Carborendum

Keep telling yourself that. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/20/gavin-newsom-sued-over-ban-against-home-bible-stud/ If you think it is just about Corona, then why don't they do the same thing to ban protests? I'm not saying the following as a beat down. I'm saying this to beg you to honestly consider where all the signs are already showing us that the Democrat ideology is taking us. You can keep defending Democrat actions or claiming it is an outlier. But eventually, you'll see the Democrat states tightening the screws still further on religious liberties even in the home while letting liberal and libertine ideals run society amok. Then you can rest on your laurels of pollution control, abortion rights, racial justice, and freedom from religion. Will it be worth the price? I honestly believe the majority of Democrats, liberals, and leftists don't want that. But they continue to support politicians and legislation that eventually takes us there. Most don't realize that 90% of Democrat politicians are FAR FAR left candidates because the individual Democrat themselves are fairly moderate. But they just keep giving power to the far left candidates.

Yes. I like that about the federalist system we have. What I was pointing out is that traffic stops are often a very dangerous operation for the officer. He often has no idea whom he's up against. So, for an unarmed "citizen" to approach people in that setting, in a city with one of the highest crime rates in the country... But if it works, great. Yes, they'd like to get rid of "pretextual stops". This is intended to reduce racial profiling. But there is a very valid reason to use pretextual stops. Here in my town that I live in, we have a major thoroughfare where we experience a high volume of drug traffic. Not that the citizens of the town use a lot of illicit drugs. But because it is out-of-the way, it is often used as a place to meet and exchange drugs. The street is broad and long with a high speed limit with relatively low traffic. All the citizens of the area know not to speed down this 10 mile stretch of road. But those who don't live here are more prone to speeding here. The police chief said that he's doing this to make it so inconvenient for out-of-town drug traffickers to come here that they'll leave us alone. Then there are further benefits in the investigation of such individuals. To quote the character from the Simpsons (after being asked to return to fix a problem that had been created because they voted him out of office).

So, you're considering a "boycott" (or reverse boycott) a type of collusion? You do know the meaning of the word (collusion) right? Please look it up and see if you want to re-word what you're trying to say.

"heaven" here refers to "Paradise" rather than the Celestial Kingdom. And we believe all the righteous Saints will ascend to Paradise after death and "partial judgment." It is somewhat figurative. As for the NT church. I would have no idea about that. Neither would you. And thanks for yet another sock puppet, Jonah. It seemed likely from the first post. But after a few posts, it is certain. You're going to have to stop being so schizophrenic. First, you're Catholic. Now Baptist? @NeedleinA, @Vort Mods?

It sounds like you're focusing on behavior rather than causes. Take a look at what the causes are. I believe you will find that even though you're "interested in the same things" you'll realize that you don't care about the same things. You don't value the same things. When you have a different set of values (i.e. what bothers you and what doesn't, what you are willing to sacrifice for and what you aren't) then you aren't all that compatible after all. If you can start talking about those values and 1. Emphasize those things you commonly value. 2. Make compromises on those things you don't commonly value. Then you have the potential to reach agreements on what your expectations should be. If you can do that and be ok with those agreements, then you can make it work. If not, you won't.

What I was getting at (which I attempted to communicate through the rest of my post) was that most often we can agree on the actual problems. It is 1) The priorities and 2) the solutions that we disagree on. Priorites are because of a dozen factors. What if we did X, would it help? How much would it help? Would it be possible with current technology to significantly change thePM2.5s that you're talking about? It isn't just the thing that is wrong. It is the other dozen questions that we get disagreements on. They work well for a few years. But they get worse and worse as they go. Eventually, they get to the point where it makes emissions worse than if the car didn't have them at all. As efficient as most cars are today, the emissions of a many new economy cars without a cat-con would pass emissions tests. And with proper maintenance, they could continue to do so for many years. But a 7-10 year old car can be tuned up perfectly, but the cat-con needs to be replaced in order to pass emissions. That's what I'm talking about.

And counting down ... three ... two ... one ... we HAVE a threadjack...

I don't know about a study. But I'll have to pass along what my daughter just shared with me yesterday. Her boss (let's call her Jennifer) interviewed a potential new assistant manager (let's call him Tom) and said she had never experienced nor heard of anything quite this bad before. In the interview, Jennifer asked the usual questions. Then she got to the question of "so, why are you seeking employment here?" and "Why did you leave your last job?" Tom gave a very interesting response. Tom: My settlement with Burger King is running out, so I gotta find a job somewhere. Jen: So, what settlement? T: I had to sue them because of wrongful termination. J: What was the suit about? T: Oh, they were upset because I let my friends have free burgers all the time. I mean, it's not like they were the chicken sandwiches. Those things are expensive. J: Does BK allow their employees a certain amount of free food? T: Yeah, one value meal per shift. But as an assistant manager, I am allowed to do more than that. J: And you have a LOT of friends? T: Of course. They'd come by every day at lunchtime for their burger and I'd just let it pass by. J: And there was no limit on that? T: No, and if the manager wasn't there, I'd let the employees do the same. It's not like I'd tell the franchise owner or anything. I'm the assistant manager, so I go their backs. Jennifer gave him the usual "we'll let you know" speech. And Tom got up and spoke as if he had nailed the interview and fully expected to get the job. I'm sure he'll be surprised in a few days or weeks when he realizes that Jennifer was looking for someone a little different. One guess what the lawsuit was about and why he got any money at all from it.

And when that becomes pertinent to the topic, I'll let you know. In the meantime, thank you for your comment on the wetness of water.

Well, here is how Berkley is handling it. https://www.berkeleyside.com/2020/07/15/berkeley-council-approves-omnibus-motion-to-reform-policing Yeah, I don't see what could possibly go wrong there.

I know that for the most part boycotts don't work. There have been a few in history that did work because the tools were available. But most of the time, they aren't available. However, protests combined with boycotts have power given to them by the media. And if the media hypes it, they boycotts gain enough steam that they could destroy a business. (ex: Chick-fil-a in Britain). What could have saved it is if enough conservatives came out to support Chick-fil-a (CFA) as they did in the US. But there weren't enough conservatives in Britain to care about it. In the US, however, we had a "reverse boycott" where Huckabee called on all conservatives to come out and support CFA by going there for lunch. All across the country, people were waiting in lines out the door. Businesses decided to use them to cater business lunches. In our offices, we frequently had breakfasts every Friday catered by CFA. It eventually became the fastest growing restaurant chain in the country (world?). Earlier in Texas, Julian Castro publicised a list of business owners who supported Trump. And he encouraged a boycott of these businesses. Well, it backfired. A particular BBQ chain, I believe was in the San Antonio area, which got several weeks of constant lines of customers. Some were new customers who had never heard of them who just came to support the business. They declared that if it weren't for the boycott, they never would have discovered how good their BBQ was. Now they're frequent customers. -- This happened to many of the businesses on the list. And I'm sure you've all heard of Goya Foods today. I believe these reverse boycotts do actually have a powerful effect (sometimes dampened by things like the quarantine) because of one quirk of human nature. People don't know how to "NOT" do a thing. They do know how to DO a thing. Say I normally go to Burger King for my fast food fix. Then I'm told to boycott it. The human mind doesn't like being told stop doing something, or to figure out alternatives. But if there is a good cause and all I have to do is "go to CFA for lunch"... You mean, all I have to do to support this good cause is to eat the yummiest chicken sandwich in the world? Well, twist my arm a bit. Today, we are in the middle of a minor famine because of the damage to the food chain. But here is a low-priced food company with all the foods we normally like to eat. And all we have to do to support a good cause is to buy that already low-priced, high quality product that I probably want anyway? Well, twist my arm a bit.

To a large extent, you are correct. This has been true in the past, and even to a large extent in the present. But battery technologies today are getting much more environmentally friendly and longer lasting. With greater efficiency and longevity comes greater power-to-pollution ratios. And this is due to the free market motivating better solutions, not government mandates. Two things: Large power plants are much more efficient (fuel-to-energy produced ratio) than small internal combustion engines. AND they are more efficient at screening out pollutants in the exhaust system (energy-to-pollution ratio). Some effluent from power plants are clean enough that you can breath them without noticing anything amiss. (Still unhealthy, but just not as detectable by the human nose). The greatest efficiency (considering energy-to-pollution ratio) is with Nuclear and Thermal Solar. Photovoltaics are now showing to arrive at that level of efficiency due to the greater longevity that has been discovered for solar panels. So far, the primary reason we're not going with Nuclear is that government is blocking it. It has become too expensive to meet all government mandates. But if we cared about the energy-to-pollution ratio, then nearly every major city in the country would be on nuclear. It is the cleanest (and cheapest, if not for government) there is. But the average person is so scared of radiation because they don't understand all the numbers behind it. So, it is suppressing the natural free-market forces to go that route. I hope I answered that question.

Those aren't the numbers or conditions I'm concerned with. My problem with most environmental regulations are that the reality of how they are legislated, regulated, and enforced doesn't provide the purported benefit. Catalytic converter is a prime example. Mandated seat belts was another. Now, give me a clean bill with REAL measures that would REALLY required reduction of emissions. Then allow the industries involved to come up with their own methods of meeting those requirements, then I'd be all for that bill.

FFR = Freedom From Religion foundation. They've made it an effort to point out stories like this (quite out of context) and "put God on trial". Dark Matter is... "a source" ... of people making fun of stuff like this about religion in general, but most conspicuously about the Judeo-Christian God. Your sarcastic comments about how Uzzah would have responded is actually something that they did. As far as background, this is what I meant. All of Israel had already been very wicked and prideful. They had been warned many times that they were falling off the path. But they continued down the road of sacrilege and treating the Ark as if it was a vending machine for God's blessings and protection. The Ark was supposed to be carried on a litter -- by MEN, not oxen. This was a final straw. Whenever God does something this harsh it is ALWAYS after an extended period of granting much mercy. But narratives like yours focus on the last domino of punishment that fell -- never the first 489 dominoes of mercy before it.

Before I you read the following post, I'm going to make an effort to get back to my original intent. I'm NOT saying liberals are all out for the same agenda. What I'm seeing is that the movement that seems to be sweeping the country is continuing down the same road (when a long train of abuses and usurpations...) https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/whiteness It is absolutely bonkers to hear a black organization (National Museum of African American History & Culture) tout the following traits as "whiteness" in such a manner that it seems they think that if you have these traits, you must be a racist. It actually sounds like the complaint list from a KKK group about why they are superior (whites are this way and blacks aren't). It makes no sense that this came from a black source. But here are the traits that make you racist: Does anyone really think this is still able to be supported in light of gospel principles? DISCLAIMER: I don't believe they are all correct (i.e. accurate assessment of "white culture". Some are painting with a wide brush for a minority of the cases following the description) I don't believe they are all right (i.e. it may accurately describe the status quo, but it doesn't mean I agree that it should be that way) I believe most of them to be correct and right. It is these that I believe are right in line with gospel principles. It is these that continue to follow this pattern of being antiChrist (anti-family, anti-Christianity, anti-truth) Regardless of religion, I don't see how on earth the authors of this pamphlet can say that "emphasis on scientific method" is somehow a bad thing? Why, exactly, are they trying to say most of this stuff is somehow to be avoided?