Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
...*reads up the post made while he was asleep* You know, calling a flood a "historic 1000-year floods" when your landmass has been mass settled by a lot less than 1000 years just looks like annoying hyperbole.
But hey, they do the same here with the "century-flood" whenever the Oder is feeling adventurous...(or at least it feels this way)
And maybe because its early and I'm still sleepy (and therefore a tad mean-minded)...do the Republicans use more non-lawyers than the Democrats because lawyers wouldn't pull some of the shit because its...you know...illegal?
edited 2nd Nov '12 12:44:15 AM by 3of4
"You can reply to this Message!"I said "mass settled", not "settled" to distinguish between those native tribes and the waves of europeans, etc that came later.
If you get me a native american with historic records of his tribe that the flood was the biggest in the last 1000 years I concede the term!
edited 2nd Nov '12 12:48:02 AM by 3of4
"You can reply to this Message!"![]()
It's not that hard to get an idea as to flood conditions in an area using the geography, geology and tree rings, you know... Some trees manage to hang about a fair while.
And, a lot of said tribes that did, in fact, have a means of recording various bits and pieces... didn't manage to keep their method of writing intact, thanks to several things. Like disease, persecution and downright eradication by said other waves of settlers.
In short, mass migration to the Americas of various types and waves has been a theme on and off for about 20,000 years, give or take. And, it's sad I know this rather better than you seem to. <.<
edited 2nd Nov '12 12:54:27 AM by Euodiachloris
Return period
: It's a statistical term, and an estimate. It doesn't have to be exact!
Hmm, okay. Still find the term somewhat annoying.
And Euodiachloris...mass migration is not only a thing to the americas. Its a thing the whole human race has done quite often. Replace "mass settled" with "settled in masses by the current dominant ethnicity of the region"...
edited 2nd Nov '12 1:00:08 AM by 3of4
"You can reply to this Message!"I did notice the word "mass" in your post so I don't really have a problem with it. I don't think "mass settlement" is a phrase that gets used very often, though, and I don't know if there's a definition of it.
I looked up some figures (you know, 2 minutes in Wikipedia) and apparently the highest estimates of the population of the Americas before European settlement are around the 100 million mark.
That's approximately the population of Mexico, or half the population of Brazil, or a third of that of the US. Whether that counts as "mass settlement" when it's spread over two entire continents is a question about which I think we could have an absolutely pointless discussion.
(BTW, I don't know if 100 million is the highest figure at any point in the pre-Columbian history of the Americas, or just the population at the point that European settlement began; or maybe it's both.)
This was just an aside, a titbit for those who are interested in this kind of stuff.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.It was encouraging to see Obama mentioning climate change a few weeks ago, even if it was mere mentions, mostly in pitches to younger voters.
But Bloomberg's endorsement of Obama citing climate issues is very encouraging.
This might be partly a legal problem. I think that there is some law that states that corporations are obligated to maximize profits for their shareholders, or something like that. I remember reading that some companies (Ben & Jerry among them?) have had trouble doing things like selling to a lower but more ethical bidder, for this reason.
I get the point of the law—it was probably made to prevent corrupt executives from embezzling everything—but it seems it needs tweaking.
Note I said "tweaking". When a law doesn't work, the first thing to do is to ask why it exists, and how to keep its good parts while fixing the bad parts. NOT to throw the baby out with the bathwater. So shut up, "repeal Obamacare" folks.
Ryan Brands Himself ‘Gen X’ While Pitching Medicare
Hahahano. If I needed someone I could trust with illegal business, the lawyer section of the phone book would be the first place I'd look.
<><
when I say busi9ness world. I refer to anyone who owns and operates a business. Because in my experience, the vast majority of them care far more about raw profit than humanity.
corporate ;lawyers are a symptom more than anything. Sure, they sometimes do unethical things. But only because the businesses that employ them ask them to, making them just as if not more complicit.
edited 2nd Nov '12 7:59:16 AM by Midgetsnowman

Campaigns Brace to Sue for Votes in Crucial States
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016