Grid wise with nuclear we have the capability of not using fossil fuels. Transportation wise we are decdades away before we have the capability.
Grid wise with nuclear we have the capability of not using fossil fuels. Transportation wise we are decdades away before we have the capability.
We don’t have a means to replace energy needs today and we were even further away a decade ago.
It’s crazy to think those are the only choices.
Kinda dumb to call for the end of fossil fuels a decade ago.
When someone calls for ending something last decade it required immediate action now.
What’s your plan to keep society functioning with the immediate end of fossil fuels?
Who owned the ship? Don’t insult my intelligence and say Liberia.
I don’t need to insult your intelligence you’re more than capable. The ship was not owned by an Israeli or American company.
This isn’t everything. It’s an intentional racist term intended to delegitimize a government by equating it with a select group of people. There. You learned something today.
A group named after its founder is racists?
Or should I start calling every Israeli a Netanyahu, every American a Kennedy, and every British person a Starmer?
You can call it what ever you want, I’m not so hypersensitive that I cry racism about every little thing.
As in goods going to Jeddah would ultimately get shipped to Iseral? I have no idea if Saudi Arabia is being used as a pass through.
Owned in Liberia’
I like how you stuck that in the middle. Just trying to sneak it in a bunch of other stuff that is unquestionable.
What’s wrong with owning a ship in Liberia?
It’s obvious what you are doing, and why.
Gave an example where the Houthis attacked and killed people on a ship that had nothing to do with Israel.
I guess I shouldn’t expect better from someone using the racist term ‘Houthis’ for the government of Yemen.
When you cry racism about every thing is loses meaning.
What does attacking cargo ships, flagged from Barbados, crewed by Filipinos, owned in Liberia, operated out of Greece, originating from China, and destined to Jeddah and Aqaba have to do with Israel?
What enemy nation are the Houthis at war with?
Are you arguing that misinformation makes people do bad things?
deleted by creator
I did provide evidence. You know full well the Heritage Foundation is not credible.
That’s not evidence it’s an accusation. Where’s the proof that the article is false? Where’s the proof the author made up the quotes from the Minnesota Department of health? You know full well the article is accurate.
You guys have nothing but lies on top of delusions. No babies are dying on a table. You are just a rape fan inventing fake shit to support control over women.
If there are lies you should be able to find proof of those lies but you’re too busy fantasizing about killing babies to provide proof.
It would be hilarious to see you as a lawyer working with a witness that has previously lied on the stand. “Your witness is not credible, they have accepted money to lie in the past.” “That’s an ad hominem, you cannot do that.”
At least you learned what an ad hominem fallacy is, you’re a little less ignorant now. If you want to treat it like a court case you would need to provide evidence that the author has made up articles in the past, you have not.
You did not provide a source for letting “babies” “die” on a table after “birth.” You provided delusional propaganda where a liar was willing to write that based on weird definitions that nobody but you regressives agree with.
The only source you’ve provided was one which ended up discrediting your claim that abortions are denied when the life of the mother is in jeopardy. You haven’t provided others and instead rely on logical falicies to prove your point.
You additionally are confirmed to support child molesters harming children, rapists harming their victims, and want a rapist in the White House. Disgusting and repugnant.
Crazy rantings of a person who enjoys babies being left to die on a cold hard table.
You don’t understand what an ad hominem is. It absolutely is relevant to the argument whether or not the source is trustworthy. You cannot use a propaganda outlet as a source and then pretend people need to address that as if it is real. If it were an ad hominem you would be able to link to real evidence.
That’s what an ad hominem fallacy is, you are dismissing the article based on the creators not the content.
Post-birth abortions are fictional. Donald is a liar. Donald was caught in an obvious and large lie, one of hundreds he has told. Kamala simply did not lie as blatantly. It was not “three on one,” and it is pathetic to pretend that it was.
More ad hominem falicies, I provided a source that shows abortionists letting babies die on a table after birth.
Why don’t you go generate some AI images of A-list celebrities pretending they like Donald to self-soothe instead of trying to insist that everyone else believe the propaganda which fuels your fear addiction.
The unhinged ranting of a lunatic who can’t provide a source for his claim.
It’s a Heritage Foundation propaganda outlet. We don’t need additional evidence. You need evidence from a credible source. There is no worthwhile discussion to have if you are drinking Kool-Aid from a propaganda outlet.
This logical falicacy is called ad hominem. You don’t have any evidence that the claims are untrue or have even disputed the claims.
I thought you were going to link to the government’s actual records as a source? What happened there? Oh, does it not support whatever fictitious claims your propaganda outlet is making?
Now I have to provide additional evidence because you think there might be a possibility that the claims in the article may be false. How about you provide evidence that they are false.
Talk about strawman. You keep writing “babies.” Disingenuous. Do these fetuses even have brain activity? Link to the official records, let’s discuss things that actually happened instead of your propaganda outlet’s fever dreams.
You’re just as bad with your logical fallacies as you are with science. Per the article, whose claims you have not refuted, the babies were out of the womb, do you think babies can be fetuses after they have been born?
Where is it illegal to save someone’s life? Texas, for one.
Did you RTFA her life was not in danger. She had the risk of developing gestational diabetes, that’s it. Her own doctor never claimed there was a risk to her life.
You are supporting a rapist and supporting the rape-y behavior of forcing women into medical slavery. You also enjoy helping child rapists abuse children by forcing them to continue victimization, like in Ohio. This is very disgusting and disturbing.
More crazy rantings from a person who is in favor of infiantcide.
I’m disputing Daily Signal, no point in reading it. If you have MDH reports you could link that directly.
You’re disputing it but provide no evidence that there are falsehoods.
“Babies,” “left to die,” with “no care.” Kool-Aid.
Just because it’s troubling for you doesn’t make it less true.
Meanwhile you want policies to force unwilling people into slavery carrying a fetus. That’s pretty rape-y, but your leader is a rapist, so no surprise there.
Keeping working those straw man arguments. I have said nothing on my opnion of abortion or what I want. Leaving a baby to die is a horrible act, do you find it acceptable?
What is surprising is you are whining about being left to die with no care but fully supporting people who want to give birth instead bleeding out because they are refused medical care.
Nice try at another straw man. Where in the US are abortions illegal if the life of the mother is threatened?
Reading a Heritage Foundation propaganda outlet and uncritically believing everything in it is drinking Kool-Aid, yes.
Are you disputing the Minnesota Department of Health report?
“Disturbing acts” like proving an unviable fetus with the same terminal care a human would receive, oh no.
Strange you seemed to miss the reports that showed some babies were left to die with no care.
I don’t assume all climate activists have the moronic opnion that we need to transition to shit tech, just the ones who say we need to be off fissile fuels a decade ago.