|
Testekill posted:They're also nigh impossible to keep in captivity because if they bump into the glass then they're probably going to die because of how fragile they are. Good. gently caress them.
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 09:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:13 |
|
|
poly and open-minded posted:Early Aborigines may have coexisted with the megalania, a larger version of the komodo dragon ... 'larger' meaning between 18 and 26 ft long and weighing somewhere between 1,200 to 4,000 lb, based on different reconstructions. We also had marsupial lions weighing up to 350 lb, carnivorous flightless birds that were 10 foot tall and weighed up to 1000 lb, 33 ft long pythons, terrestrial (ie:galloping) crocodiles up to 20 foot long .... And that's just the poo poo we've found so far!
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 09:35
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:... 'larger' meaning between 18 and 26 ft long and weighing somewhere between 1,200 to 4,000 lb, based on different reconstructions. We also had marsupial lions weighing up to 350 lb, carnivorous flightless birds that were 10 foot tall and weighed up to 1000 lb, 33 ft long pythons, terrestrial (ie:galloping) crocodiles up to 20 foot long .... Good thing mankind came along to show those losers what's up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:... 'larger' meaning between 18 and 26 ft long and weighing somewhere between 1,200 to 4,000 lb, based on different reconstructions. We also had marsupial lions weighing up to 350 lb, carnivorous flightless birds that were 10 foot tall and weighed up to 1000 lb, 33 ft long pythons, terrestrial (ie:galloping) crocodiles up to 20 foot long .... I've been to Australia and I didn't see any of that poo poo. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
Prokhor Zakharov posted:Good thing mankind came along to show those losers what's up. ... which should probably go into the Bad rear end Thread. Plus being Australia you just know all those giant murderbeasts were probably venomous as well because we don't do things by halves here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:terrestrial (ie:galloping) crocodiles up to 20 foot long .... That just sounds like a mix between a croc and a goanna.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 10:14
|
|
|
Testekill posted:They're also nigh impossible to keep in captivity because if they bump into the glass then they're probably going to die because of how fragile they are. At some point a creature's gotta be considered 'congealed, elemental hatred' and I think that point is 'dies on contact with an object whether it kills it or not.' That poo poo is just the worst video game enemy and nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 10:56
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:Here's a jellyfish less than 2cm long, completely invisible in the water, whose sting you can't even feel, but will make your heart explode. Is Cthulhu actually a giant Irukandji? IS CTHULHU REAL?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 11:00
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Independent/status/801147316296159232?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 11:10
|
|
|
Hahaha oh my... 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 11:48
|
|
|
That isn't schadenfreude, that's just... horror.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 12:39
|
|
|
Don't be ridiculous, there's no way that's real. If something like that ever happened it would produce an entire generation of publicly educated idiots who would unquestioningly believe everything they were told by an authority figure. We could never function as a society if a group like that ever gained the majority because then they would probably do something retarded like elect........ someone..... like Donald Trum
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
Someone show me how to post the video on this tumblr. For those not clicking the link, customer comes at a guy behind the counter at a fast food joint and gets laid out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
marshmallow creep posted:Someone show me how to post the video on this tumblr. here http://www.gifbin.com/bin/1234526663_what_happens_when_you_kick_a_kid.jpg.webm
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
In a move that surprised absolutely nobody except his own supporters, Trump will not prosecute Hillary Clinton. https://twitter.com/TweTro/status/801091096495280128 https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/801136737321881602
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Haw haw!
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Didn't he tweet something that said essentially "Oh those? Those were just campaign issues. I don't care about those anymore, I'm president now  "
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Living in LA or deciding to travel this week, you decide.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Didn't he tweet something that said essentially "Oh those? Those were just campaign issues. I don't care about those anymore, I'm president now When Australian politicians pull the same stunt they say that the broken election promise wasn't a "core" promise. https://www.crikey.com.au/2014/05/21/porkies-the-biggest-broken-promises-in-australian-politics/
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
FogHelmut posted:Living in LA or deciding to travel this week, you decide. https://youtu.be/9DMIM3iUFN8 Going home.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
FogHelmut posted:Living in LA or deciding to travel this week, you decide. What I have decided is that this would make a cool desktop background if it were higher res.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Didn't he tweet something that said essentially "Oh those? Those were just campaign issues. I don't care about those anymore, I'm president now I think he also said something along the "I'm President, a President can't have a conflict of interest", when asked about his business and if he'd relinquish ownership to avoid a conflict.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I think he also said something along the "I'm President, a President can't have a conflict of interest", when asked about his business and if he'd relinquish ownership to avoid a conflict. Apparently that's true legally, but not constitutionally. But congress would have to intervene and welp
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
xergm posted:What I have decided is that this would make a cool desktop background if it were higher res. I think this is the source https://twitter.com/ABC7/status/801262762261291008?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Flash Gordon Ramsay posted:Apparently that's true legally, but not constitutionally. Like how Trump has between $1 to $2million invested in the Dakota Access pipeline and received $100,000 in campaign contributions from the company? quote:Trump’s financial disclosure forms show the Republican nominee has between $500,000 and $1m invested in Energy Transfer Partners, with a further $500,000 to $1m holding in Phillips 66, which will have a 25% stake in the Dakota Access project once completed. The information was disclosed in Trump’s monthly filings to the Federal Election Commission, which requires candidates to disclose their campaign finance information on a regular basis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
FogHelmut posted:I think this is the source https://twitter.com/ABC7/status/801262762261291008?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://youtu.be/FvZ3DBI1tO8
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Flash Gordon Ramsay posted:Apparently that's true legally, but not constitutionally. But congress would have to intervene and welp Well it's one of two things: 1. It's Trump trying to say that, as President, he's got to be so concerned with the problems of the country itself that it would literally be impossible for something so insignificant as his business dealings to create a conflict of interest. A ridiculous line of bullshit that nobody could possibly ever buy, but I guess its possible he might try to float that idea. OR 2. He's basically openly saying "gently caress you, I'm President I can do whatever I want" to the American people, which is probably more likely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:Like how Trump has between $1 to $2million invested in the Dakota Access pipeline and received $100,000 in campaign contributions from the company? So whats the deal with the pipeline anyways? Why is everyone so bent out of shape about it? All anybody ever tells me is that "it goes close to Native American grounds" and something about water pollution which I can't seem to get a clear answer on. Is the pipeline doing the exact opposite of what its supposed to do and dumping oil back into the soil instead of transporting it across country?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Well it's one of two things: No, it's an actual legal loophole. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-bush-ethics-exemption-231773
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:So whats the deal with the pipeline anyways? Why is everyone so bent out of shape about it? All anybody ever tells me is that "it goes close to Native American grounds" and something about water pollution which I can't seem to get a clear answer on. Is the pipeline doing the exact opposite of what its supposed to do and dumping oil back into the soil instead of transporting it across country? Oil and gas pipelines have a nasty habit of bursting on a fairly regular basis, even with maintenance. It's such a commonplace occurrence that they only get reported on if the rupture causes problems, e.g. the pipeline explosions affecting the American southeast in recent months. (They already rerouted DAPL once, because the city of Bismarck were concerned about their water supply.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:So whats the deal with the pipeline anyways? Why is everyone so bent out of shape about it? All anybody ever tells me is that "it goes close to Native American grounds" and something about water pollution which I can't seem to get a clear answer on. Is the pipeline doing the exact opposite of what its supposed to do and dumping oil back into the soil instead of transporting it across country? Pipelines can leak. They re-routed it from the original plan because it came too close to Bismark and all of the people there were scared if it ever leaked it would enter the water supply. So they moved it over close to the Native lands, who were told "it's fine" when they said if it leaked it would screw up their land and water. That's what I heard, I may have some details wrong though, I didn't look into it closely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Flash Gordon Ramsay posted:No, it's an actual legal loophole. I'm aware of that yes, but I think most people would say that a conscientious President would not take advantage of that loophole because of the message it would send and the perception it would create. Trump ignoring all that would most definitely be a "gently caress you" to the people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
It's a concern if it fails or starts leaking because there'd be no real way to tell where. Also the Texas oil companies have basically walked all over North Dakota so having them plow right through Native American land is kind of a concern. The fact that the authorities are doing some pretty abominable poo poo to them in response to the protests doesn't help.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:So whats the deal with the pipeline anyways? Why is everyone so bent out of shape about it? All anybody ever tells me is that "it goes close to Native American grounds" and something about water pollution which I can't seem to get a clear answer on. Is the pipeline doing the exact opposite of what its supposed to do and dumping oil back into the soil instead of transporting it across country?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
AFewBricksShy posted:Pipelines can leak. They re-routed it from the original plan because it came too close to Bismark and all of the people there were scared if it ever leaked it would enter the water supply. So they moved it over close to the Native lands, who were told "it's fine" when they said if it leaked it would screw up their land and water. I feel like this image is a good representation of the problem.  They rerouted the line south through Native lands because they were concerned of leaks causing issues to Bismarck's water supply. This total ignores the fact that a leak at this new location would be a disaster for the Native's water supply. It also runs through territory that is supposed to be tribal land, so the legality of the whole thing is a little questionable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Also the Texas oil companies have basically walked all over North Dakota so having them plow right through Native American land is kind of a concern. I believe it's specifically not their reservation which is the problem and why they can't just tell them to get lost. It's close by. Saint Freak has a new favorite as of 18:11 on Nov 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Yeah, that map looks like it just goes close to their territory. I'm sure the oil company will take care of anything that happens to the water supply in the event of a disaster. If we can't trust giant conglomerates then who can we trust?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Aerdan posted:Oil and gas pipelines have a nasty habit of bursting on a fairly regular basis, even with maintenance. It's such a commonplace occurrence that they only get reported on if the rupture causes problems, e.g. the pipeline explosions affecting the American southeast in recent months. Oil and gas companies also have a pretty good track record of neglecting pipelines and falsifying safety reports in order to save a couple bucks (and then when a burst does happen they go to the government and say "how could we possibly afford cleanup, we need you to handle that"). So yeah, the major concerns are basically that oil companies were more than willing to re-route the pipeline when the residents of Bismark were upset about safety but shrugged it off when the natives were upset about it. From what I understand they also pretty much ignored requirements from the Army Corps of Engineers to hold hearings with the tribes to address pipeline concerns and have in general just walked all over them on the project; which is par for the course with regards to tribal/US relations and they have had enough of it and are standing up for their rights. It's become more about the absurdly poor treatment of Native Americans than about the pipeline.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Also, "we" voted 2 years ago that wildlife preserves are fair game for fracking if someone finds oil there, and that we shouldn't put some of the money from oil profits aside for education. The mailers I got from the republicans about how Teachers were actually greedy bastards who only wanted to leech money from the lifeblood of our industry were incredibly bizarre.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:13 |
|
|
Saint Freak posted:I believe it's specifically not their reservation which is the problem and why they can't just tell them to get lost. It's close by. it's not directly on the reservation, but it does cut through land ceded to the Sioux in a treaty, as the map above shows. and you may note how in the new route it crosses through like five rivers instead of none in the previous location. and the entire reason the pipeline was moved was "people in Bismarck are worried about its possible effect on their water supply" but that exact same concern gets dismissed when it's native people doing the complaining. reminder: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 18:18
|
|
