zapatos

There is a better way.. I propose that we proactively fight to undo our contribution to climate change and convert solar and wind power to electric generation wherever possible. Or so it seems to me (:-

Mass and matter are not the same thing. Mass can change.

Hmm. Good reasoning. That makes me feel better about the possibility of nuclear war. Its duration will be short compared to the life of the earth. The number of nuclear weapons is limited. Either we explode them all or leave some of them in their silos, and our planet will recover; with or without us.

Everyone thinks it is inevitable. You seem to have not heard that there is concern that humans are impacting climate change and that as a result are due to suffer some self-inflicted harm.

You seem to be arguing for perfection. I think our limit may be 'best effort'.

Is Catholicism considered a more reasonable manifestation? Catholics drink wine and eat hosts not as a symbol of the body and blood of Christ, but as the literal body and blood of Christ. Seems pseudosciency to me. Surely that is a testable claim.

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits

I think that is more of a goal than a requirement. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-myth-of-maximizing-shareholder-value/2014/02/11/00cdfb14-9336-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html

Wow. I think I'd be afraid to put it in the water after all that. 😃

I don't know how you manage to get through your day without someone getting hurt.

In recent weeks, a host of political officials — including a dozen state attorneys generaland some members of Congress — have blamed hesitancy in part on Facebook (FB), saying the company has failed to combat the spread of vaccine-related misinformation. In a new interview, Carolyn Everson — vice president of Facebook's Global Business Group — responded to that line of criticism, saying the company is "taking very aggressive measures" to remove vaccine misinformation. The effort reflects a top priority for the company, she added. "We have fact checkers in dozens of countries around the world that are really working around the clock to look at not just misinformation about vaccines, but misinformation more more broadly," says Everson, an executive at Facebook since 2011. "We see it as an absolute imperative to try to get misinformation off the platform and redirect people to accurate information," she adds. Facebook began removing false information about COVID-19 vaccines in December, and expanded the list of offending vaccine-related claims two months later, the social media giant said on its blog in February. Since that month, Facebook took down 2 million pieces of anti-vaccine content, the company told Bloomberg Businessweek on April 1. https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/facebook-aggressive-measures-to-remove-vaccine-misinformation-carolyn-everson-141428270.html

You said the Republicans use poor Republicans but not in the sacrificial sense that Democrats use the poor Democrats. I was trying to understand how the poor Democrats are sacrificed.

How are the poor Democrats sacrificed?

Do Republicans use those who are not rich Republicans as pawns?

You use the term "mass" different ways in different threads?

Are there people that the Democrats are NOT using as pawns?

Now I'm really confused. You are saying mass and volume are the same thing?

So if I weigh my popcorn before popping, it will weigh less than after I pop it?

Why does mass increase just because it shrinks? Does mass decrease when a substance expands?

Sorry, but I'm just a nube. Can you please explain how mass increases when it freezes?

I have no doubt that Pelosi gives the benefit of the doubt and the "most favorable interpretation" to her friends and colleagues. I mean, I do it too. But I also believe that approach is near universal and generally expected amongst nearly everyone. On the other hand it wouldn't surprise me to learn that in private Pelosi spoke much differently to Waters on the comment she made. What this boils down to is that it seems to me that in this case, Pelosi's response fell within the norm and is deserving of no more derision than of every single Republican congressman who responded similarly to Pelosi, but of course on the other side of the coin. How is their collective condemnation any worse than the collective support of the Democrats? In my mind people show their true colors not when they speak out in support of their own regarding issues where the meaning behind one's words are open to interpretation, but when they choose to go against their own when it is clear their own have crossed the line. How did Pelosi and Democrats respond when fellow Democrat Al Franken was accused of sexual misconduct? Al Franken was forced to resign with the condemnation of his own party. And how did Republicans respond when Trump was accused of sexual misconduct? They dismissed his activities as locker room talk and helped elect him President. I'm sure I can be less than 100% equitable, but to me Pelosi was within normal behavior on this one, and the Democrats in general rise head and shoulders above the Republicans.

No disrespect intended, but it seems to me you are making quite a stretch to say that statements such as: should earn Pelosi the description of: Are you really that confident that Waters did NOT mean confrontation in the manner of the civil rights movement, or that Pelosi KNOWS Waters intended violence and Pelosi is just covering for her?

Would you please provide an example or two?

What does it tell us?

I'm not often thrilled with Rashida Tlaib either. I often hear how much people hate Pelosi but I'm not sure why. People may not like her policies but I find that she is professional and honest.