning in the opinion Kavanaugh wrote the third option. It is explicitly NOT part of the majority opinion and has no force of law. Here is the literal wording copied and pasted from the syllabus of the SCOTUS opinion: ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined as to the introduction and Part I. KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. ALITO, J., and GORSUCH, J., filed dissenting opinions. Being ignorant is not a crime. You're not the only person in America who doesn't understand how the SCOTUS works. But to be such an a-hole while being totally ignorant is a rare gift. Ignorance can be cured. The a-holishness seems to be permanent. Go fark yourself, loser.

No, one of the reasons Harper was voted out was because many felt that housing was becoming more unaffordable and not possible during his term, which it was for many. His courting of Chinese investment is the reason LM and GTA housing prices went beyond stûpid in the early 2000's. He was a failure...

No proof of anything required these days. Hamas tunnels under graveyard because we said so Fishing boats we blew up in International waters were druf smugglers because we said so. Blowing up warships in the harbour of a country it's visiting is okay because we said so. Kidnapping foreign leaders to the US is ok because we said so.

That is treason (From the Justice Department of Canada: Under the Criminal Code of Canada, punishment for treason ranges from a maximum of 14 years in prison to a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 25 years, depending on the severity and circumstances of the offense.) and if they are assisting with illegal invasion from within government that is called tyranny (the punishment for tyranny was execution of which when Canada abolished Capital Punishment, the punishment for tyranny was never replaced). Canadians need to rise and force a harsh punishment for tyranny and apply it immediately and all complicit with assisting tyrants with illegal invasion be charged with treason thus all of the liberals and their so called Canadian insiders complicit with them will pay the price as Canadians will then have a genuine reason to celebrate Canada day again. In the mean time for what it's worth, happy Canada day. love Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist David Jeffrey Spetch Ps. Be good, be strong! Ontario Canada

Fair point.

Narrative management sounds like orchestration and psy-op dudes. Without empirical studies, data and falsifiability, orchestration and psy-op dudes sounds bat-shit crazy.

He was a failure.... and why the 2015 election was beat down for the Con's. We were not as scathed because of our banking regulations and holding high risk mortgages and the fact our banks were/are well capitalized with no financial assistance needed there. Add in the booming price of oil at the time and a savvy Bank of Canada Governor setting monetary policy and we skated through it okay. Harper was a failure though...

For the record...according to google AI to my question; Did Stephan Harper sell 800 thousand low income housing units to developers Prime Minister Stephen Harper did not personally or directly sell 800,000 low-income housing units to developers.The figure of 800,000 affordable rental units stems from a highly criticized statistic used by political opponents—including the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Liberal Party—and labor unions like CUPE. Rather than a direct mass sale of public property, the figure refers to a broader structural decline in Canada's affordable housing stock. The Origin of the "800,000 Units" Claim The 800,000 figure points to affordable, lower-rent units in the private market that were "lost" or converted into high-rent, luxury, or condominium spaces during the Conservative government's tenure. This erosion occurred due to several distinct policy decisions and market trends: Expiration of Operating Agreements: For decades, the federal government funded social housing through long-term operating agreements with providers. Under the Harper administration, many of these 25-to-35-year agreements reached their end dates. The government opted not to renew the subsidies, which housing advocates argue led to the eventual privatization or increased rental costs of those units. The Private Financial Ecosystem: Critics point out that the federal regulatory environment at the time allowed corporate landlords and real estate investment trusts (REITs) to purchase older, lower-rent apartment buildings in bulk. These private buyers often initiated "renovictions" or "demo-evictions" to upscale the buildings and dramatically raise prices, effectively removing them from the affordable housing stock. Decades of Federal Disengagement: The decline of federally backed social housing in Canada did not start with Stephen Harper. It began in the early 1990s under Brian Mulroney's Conservative government and accelerated when Jean Chrétien's Liberal government completely withdrew federal funding for new social housing construction in 1993, downloading the responsibility to the provinces. The Fact-Checking Reality The accusation is frequently weaponized in modern political campaigns to target opposition leader Pierre Poilievre, who served briefly as Harper's Minister of Employment and Social Development (which oversaw housing policy at the time). While it is historically accurate that Canada lost an estimated 800,000 market-affordable rental units to private sector gentrification and financialization during the Harper era, it is false to state that the government held ownership of these units and directly sold them off to corporate developers.

Sure it did....they allowed 800k affordable rental units to be sold to corporations. I already showed you Kid, tons of times. Sound familiar?

You used empirical testing, observation, and falsification to determine this? I'm guessing you didn't have your conclusions peer reviewed but you have every opportunity to prove that as well. That would be a two-fer and an excellent demonstration of the scientific process in action - establishing the truth of something on the truth of something else that's been established. Just don't neglect to show your work. Sez who?

Don't look up!

It's always funny being called stupid by people who can't string a sentence together without cocking it up. You do that a lot.

Appeal to authority pertains to the affirmative, based on popular support. It does not pertain to the negative based on popular opinion. Further, your ad hominem attack (because you meant the statement to discredit me based on my association with a geographic location) was also a bare assertion fallacy. It turns out that a plurality of Americans that don't live in Texas view the people that live in the state favorably: The survey from Crosswind Media and Public Relations shows 59 percent of Americans outside of Texas view the state favorably, with 33 percent having a "very positive" view of the state, and 26 percent having a "somewhat positive" view. On the other side of the spectrum, 21 percent of those surveyed did not view Texas positively. Not only did you employ ad hominem, you incorrectly used appeal to authority and you neglected to recognize that you used bare assertion.

Except you mean agents of the state holding people down and penetrating their bodies with medical instruments while they're screaming don't.

Good gawd dude. Yes, it is part of the Majority opinion and there are 3 parts, authored by 3 people. All on the majority opinion side. Again, I am always right: Congress (8) Senator Howard, when proposing language to be included in the 14th Amendment and making reference to English common law exceptions, clarified his intent that citizenship should not be conveyed to everyone born or present in the United States, when he stated, ``This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are FOREIGNERS, ALIENS, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons''. You are correct that it is embarrassing that this is 6-3. It should be 9-0 in favor of omitting foreigners and aliens just because they happen to give birth inside the country. Congress is working on a solution already. I am not hopeful it will ever pass, but it needs to.

I know exactly what they mean, and there's NO REASON to believe ^this OPINION. LMAO

That was illegal. That is not allowed. Those abuses happened with or without this. It has nothing to do with this and you have yet to explain how it does.

They were paid off, or they're activists pretending to be scientists, or it's both; whatever it is, it stinks of 100+ year rot and it's time to say bye-bye to the idea of man-made climate change.