Must be in the running for a Darwin award surely?

I am not a military guy, but aren't the SEAL team the operational unit tasked with carrying out a mission based on intelligence?

I ask because it may have taken years to pin down Bin Laden's location, but the mission itself took 40 minutes, wheels down to wheels up and Bin Laden was located and killed within 9 minutes of the operation starting:

For those who are interested, Jeremy Corbyn has a long history of being anti-EU:

What I find interesting is not that Trump lied, that's baked into the cake, but why he lied.

He is trying to garner support for attending a rally rather than, say, flying to Pittsburgh to comfort survivors and family. In doing this, he is tacitly acknowledging that he knows what he should be doing, but he's not going to do it because he needs his regular dose of adulation. Still waiting for him to pivot to being Presidential.

If you had read the article more closely, you would have recognised that it is " US corporations " who are "stealing $180b per year " from tax authorities around the globe, not tax havens.

You would have also recognized that it is not tax havens which facilitate this, but the tax laws of the countries in which the corporations are registered. Want to collect more revenue from Apple? Tax them in the US on their worldwide earnings at prevailing US corporate tax rates and allow them to deduct any tax paid on those earnings worldwide. No tax paid in a tax haven jurisdiction? No problem, no tax deduction in the US to offset against tax paid on those earnings at full US rate.

Of course the article explains why many in power do not want this to happen, so tax havens become a useful tool - of distraction.

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

I can't help but think that this pastor has a little trouble with his God's commandments.

"Citation needed. I'm open to evidence. but not hysteria.

#20 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM AT 2018-10-24 08:14 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

There is no hysteria in my post - you don't get to define terms simply because you need an easy way to avoid a difficult point.

If Trump ignores security issues and uses phones that can be hacked and does this even after he has been warned of the danger, he is knowingly involved in an action which could support espionage, should any unauthorized foreign national be listening in. After that he probably falls foul of a number of the other criteria you posted.

"Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:
(a) involvement in, support of, training to commit, or advocacy of any act of sabotage, espionage, treason, terrorism, or sedition against the United States of America;

(b) association or sympathy with persons who are attempting to commit, or who are committing, any of the above acts;

(c) association or sympathy with persons or organizations that advocate, threaten, or use force or violence, or use any other illegal or unconstitutional means, in an effort to:

(1) overthrow or influence the government of the United States or any state or local government;
(2) prevent Federal, state, or local government personnel from performing their official duties;

(3) gain retribution for perceived wrongs caused by the Federal, state, or local government;

(4) prevent others from exercising their rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any state.

news.clearancejobs.com
#14 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM AT"

According to this, Trump plays fast and loose with his cell phone security:

"Of course the corporate-globalist-loving New Republic is opposed. Duh.

#13 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2018-10-21 01:21 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

I'm always open to being educated, so if there is something in the article I linked which is factually incorrect, feel free to enlighten me. Otherwise, I'm going to have to go with my current opinion that the options faced by the UK in leaving the EU are pretty much as stated in the article, with the attendant problems each entails.

"We need to vote again! The vote didn't go our way! Waaah!

--Demo... uh Brexit Whiners

#4 | POSTED BY SPORK AT 2018-10-21 12:09 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

Brexit is not a US presidential election. You do not get to reconsider after 4 years; it is in fact a once in a lifetime decision.

The original Brexit vote was held in a virtual information vacuum, for the simple reason that neither pro nor anti-Brexit proponents had any clue as to the complexity or irreconcilable nature of issues involved. To give an obvious example, the issue of the border between Northern Ireland and Eire was simply ignored, yet it is a massive impediment to any compromise.

The widespread impacts of Brexit on the lives of ordinary UK citizens have slowly been identified as the farce which is the negotiation process has unfolded. There is no solution following Brexit which puts ordinary citizens in a better position than they would be in if the UK did not leave. Here's a good summary article of the current position:

"There was no call, no complaint made, so his was all staged to appear like a white woman called on a black. This is how for it is going, what a shame.

#10 | POSTED BY CRASSUS AT 2018-10-15 01:27 AM | FLAG: "

I'm not sure where you get your information, but it would not be hard to find more detail on this:

Could add " or police " to the first part of that headline.

"It is premature to conclude that human activities -- and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming -- have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity," the organization reported.

Last Revised: Sept. 20, 2018
www.gfdl.noaa.gov

#72 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2018-10-12 11:15 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

It's premature because not enough time has elapsed, nor sufficient data been collected, to allow a scientifically supportable conclusion to be made. This is not remotely the same as saying there is no connection.

Not all the consequences of global warming enhance hurricane formation, so it remains to be seen if global warming leads to more hurricanes. But some of the basic consequences of global warming can provide the conditions for hurricanes, when formed, to become both more intense ( higher sea surface temperatures energizing higher wind speeds ) and more destructive ( higher sea levels supporting higher storm surges; warmer air temperatures holding more water vapor and producing higher rain rates ).

The article you linked covered these things but you chose to ignore them. Since 1924 there have been 33 category 5 hurricanes recorded in the Atlantic. Of these 11 have occurred in the last 14 years. In the same period there were 6 hurricane seasons with more than 1 category 5 hurricane, with 3 of these being in the last 14 years. Statistical anomalies or a sign of things to come?

I think we know where you stand but objectively minded people won't be standing with you.

"So, tell me again how a warming climate has any relation at all to the Atlantic hurricanes. Go ahead, I'll wait.

#12 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE AT 2018-10-10 12:09 PM | FLAG: "

OK, I'll try and I'll keep it basic.

1) The impacts of global warming do not all enhance hurricane formation. Higher water temperatures should intuitively enhance formation and strength, but higher water temperatures, among other climate related issues, also create wind patterns that can impede hurricane formation, known as wind shear. This year, for example, wind shear in the Caribbean has been high and a number of potential hurricanes were sheared apart before they could form. Wind shear can also limit the intensity that a hurricane can attain. The issue then is not necessarily that global warming will create more hurricanes, but the it will create conditions for more destructive hurricanes when they form because;
2) Warmer air holds more moisture from evaporation and more moisture translates into more rainfall under appropriate conditions. There have been a number of hurricanes over the last decade where rain and subsequent flood damage has far outweighed wind damage, and;
3) Global warming is thought to influence major atmospheric conditions such as the jet stream and one consequence is that the steering patterns for hurricanes in the atmosphere become weaker. The consequence is slower moving or even stalled hurricanes and therefore more prolonged exposure to adverse weather conditions for anywhere along a hurricane track.

In the Atlantic at least, hurricane formation follows a multi-decadal cycle of high and low hurricane activity. The cycle typically lasts 15 -25 years and entered an active phase in 1995. The general view is that this cycle is coming to an end and the Atlantic will enter a period of low activity and as far as I am aware this cycle is unrelated to global warming but explains some of the variations you picked out.

Hurricane science is complex and the impact of global warming equally complex; it is not a straight line relationship as you seem to want it to be. Rather than simply bashing numbers and by implication the concept of global warming, why not delve into the actual science and educate yourself?

"Only 3 people can know if the allegations brought by Ford are fundamentally accurate or not. The rest of us were not there.

2 of the 3 that were there might, for all intents and purposes, not have been there either.

#70 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2018-10-01 07:45 PM | FLAG: "

Agreed, but then they know that the allegations are inaccurate. If you really want to get pedantic, 3 out of 3 people may not have been there.

Only 3 people can know if the allegations brought by Ford are fundamentally accurate or not. The rest of us were not there.

But if you watched the hearing, you saw first hand the performance of Kavanaugh. If you think he demonstrated the character, intellect and impartiality required to sit as a Justice in the Supreme Court, one of America's most revered and important institutions, the standards to which you hold your country are appalling.

I believe Ford, but that doesn't matter, it's just my opinion. But I saw Kavanaugh so I know he is not fit for purpose.