Raider5678
-
Posts
2682 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Raider5678
-
-
It also appears, from prior evidence provided by Arete, that Mrs. Clinton didn't lie in her affidavit to the court requesting a psych eval as Raider5678 claimed in prior posts. It appears that Mrs. Clinton did everything she was supposed to legally do as an officer of the court. Frankly, I don't see an issue here.
You have your issues backwards. She signed the affidavit after the "evaluation."
-1 -
I've pondered this while driving long distances. I'm odd, that way.
There really is no reason that it should be impossible. Insanely expensive, sure. But not impossible.
Lower some strands from your geosynchronous station, and support a secondary platform, while extending a counterweight. Then from the lower station, lower a smaller number of strands to a smaller platform, and so on, until it reaches the ground. Once you have a functional elevator, use it to haul more building materials to the station, and begin making it stronger.
There is no real reason a cable has to extend the entire distance.
This could work with just about any material, but obviously, the station and its cables would have to be a great deal larger (and thus heavier) to support the weight as the elevator gets longer. The reasons we haven't done something like this are 1) it would be hideously expensive, and 2) the cables would oscillate, and without some way of damping that oscillation, it would eventually tear itself apart and/or yank the station out of orbit.
If such a thing could be started, then it might even be a good idea to transport the building materials up through a pipe, as a liquid, and make the cables on the station.
All sorts of materials could be carried up suspended in a liquid medium - we could even use magnetic medium in the liquid and an electromagnetic driver to act as a "pump" to move the fluid. The magnetic particles would be pulled along much like the mag-lev trains already in use. They would drag the fluid - water, perhaps - along with them. Letting it fall down another pipe after the payload is separated would provide some return energy. Then you'd only be spending energy to overcome the effect of gravity on the payload and the fluid resistance from the pipeline - unless you could separate the liquid from the walls of the pipe, in which case, it would flow much faster, as an added bonus. Using a flow of gas instead of a liquid could work, too.
You could even put stations on the platforms that would reduce the lifting medium at each step, as gravity becomes less of a hindrance. Then the concentration of the payload would increase each time. Or maybe an osmotic pipe could let it happen gradually, with better efficiency.
Then tension is still there, even if you make the cable in segments. Adding platforms will only increase the tensile stress.
0 -
Yes, yes there is and you caferrofluid. Its actually called ferro fluid. Homemade ferrofluid.
0 -
Yes, I looked into this a lot, its actually quite interesting IMO. What do you think?Based on the sources provided so far in this thread, it looks like Clinton requested a psych evaluation. The request was denied and no psych evaluation took place. Nine years ago, a reporter informed the victim of the psych evaluation request. Some time after that, this was incorporated into the victim's memory of the trial such that she remembered a psych evaluation that never actually took place, which while sounding a bit "out there" lines up very well with current research into how memory works. Inserting information planted after the fact into old memories and being unable to distinguish between the old memory and the newly introduced information is extremely common.
There is much more fiction in your memories than you realize.
Anyway, refer to my previous posts.
0 -
Focus on supporting this assertion. This was not my understanding. The exam wasn't approved, it never happened, so how would the judge allow evidence to be presented from it?
http://lawnewz.com/video/the-truth-about-clintons-handling-of-kathy-shelton-rape-case/I highly doubt it was. I cannot fathom that a judge would deny a psychiatric exam and then allow fabricated evidence from that exam that never took place to subsequently be presented as evidence in the case. Do you have anything that indicates that this happened?
"
Court documents show that as part of her defense strategy in the case, Clinton filed a motion for a psychiatric examination of Shelton. Clinton also signed a sworn affidavit that claimed Shelton was emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing. The affidavit also accused Shelton of having made false accusations against others in the past.
Unless I'm missreading,Court documents.
If she hadn't signed this,then the case would have gone in a dramatically different direction.
0 -
Ok, fair enough.The quote is from an affidavit requesting a psychiatric evaluation, not evidence given in court.
If this were true though, wouldn't that be something you brinup in court, or is that just making a random remark about a 12 year olds sexual fantasies?
Ah, ok.From the Washington Post link in your OP:
I would personally like to point two things out.
It wasn't approved by the court, yet Clinton used evidence from this physch examination. Unless she didn't and the court records were modified? Or she made up evidence.
0 -
Not sure, perhaps I misread something. Where was this?It was my understanding that Shelton didn't know about the request for a psych evaluation until a reporter showed her 9 years ago. Then she developed a memory about being put through a grueling psych test. But now it turns out that, although Hillary requested the evaluation, the judge in the case denied it. How is it Shelton remembers an evaluation that never took place? Lies? Bribery? Dirty tricks?
Or did I misread something?
Also, in any event this would also prove that Hillary completely and utterly made up evidence. You can use evidence from an exam that never happened, or am I wrong because I am not a liberal or conservatist?
0 -
Except she could provide no evidence to where she "was informed." In court, one would provide the source of the evidence, no just say, I was informed. More like, I was informed by, such and such, who used such and such information, to prove such. Just kinda the way courts where I'm at usually go. They often provide evidence before saying I was informed. Unless, I am wrong and at courts other places evidence is completely pointless, thus defeating my entire argument. And all cases ruled by that court.Clinton did not say the "victim was _____", she said she HAD BEEN INFORMED that the victim was ____ .
0 -
She falsely said the the victim had previously brought up false accusations against people. Which is a lie, there are none on record. And if you decide to argue that just because they were not on record doesn't mean they didn't happen, then that would effectively denounce most arguments about her e-mail ehhh, issue.So, she laughed at inept lawyers and got accused of laughing at 12 year old rape victims? Yep, sounds about right. That's been par for the course throughout the campaign.Now, what lies? Be specific.
Also, to add to my previous points, she also made the remark to the twelve year old accusing her of seeking out older men.
Entirely right, true and completely appropriate.
-1 -
I listened to the audience of this a about a week ago. Clinton is heard laugh in the audio. However she is not laughing at a rape victim. She is making what I'd describe as pretntious remarks about how inept other lawyers involved in the case were. Context matters.
Context does matter. And as I pointed out, how 2 different people interpret the context and the remarks is entirely up to them. I personally am not accusing her of laughing, the sites did and I simply brought it up all with them. What I AM accusing her of is falsely defending a rapist by lying.
0 -
Defend conversationally or defend legally? Because everyone is entitled to a legal defense regardless of what they are accused of.
Agreed, but lying is not legal in the defense or prosecution of anyone. But she lied saying the victim had made false accusations before, that isnt legal, hence making it controversial IMO.
Let me rephrase thatApparently the presumption of innocence, the preponderance of evidence and the role of public defenders are lost on your brand of bigotry.
I have a personal hate for people who defend rapist through lies, bribery, and dirty tricks. This is not narrowed to Hillary Clinton.
So, the sources basically contradict the title of this thread. And then you are accusing her of doing her job as public defender (according to your sources reluctantly)? What would be the alternative? Collude with the attorney's office to corrupt the justice system?
No, I'm accusing her of lying, in a court, which isn't legal. Do not strawman me, intentionally or not intentionally.
That is ABSOLUTELY true. But the quote is real, which is why I pointed it out.You can probably safely assume that anything in "The Daily
ScumMail" is untrue and largely fuelled by their hatred of women, foreigners and anyone more moderate than Genghis Khan.-3 -
So there's a story out the Hillary laughed at a 12 year old rape victim.(Trump brought up the issue) She also tried to push that Shelton, the rape victim, get a "psychiatric exam" There's an audio recording but nobody can tell EXACTLY what Hillary was laughing at. So then politifact took that and decided that it was a lie, because, nobody can tell for CERTAIN. They're evidence was Hillary Clinton saying she didn't, and that's all they needed. Other sources have claimed that she got the accused racist off. Then others defend that she didn't.
What they don't mention is that the rapist got off with LESS THEN A YEAR in prison.(personal opinion, not long enough. I'm sure someone will argue.)
Oh yeah, The 12 year old's victim's word means nothing, even though she, came out claiming the same thing as Trump. And while some argue she DID NOT laugh at the victim, some interpret that way.
That's 2 websites, with no contradicting evidence, taking two different opinions on it. And one has statements made by the victim. This one tho, is just sad.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/11/rape-victim-hillary-clinton-laughed-blamed-getting-raped/
"When Clinton was representing Taylor, she ordered that Shelton undergo a 12-hour-long psychiatric evaluation to determine if she was “mentally unstable,” and reportedly said the child rape victim had a tendency to “seek out older men,” according to The Daily Mail."
Because......victim blaming. Obviously 12 year old girls seek out older men to rape them. Don't they all?
"To every survivor of sexual assault...You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We're with you." —Hillary
TwitterAs some here say, I call Bull.
And the NEVER ending call for proof, here.
http://lawnewz.com/video/the-truth-about-clintons-handling-of-kathy-shelton-rape-case/
3 sites, based on Hillary's word as evidence.
https://thinkprogress.org/the-truth-about-kathy-shelton-the-12-year-old-rape-victim-trump-used-to-attack-hillary-clinton-72158e3c41cb#.inazklcc9 Failed to point out half the evidence and left out large portions of the story. Because, that's what republicans do.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/09/why-donald-trump-just-attacked-hillary-clinton-for-defending-an-accused-child-rapist-explained/ quote from here. "I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing. I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body.”
This was proven that she lied. the defendant had never made an prior accusations that were ever put on record. And that type of thing usually gets put on record.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/hillary-attacks-credibility-of-12-year-old-rape-victim-laughs I just put this in because I know you will hate it. I wouldn't take evidence from this as its obviously biased.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/11/rape-victim-hillary-clinton-laughed-blamed-getting-raped/
I have a personal hate for people who defend rapists, god forbid.
-4 -
Would you be willing to come to Pennsylvania and my home town? I'll gladly let you tell my town that.Still no evidence, I see.
0 -
They did win 100%. And if you honestly believe that 19000\19000 in every district voted for Obama, then your stereotyping them. Because then your believe that just because they're black they voted for a black president. And I don't believe that all of them did, twice.So, no evidence it is. Again.
Saw this in the news. Not related but figured was worth showing.
0 -
Agreed. +1I blame the media for conflating perspectives/approaches on an issue with the people who have them, and this is a good example of why it can be a very bad thing. By labeling people "conservative", or "socialist", we judge those perspectives based on people, and that's pretty stupid if you ask me. People shouldn't think of themselves this way, these are approaches to issues.
Anyone should be able to adopt a liberal or conservative stance on a specific issue. It's nuts to think one approach will be good for everything. Our representation shouldn't come down to the equivalent of answering "C" on all the questions on a multiple choice test. Having a completely capitalist or socialist or communist society would never work, and people who always made conservative choices would never do anything new.
Socialism is a series of investments in programs and features the whole country can prosper from. When it makes sense to spend it this way, our taxes support public parks, and interstate highways, and recreation centers with swimming pools, and museums, and other things that most people couldn't afford if they were funded by capitalism. Socialism is the best way to make sure people who will make the best contributions to our society aren't hobbled by circumstances of birth. Unfortunately, many people don't understand why socialism is good when used correctly, so we end up with a "compromised" version of social programs and features that don't do what they should, and give more of a bad name to socialism. They end up looking like handout programs instead of minimum subsistence platforms for educating a purposeful and dedicated citizenry.
And this is a big gripe for me, that Clinton won't do enough to educate people about economic systems, or change the capitalist to socialist to communist ratio we have. I think we need to reduce the unfair, unequal influence capitalism has over our policies. Each economic system works best in some circumstances, and none works best in all. It's only natural that capitalism wants to take over; growth is where it works best. We need socialism and even communism because not everything should get bigger or make profit.
0 -
I know people who live in some of those districts, and their die hard conservatists. Heck, my neighbor was in one of those districts and he's constantly complaining about republicans, but he admits that while he loves Obama, it was definitely foul play somewhere. And I have no reason why nobody stood up and spook out, but there is lots and lots of things where people should speak out and don't.
Again, whether you believe me or not, I know too many people who believe its true. But that doesn't matter. The point is that the people in MY town believe it, and if Hillary wins and anything remotely close to a rigged election comes out, there will be hell to pay.
0 -
Yeah, the biggest problem is that philly pa has 59 register precincts with 100% Obama votes, yet so many of them "claimed" sometimes violently, that they didn't. Obviously they're lying, Obama got 100% of their votes. Oh, and in places of Ohio. And more that I don't care to list. Obviously nothing going on here.So your town is rife with people who will become violent if Clinton is democratically elected? That's not her fault. That's all on the traitors to this country who would resort to violence in that situation.
And no, I'm not voting for trump because I want peace. Are you voting for Hillary because you want peace?
0 -
If Hillary wins, there will be a war. At least from my perspective.
From a nations perspective massive civil unrest doesn't constitute a war. From a bystander, watching armed people shooting at police and the army, it is a war. And believe me, people will die in my town if she gets elected. Maybe only the truly insane ones, but I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of "sane" people did.
Yep. My town is not the place you want to be if Hillary gets elected.
Anyways, I don't support Hillary, for reasons I won't share because I'm sure you don't care to hear them. But what I was wondering, is there any truth to this:
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2039.htm
http://observer.com/2016/06/she-isnt-president-yet-but-russia-already-hates-hillary-clinton/
http://endingthefed.com/breaking-president-putin-warns-america-if-its-hillary-clinton-its-war.html
Whether you deny it or not, Valadmir Putin did say this, but do you actually think he would follow through on this?
0 -
What he said.Science, eh? There's likely a physiological explanation; a predisposition toward social anxiety which is magnified in the presence of potential mates and is similar to a neurosis.
This generates an acute stress or fear response which, however mild, causes a spike in cortisol and adrenaline levels which create psychological discomfort (and we're basically wired to minimize discomfort).
This occurs on both a conscious and an unconscious level as part of our sympathetic nervous system and frequently leads to avoidance behaviors, essentially a flight response (as in fight or flight) like one that would be triggered in the presence of an approaching tiger or hungry shark.
This response is an inborn mechanism intended to protect us from threat or attack and to aid in our survival, but unfortunately when triggered in mating interactions (or from harmless social interactions with members of the opposite sex) tends to result in the exact opposite since it drastically reduces the likelihood of conceiving viable offspring and progeny.
If this explanation is valid, then the effect is psychosocial, is not permanent, and through some focus, effort, and determination can almost certainly be overcome through coping mechanisms, practice, and continued exposure to the perceived threat.
0 -
In order to reproduce, it was my understanding you required a person of each sex.Beyond the biology of sexuality, there are perhaps stronger evolved psychological forces and factors that strengthens the intimate bond and social adhesion partners share. These forces and factors promote survival and are not gender specific or exclusive.
Homosexual couples can't have children, unless there's a third person carrying the child, or providing fertilization.
Did I miss the point where evolution made it so homosexual couples can have kids without anyone else?
0 -
I'm 90% certain you meant to say good thing, not food thing. Unless your really hungry. And that still doesn't explain it.If the "bad guys" had been willing to fight back this would have probably ended with 1 dead senior citizen.
Now imagine what would have happened if none of the three people involved had a gun.
Oh look! No incident at all.
So, for no good reason, the other people present were put at risk- and yet someone is trying to portray this as a food thing.
That shows how bad things have got, and why you need gun law reform.
Anyway, the guy attempted to shoot robbers. He continued to shoot at them as they ran away. He could have hit like 5-6 citizens easily, and missed the robbers entirely. He did make a difference though, which is pretty much all moontanman said about it.
1 -
Slavery in the bible, wasnt for life unless done so willingly. They were suppose to release them after a couple of years,(less then 10). And they weren't suppose to beat them, and if they did, they had to give him time to recover etc. It was actually a lot less brutal then southern slavery was, but it was still slavery.Sorry if you feel attacked Mitsurugi.
Honestly.
I guess I disagree with some of your reasoning.
I don’t think I misconstrued your logic at all. In the first example I simply replace the word Muslims with the word Christians, and replaced the number.
I did notice you said “if”.
You can see that I included “if” also.
This was simply taking your logic and applying it to other groups.
Well, there are Christian extremists, just not as many. Here is one defending slavery. I can’t find it now, but in a later video he said he would have no problem being a slave himself if his Christian slave master followed the commandments set forth in the bible.
If your point is that Muslim extremists outnumber the Christian ones I completely agree. Vastly outnumber.
But using your logic you could say:
Keep in mind that also, there are an estimated 4 billion males in the world as of 2014. If even one percent of them are extremists, that would mean 40 million males are of subjective question.
After all, male extremists outnumber the female ones, right? Just like Muslim extremists outnumber Christian ones?
The point was the logic you were using didn’t make sense to me. If you have no problem with it OK. We agree to disagree, no problem.
Sure, bombing can kill a lot of people.
OK, let’s agree there are other ways to kill or stop people besides bombing.
Ethically I see this as a conflict between people who want to be peaceful and people who don’t.
Ultimately either the peaceful people get killed or the peaceful people become violent and kill the non-peaceful people.
It’s a dilemma and an interesting discussion.
Sorry, if it feels like an attack. What you wrote didn’t make sense to me. It seemed illogical.
I thought I was giving my thoughts? That is why I mentioned ISIS recruits earlier. I think the environment/culture can be changed, needs to be changed, but it can't be done by bombing.
But you didn’t offend me; no need for apologies.
Honestly, if you feel attacked, sorry for that. I didn’t intend for you to feel bad.
Take Care.
Also, 10% - 15% of Muslims are shias.
Shias are the radical muslims if you didn't know.
-1 -
-
You could also just go to a religious school.I don't believe you. After school, is anyone forced to study science?
0
is it possible that humans are not animals??
in General Philosophy
Posted
The only thing that separates us from most of the animal kingdom is our intelligence. Doesn't mean we aren't animals.