Jump to content

riversco

Members
  • Content Count

    672
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

61 Excellent

About riversco

  • Rank
    FF Geek

Recent Profile Visitors

1,605 profile views
  1. What seems to be happening now is there are people on the left that use sexual abuse of kids as a joke. They wield it to attack groups and organizations they don't like. Groups they like are not scrutinized to the same degree. Its pretty sickening.
  2. riversco

    Spippery Slopes are real. Here is proof.

    There is a lot of misunderstanding about logical fallacies and they get applied in the wrong way. Slippery slopes are one of the most common. 1. If you GUARANTEE that a situation is a "slippery slope", THAT is a fallacy. 2. If you warn that something COULD BE a slippery slope situation, that is NOT a fallacy because they DO actually happen. 3. If you decide that a course of action must be taken because it is too important to risk a potential slippery slope situation, that is also NOT a fallacy (and could be a wise thing to do).
  3. Catholic schools and the Boy Scouts get relentlessly attacked for child sexual abuse. Sexual abuse in public schools doesn't get reported to anywhere close to the same degree. One of these 3 is government run. Guess which one?
  4. It won't stop until we convert to communism. I don't mean climate change. The climate will still change. The guilt trips over climate change won't stop until we convert to communism. The new leadership will probably pollute 100x more, but the guilt trips will stop. Once we convert to communism, if you try to take a photo of some melting permafrost in the arctic, you probably get shot.
  5. Unless someone in the US government figures out it would be vastly cheaper to just silence the US media than it would be to pay for all of that.
  6. Your scenario is what is known as an "internet kill switch" scenario and has been discussed before. What happens if the government shuts the internet down? What they are doing is creating what is known as the Hinternet. The Hinternet is "internet over HAM radio". They've actually set this up. If the internet is lost, people can switch over the HAM radio frequencies and use it as a backup internet. There is something called AirChat that can provide this functionality. What you do is set up on 2m or 70cm bands which are line of slight and then set up a network that way because its pretty hard for authorities to find.
  7. I found more articles on fundraising: http://time.com/5570659/trump-2020-fundraising-campaign/ https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/pete-buttigieg-announces-7-million-fundraising-haul-first-quarter-n989426 https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2019/04/10/elizabeth-warren-first-quarter-fundraising Trump: $30.3 million (Obama had $2 million at this point in his re-election campaign in 2011) Bernie Sanders: $18 million as of the first quarter of 2019. Kamala Harris: $12 million as of the first quarter of 2019. Beto O'Rourke: $9.4 million as of the first quarter of 2019. Pete Buttigieg: $7 million as of the first quarter of 2019. Elizabeth Warren: $6 million Amy Klobuchar: $5.2 million Corey Booker: $5 million Andrew Yang: $1.7 million Biden: Only officially began taking money as of April 19th.
  8. riversco

    NBA playoff ratings down big...

    It will probably come down to injuries. If one side suffers a key injury that limits someone or causes them to miss a game, the other side will win.
  9. riversco

    This is sad, smart girl though

    I remember when I was like 10 years old, I was walking alone crossing the street in the crosswalk. Then I heard this loud revving on an engine. I looked up and the truck that had been witing for me cross so they could turn had floored it and was making the turn while I was still crossing. I sprinted to get off the street in time and the guy sped down the street coming close to ramming me. Unfortunately for him, a cop was sitting in a lot right there and saw everything. He immediately threw on his sirens and chased the truck down and pulled him over. I don't know what happened to the guy after that. What do you think the cops did?
  10. riversco

    Remember when Republicans HAD to change French fries

    I'm saying the democrats were going to excoriate Bush either way wether he went in or not. 1. If he goes in, they will say no active program was found. 2. If he doesn't go in, they will say Bush is a wimp and every terror attack in the future will have 329478234892374389 democrats in front of a microphone openly demanding an investigation on if Saddam supplied the WMDs or training or any kind of aid to the effort and then immediately demand impeachment. If an attack goes off in America and Iraq had the slightest thing to do with it, the democrats would still be building granite monuments for the victims and remind everyone that Bush didn't invade when he could have done so to stop the attack. He just took the option that was more appealing. In fact, I don't think there is a single president that would NOT invade given those options. I mean sheet. If Bush does NOT invade, and there is a terror attack on US soil and some democrat traces a strand of hair back to Saddam, Bush not only resigns the presidency but his entire family probably have to move overseas for the rest of their lives.
  11. riversco

    Remember when Republicans HAD to change French fries

    See, i Knew someone would probably do this. The democrats made Iraq and Bush such an emotional issue that its almost impossible to have a logical conversation about it. I linked a new york times article detailing the WMDs found in iraq. They existed. These weren't bottles of bleach. Stop being emotional and open your eyes.
  12. riversco

    Remember when Republicans HAD to change French fries

    Iraq had WMDs but they were old, manufactured before 1991, but they still existed in corroded form. They did not have an active WMD program. but it could be reasonably assumed they could restart it at any time to supply terrorists. Bush had a political calculation to make in 2002 and early 2003: 1. Build up the military on the Iraq border, talk tough, but ultimately back down on the active WMD program point. In this scenario, the democrats begin to immediately attack him for being a wimp, for backing down, for being a frat boy unable to pull the trigger. The democrats will go on TV every day and say Saddam still has a chemical weapons stockpile (which he did) and that Saddam could sell them in some form to terrorists. Every terror attack in the future will include a LOOOONG line of democrats getting in front of a camera and wondering if the supplies used to perpetrate that attack came from Iraq. 2. Invade Iraq on the premise that he has a WMD stockpile and failed to fully comply with inspections, ignore the active WMD part. In this scenario, the democrats will ignore the issue of the old chemical weapon stockpile being sold to terrorists and attack Bush for not finding an active WMD program. It is very likely that a thorough search of Iraqi laboratories turns up evidence of some chemical weapon activity anyway making it a slam dunk. Without knowing how things played out, I think most people in Bush's shoes select option 2. Unfortunately, absolutely no evidence of any kind of active WMD program was ever found, and the democrats somehow managed to convince the public that no WMDs were found (which they were): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0
  13. riversco

    Two socialist were talking

    Why do SJWs hate dentists? They want to make teeth straight and white.
  14. Its good stuff but, the 6 months we get of baseball is when life is good, and the 6 months of no baseball is soooooooo boring.
  15. It is not. What results in harm to the environment is lack of checks and balances. When there is no TRUE oversight committee, large scale damage can be done. This is why countries that lack freedom, like China today or the USSR in the past, committed the largest environmental disasters in human history. If you have a radical left wing government, and then a radical left wing media that protects and defends whatever the government does, you have no checks and balances. So that government is free to pollute or outright destroy the environment with impunity because the media won't report it. China caused widespread environmental damage with construction of dams. The USSR destroyed a massive ecosystem by draining lakes and diverting rivers, and had lax standards on radiation fallout leading to large areas contaminated. A free market economy is VASTLY superior for protecting the environment because there are checks and balances. The media will call out a corporation that violates environmental standards so its more careful not to.
×