Infidel Dog

You appear to be saying that while everybody else is operating at the net generation, wind and solar is operating at maximum capacity. If that is what you're saying do you have evidence of it? If that's not what you're saying, clarify.

Not sure your 50% claim is accurate. Explain this from the dashboard at your AESO link. It appears to contradict your 50% claim.

Here's a digested version of the top complaints:

Hope MTG can get some support on this one: " Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA-14) wants a federal investigation in Arizona where Kari Lake is disputing results of the gubernatorial election against Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, whose office reports preliminary results that Hobbs has won 50.3 percent to 49.6 percent. Greene’s call was also a reaction to a post of emails showing that Hobbs’ office reported misinformation tweets to Twitter on January 7, 2021. “The SOS of AZ and Gov candidate, Katie Hobbs, used the power of the AZ SOS to collude w/ Twitter to unconstitutionally violate 1st Amendment rights of Americans for her own political gain. This is communism and Hobbs can not be governor. I’m calling for a Federal investigation,” Greene tweeted Sunday morning." https://georgiastarnews.com/2022/12/05/georgia-u-s-marjorie-taylor-greene-calls-for-federal-investigation-over-emails-from-arizona-sec-state-hobbs-to-twitter/

At least we know now why she didn't think she had to debate. In fact, isn't curious how Biden-like it was that she didn't seem to think she needed to campaign much (hardly at all) in general.

Curiously enough I was just reading this one: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/12/twitter-still-disabling-kari-lake-republicans-like-retweet-feature-rigged-2022-election-tweets-leaked-twitter-files-reveal-katie-hobbs-behind/ It recounts the whole story from the beginning to now in tweets. There's a lot there.

Politically motivated censorship at the hands of officials in the Democratic Party is what I'm hearing. Actor, James Woods is suing the DNC.

And again the term, "Indian" in reference to the geographical area beyond the Indus River started getting popular post Columbus. Was that term or something like it already being used because of this claimed in the OP: You nor I nor the OP actually know for certain. Stop pretending you do.

Let's look at the first governor of BC then to see if at least one of us can get a clue to what you're talking about. Richard Blanshard 1849-1851. " Blanshard's short tenure proved unhappy from the start, largely because of the enormous power and influence wielded by the Hudson's Bay Company and its autocratic Chief Factor, James Douglas. Indeed, prior to Blanshard's appointment, there had been serious consideration given by the colonial office to appointing Douglas governor, but concerns over conflict of interest prevented it. Blanshard arrived to a colony in which the land had been given as a ten-year lease to the Hudson's Bay Company, with Douglas given a mandate to attract settlement. Almost the entire non-First Nations population were Company employees, answerable to Douglas, and Blanshard was prevented from setting up a colonial assembly by the fact that so few of them met the qualifications of electors, i.e., land ownership. Inevitable jurisdictional conflicts arose between Douglas and Blanshard, and the colonial office, too, took Blanshard to task for indiscriminate retributions taken against the First Nations population near present-day Port Hardy. The absence of any real power, combined with health concerns and the enormous cost of living drove Blanshard to resign; he abandoned the colony in September, 1851 after just one and a half years there." And Blanshard was succeeded by the Hudson Bay Company's James Douglas. So who exactly are you claiming your moral superiority over? Blanshard? The British Government? Douglas? The Hudson's Bay company? Personally I explain that section of our history this way: Things happened. And now every time I turn on a Vancouver Canucks game some chubby, smiley, claimed ancestor dressed in pointy straw hats and blankets is welcoming me to the "unceded land of the Musqueam/Salish nations. And I still don't get your point.

Here's the problem with the idea the west represents the inherent possessors of some special evil because they failed to live up to the goals of their religion. It implies only a European is guilty of this sort of hypocrisy and you are some special sort of Westerner for noticing. But they're not and you're not. Do you really want a fist pump because some unknown relative of yours was raped in the past? Let's have them all around then. Who can't go into their past to find one of those? You want us to be impressed when you dis Europeans for connecting to an Asian religion that might speak against colonization with a few tweaks to its code. Very well, communists are all the time railing against colonizers. Yet they want to colonize Taiwan. Russia is trying to colonize Ukraine again as we speak. Why are you expecting some sort of badge of superior morality for noticing how 7 hundred years ago largely Christian nations were colonizers as every nation or ideology of greater strength to another was. In fact the only difference between them and these Europeans you want to point down at is many of them are still doing it. Or trying.

Yeah already said that. In better detail though. Thanks for the wiki quote. Sounds like they got one right. More or less. As I also pointed out though the 'People of God' explanation in the OP has also been around for awhile. And people who use the Indian referred to India one sometimes forget that started post Columbus. That might matter.

Interesting thing about "Do unto others"...turns out pretty much all religions have some version of that. The exception might be Islam. They have something but it goes more like "Do unto other Muslims as you would have them do unto you. Anybody else...don't worry about it. Enjoy their grief and horror." Also Judaism, Christianity and even Islam are Asian. Still, nothing about that one would make Europeans as opposed to all others evil hypocrites for conquer and rule. Pretty much happening all around the world in the 16th century to everybody and anybody who had the bad luck to be weaker. If you want to feel superior for dissing your own well...I never understood that one but feel free to be honest about what you're really saying first.

I think I'd understand you argument better if you told us what specific "foundations for the system of laws that govern us today" you're talking about from the 15th century that should have prevented Europeans exclusively from conquering and colonizing weaker nations?

Projection.

Did they? What are you basing that on? Surely not the fact that that's the way it had been done since the beginning of time.

Now as to the transference of the term Indian into the term Native that's something I do know a little bit about without doing a search. Because I remember giving it attention when it started to happen. It confused me at the time. There didn't seem to be any need for it. It only seemed important to this new type of Humanities clique coming out of the Universities. Actual Indians didn't care about the term one way or the other. But these new wannabe modelers of a new culture appeared to see the term "Indian" as a pejorative. They were relentless in working to see the old term expunged and replaced with something more sanitary in feel to this new intellectual elite they liked to posture as. Because they cared, you see. Always seemed kind of racist to me. It was the first time I saw racism dressed up like anti-racism. I didn't know the term for these effete, faux-intellectual posers at the time but since then I've come to know them by the term they self-identify as. Progressives. I prefer Progs myself.

I've heard both stories - the Christopher Columbus 'People of God' thing and the Columbus thought he'd discovered India thing. Unlike the rest of you genius's though I wasn't born knowing the true truth of everything so I looked it up. I don't know where the 'people of God' thing comes from. It was around pre-windows internet though. That's when I heard it. The etymology of Indian in it's present use goes back to what the late Romans called the land beyond the Indus River. (Starts in Tibet, I think.) The term started getting transferred into French, Spanish, English out of late latin in the 13th century. However, it didn't start being used to describe the peoples of America until the mid 15th century - post Columbus.

S Why are you calling that video evidence? You specifically said "video evidence." The video evidence shows Epps helping smash a billboard into a barricade. As to your link to a google search on Rhodes I already did that. What I'm waiting for is this evidence you say you saw that shows Rhodes is something more than a big mouth. Because if that's a crime there aren't enough jails to hold all the big mouths. So, I'm still waiting. Can't find it, eh?

WTF are you talking about. The video evidence I gave you is a video. There's nothing to quote. That video shows Ray Epps with the rioters smashing a billboard into a barricade. As far as Rhodes goes, I'll stand by my claim that started this mess. No non-Progressive can get a fair trial in Washington DC - neither with a judge nor with a jury. A conservative would have as good a chance of getting a fair trial in DC as you'd have of getting a fair election in Arizona. Still waiting to see all your evidence Rhodes was something more than a loud mouth.

I think the owner said he had no interest in other turtles.

So that's the trick, eh? Every time you post that opinionated apologetic for Epps and Samsel from the fishwrap of record you're going to want me go go through my bookmarks and show you all the clips you should have seen by now of Epps inciting the crowd to storm the capitol? Hoping to wear me down, are you? Very well, I'll give you one clip the propogandizers at NYT didn't show you at a time. And every time I do I'm going to demand you post at least one bit of all this "evidence" you say you have that Rhodes is more than just another loud mouth. Fair warning, I've got a lot. I even have one from Nancy Pelosi's office window where Epps is up on the scaffold in front of the building as the Scaffold Commander shouts demanding the crowd storm through. Here ya go then. Here's the first one your Progressive Socialist scandal sheet didn't tell you about. It's a quick one just for a taste: Your turn. Give us a bit of all this evidence you say you have that Rhodes is more than just another loud mouth, now.

Of course. Both times you or one of you 2 posted it. The last time it was pretty much destroyed with multiple clips showing multiple incidents of damning evidence the NY Times (a former newspaper), forgot or didn't want to mention. Why do you keep posting that rag apologizing for obvious liars anyway? I'm thinking it's a diversion here so nobody will call you out on the fact what you're calling "evidence" against Rhodes is pretty much just a big mouth saying stupid things when he thought nobody that mattered was listening. Nothing as bad as swamp agents, Ray Epps and the Scaffold Commander loudly inciting the crowd to storm the capitol building though.

There used to be this video on YouTube of this little turtle that was obsessed with screwing sandals. I called him squeaky - squeaky the turtle - because every time he gave the sandal a little turtle hip thrust he squeaked. Nature or nurture?

Like I said, "show me." You obviously can't or you would have just done it. More likely you won't because you know if you do I'll show you how some don't get charged or even investigated for doing worse. So is it a crime you think you have evidence of or isn't it? I say it isn't. You have evidence of a guy with a big mouth mouthing off. Nothing more. Rhodes is no Ray Epps or Scaffold Commander. They actually incited rioters to enter the Capitol building and riot. Something the apologetic in last spring's Times R&R posted above forgot to mention.

No. Finding a term and defining it to fit your purposes doesn't apply here as being meaningful. If there's one law for one group and a different one for a favored group that's wrong. That's not whataboutism. That says the law is meaningless because this "EVIDENCE" you claimed existed doesn't. Because it only applies to a law that is not actually a law. 2 tier justice is not justice. You can't minimalize that by thinking your clever just because you know a word and like to believe you can adjust it's meaning to suit your purpose. "Whataboutism" suggest that's all it is but in this case it isn't. The existence of contrary application of the law negates the usefulness of what you call your "EVIDENCE"