Crimson K

This was supposed to go into effect next year here in the good old US of A. I think it was snuck in in a Biden era infrastructure bill. Mercedes is already in full compliance with this for the vehicles manufactured here in AL with 2026 models. I think that problems with the tech around the time of passage made full implementation pushed into the early 2030s.

quote:

---

Ad hominem attack over grammar

---

Spelling and grammar after fundamentally different things. This is a particularly ironic statement from you in that I responded to an ad hominem attack that you had posted in suggesting someone else was ignorant of history. Specifically, you snarkily added a “Do you know your history?” Tag to a post. I find it a bit jarring to have someone play the “I’m more educated than you” card when misspelling basic terms related to the topic.

quote:

---

your argument is apparently so fertile that it can defend itself is also laughable.

---

What argument is it that you believe I have made? I commented that calling a person ignorant of Civil War era history while grossly misspelling the word secede multiple times was ironic. I will also state that the comment you have made above about an argument being fertile to the point of defending itself makes no sense. I’m NOT saying that I disagree with the premise you have presented. I am saying that you have strung together words seemingly at random to the point of incomprehensibility.

quote:

---

The southern states were wrong morally, politically, and legally in their arguments for secession that it took the Dred Scott decision, to give them the flimsiest of ground to stand on

---

Legally that decision was not made until after the CW was over. The Constitution didn’t say states could or could not exit the Union, just as it doesn’t speak to a large number of specific things. There was definitely a states’ rights argument to be made. I doubt most of us want to claim that something is not allowed unless the Constitution specifically says it is. As far as politics goes, what exactly do you mean by politically wrong? As far as morality goes, there is no argument to be made that slavery was in any way moral. However, secession and slavery are not the same thing.

quote:

---

It would look so much cleaner if they just kept it behind closed doors

---

How do you keep a decision with clear public repercussions in the biggest sporting event in the world behind closed doors? There were already reports from the media before the decision was public that Trump had made a call. FIFA is widely known to be corrupt as hell. It was never going to look clean. From a fairness perspective, a no appeal process for potential referee malfeasance was already mega-shady. Non-Americans and whiny little bitches in country were going to sky scream about this no matter what. I’m not a super Trump guy, but if he got it done, let him take the credit.

quote:

---

We don't have a carbon tax in the United States I'm not really that concerned with what other countries are doing

---

This is literally a thread about the heat in Europe, and your response was addressing what their governments would do in response. I’d really suggest trying to be more clear, my man..

quote:

---

My arguments are based in what Tulsi said/released

---

That is just fundamentally untrue if you read the press release that came with the slides or watched the video linked above. I will absolutely grant you that the release did not address a bioweapons program (your claim that it disproved it is not supportable form the info though). Saying that she is not suggesting any malfeasance is absurd.

quote:

---

It is clearly the more recent African and immigrants from countries like Somalia and Sudan that have brought the situation to the tipping point.
This is the conflation trying to tie it to the "WEF/NWO" silliness. Hence why I pointed it out as the conflation

---

Your post did not express that remotely. You should probably make a better effort to make your points more clearly. Even in this response, what is the “it” you refer to. Using vague and unclear language has made your point hard to decipher.

I said you needed to be careful not to conflate historical migration of Indians and others, which goes back centuries, with more recent migration and resulting laws starting in the early 2000s. With that came a shift in government policy that has led to the criminalization of criticism and at least the perception that immigrants are valued above natives You obviously conflated the two when you said that the issue went back more than 25 years. You may not have meant too, perhaps you did. Either way, you linked them. Whether one is arguing that the recent policy is related to WEF/NWO, which I did not by the way, is irrelevant. I have no issues with you saying that policy shouldn’t be conflated with WEF stuff, but that is not at all what I addressed.

quote:

---

25 years ago. This isn't some new

---

Immigration isn’t something new to be sure, but the literal boatloads of people coming Illegally is, the vast majority of whom are single young men is. Make sure you too aren't conflating 2 different things. Calling guilt over former colonialism as the likely cause is perhaps oversimplifying, no?

So I went and read the info at your link. Some takeaways.
-Some info in the third doc about cost, contractor and issued permits for handling hazardous biomaterials. Looks like some labs were working with permits that were “in progress” rather than issued already. No idea how big of a deal that is.
-2nd slide shows locations of some facilities in Ukraine. Says over 40 built and supported; no clarification of how many built and how many supported; at least one designated for bioweapons storage, more on that in a later point
-the last slide shows types of research done and their progress; most were designated completed. Looks like they were handling and studying highly infectious diseases, some specifically said for vaccine and diagnostic research, others for “molecular characterization,” whatever that means. Also some studies for training and community outreach of different types
-the first slide talks about a specific facility establish in the 1920s that “may” have been related to Soviet era BW research. I would guess the Russians had no issues characterizing a facility they used for BW research as a BW research facility. They are technically correct in claiming it as one. The one mentioned in slide 2 had BW from the Soviets as well. The report goes on to say that the facility had some biosafety and biosecurity deficiencies and that we are working to understand the current status of pathogens. A lot of redacted parts that make things more unclear than they could be.

The accompanying press release of the ODNI says this:

quote:

---

Until now, evidence regarding the full existence and funding of these laboratories had been knowingly withheld from the American people. The information surrounding the existence, history, locations and funding of these US funded biolabs has been intentionally covered up by powerful people falsely, claiming that they do not exist and accusing anyone who says otherwise to be foreign assets and traitors to America. Many of these U.S. government-funded biolabs are currently or have previously engaged in research using hazardous and highly contagious pathogens, in some cases to include dangerous Gain-of-Function research, with very little visibility or oversight

---

Is the bolded part true? I do not claim to know. As far as I can tell, there is no claim anywhere in the release today that supports the idea of the US funding a bioweapons lab in the sense of actively creating offensive bioweapons. It wasn’t trying to prove or disprove that fact, so it would be unfair to characterize it either way. At the same time, we were funding labs that house bioweapons (likely former Soviet ones, but it is not totally clear) and where ones had previously been produced. I suspect this is how the Russians can rightly in their minds claim we funded bioweapons labs. What was released today instead seems to focus on the cessation of funding gain of function research. I don’t know whether the docs really support that claim or not. One additional comment, the slides do point to some concerns about safety and safe handling of dangerous materials in the labs.

I won’t claim to know what the SECRant conspiracy theory of the day was, but funding for gain of function was definitely a hot topic of that period. I’m sure some tried to make hay from the Russian claims, but GOF was definitely a topic from that period. It was exactly what Fauci was called to testify about. There was lots of word parsing then as well from both sides. There were specific allegations that such research was moved overseas to have less oversight. I make no claims that today’s release proves or disproves this, but it is not true that this was not a major story at that time.

quote:

---

Exactly why the CT types use it

---

You could just as easily say no “bioweapons” is using the same trick. To be totally fair, we’d need to check what term the Russians used originally in Russian to see if we translated their original claim fairly.