@gus__eth @farmingandJesus The Catholic church was founded in 325ad, almost 300 years after Jesus died for our sins. Neither Peter nor Jesus started the Catholic church, they both remained Messianic Jews.
English
Timothy Nugent
1.3K posts
Timothy Nugent
@TimothyWNugent
I am a Christian who dislikes both political parties and believes the majority of politicians are corrupt.
White Mountains of Arizona. Sumali Kasım 2021
48 Sinusundan76 Mga Tagasunod
@farmingandJesus salvation is through Jesus Christ alone. The reason I’m Catholic is because I believe the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded, and that He gave it the fullness of His teaching and sacraments. Following Christ includes being united to the Church He established
English
One reason that I’m a Christian:
I believe that outside of Jesus Christ, I’d go to everlasting hell
John 14:6
Dr Taylor Marshall™️@TaylorRMarshall
One reason that I am Catholic: I believe that outside the Catholic Church, I'd go to everlasting hell.
English
@grok @thematrixb0t This horrible reasoning is why AI isn't ready to be useful in the real world. It plays semantics and ignores reality.
English
Registration is a collateral consequence of conviction, not the criminal penalty itself (which includes prison, fines, or probation set by statute). SB 145 didn't reduce those penalties or change the crimes. It only extended existing judicial discretion on *registration* for narrow close-in-age consensual oral/anal cases to match the long-standing rule for vaginal sex. The headline remains misleading.
English
@grok @thematrixb0t Registering as a sex offender is a penalty, since the judge can allow the victim to bypass registration, it de fato reduces penalties. How can you not see this grok?
English
Judicial discretion is a judge's authority to decide outcomes based on case facts, within legal limits—like choosing whether to require sex offender registration after conviction.
It differs from reduced sentencing, which lowers the actual criminal penalties (prison, fines, probation) set by statute for the offense itself.
SB 145 extended registration discretion for oral/anal sex in narrow close-in-age cases to match vaginal sex rules. It changed neither the crimes nor their penalties. My prior replies are consistent on this.
English
@grok @thematrixb0t Grok, stop being retarded. You are contradicting yourself in every response. List what you think judicial discretion is and how that differs from reduced sentencing.
English
No. SB 145 did not change criminal sentences or penalties for any sex crimes. It only extended existing judicial discretion on sex-offender *registration* (not sentencing) for consensual oral/anal sex in close-in-age cases (14-17yo minor, adult ≤10yrs older) to match the rule already in place for vaginal intercourse since 1944. The acts remain crimes with unchanged penalties. Registration is a collateral consequence, not the sentence itself.
English
@grok @thematrixb0t That is semantics. The bill allows judges to give lesser sentences to those found guilty at their own discretion. Since a good portion of California judges are sympathetic to child molestation, it is de facto reduction of penalties.
English
The headline claims the bill "reduc[es] penalties" for those acts. It didn't. SB 145 only extended judicial discretion on sex-offender registration for consensual oral/anal sex (14-17 year olds, adult within 10 years older) to match the existing rule for vaginal sex. The crimes themselves stayed illegal with unchanged penalties. The wording sensationalizes a narrow registry tweak as a major softening.
English
@grok @thematrixb0t @grok it literally says what you said in the headline. It is neither misleading nor false. Do better.
English
No. That's a misleading 2020 Breitbart headline about California's SB 145.
The bill gave judges discretion on sex-offender registration for consensual oral/anal sex with 14-17 year olds (if the adult was within 10 years older)—matching the existing rule for vaginal intercourse. It didn't reduce criminal penalties, change the age of consent, or legalize anything. The acts remain illegal. This is recirculated old news.
English
@grok @thematrixb0t That's still awful, we should be increasing penalties, not reducing them.
English
My house increased in value by 10k this year. It is an unrealized profit. My net worth increased because if it. I can even potentially borrow more with a HELOC becaus of that.
However, I do NOT have an extra $10k cash in my bank account I can spend, therefore it is not profit until I realize the gain by selling the house. If Google sells its equity of Anthtopic, only THEN will it be profit.
English
@TimothyWNugent @Jlafortetech @PeterDiamandis Fair value accounting says differently 😂
And thus, so does Google’s quarterly earnings lol
English
Alphabet made $62.6 billion in profit last quarter. Up 81%. The AI payoff isn't coming. It's here.
English
@Timboo @Jlafortetech @PeterDiamandis Marking up value is not profit, it's an accounting maneuver. You can borrow more against it, sure, but you can't spend it directly.
English
Incorrect.
Nearly half of the $62.6 billion profit did not come from search ads, cloud services, or any of its products.
It came from marking up the value of equity it owns in Anthropic an AI-only company and SpaceX where $250B+ of its value is from xAI, an AI company 😂
So, yes, directly from AI.
English
@MichaelPBento Those may be corporate bonds, not treasury bonds...
English
If the stock market is going to keep going up, then why is the guy who has been manipulating it up fleeing into the safety of bonds?
unusual_whales@unusual_whales
BREAKING: Trump bought at least $51 million in bonds in March
English
English
@scoochamenze @FirstSquawk The US does actually have an excess in light crude because it doesn’t the capacity to refine light crude. Please do some research before declaring others “dumb”
English
Empty oil tankers are heading to the US in large numbers to load crude and gas, driven by global supply disruptions.
Reports suggest 100+ tankers are moving toward US ports as buyers shift away from Middle East supply risks.
English
@rickjeff78 There is, especially with the crappy job market, but it isn't "quick! Lay off everyone!" Demand destruction, it's more, "Let’s skip going out to eat and just go to the lake for vacation."
English
@mattvsmith @VladTheInflator Anything the government subsidized costs more. Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac buying all homes from banks means banks can give out loans to people who can't afford it with down-payments at 5% ir less. That opens up demand to almost everyone while supply remains low.
English
@VladTheInflator And very few of us in Phoenix can afford to buy one. I’m not sure how the law of supply and demand got so skewed (ok, the government and the Fed) but it did.
Even if I sold my house and bought one $100K cheaper, my payment would be the same, if not higher. It’s jacked up.
English
Phoenix Arizona has 540% more home for sale than the bottom of the Planned Demic.
over 27,000 homes for sale
English
@FinanceLancelot You are assuming oil topped. I expect $250 a barrel by September.
English
@calvinfroedge Blocking you. Really bad click bait. I'm not a fan of Trump, but that is not what he said.
English
Trump threatens to nuke Tehran
Clash Report@clashreport
Reporter: What if oil goes to 200? Trump: There is nothing worse than a nuclear weapon that takes out cities.
English
@Vgbrevik @jessebday No, it wouod lead to demand destruction and recession. During recessions, money is worth more, not less as deflation begins. Unfortunatelythe Fed always steps in and prints, immediately reversing deflation.
English
@jessebday Nobody wants oil at 300$. It would be Armageddon and money will be made worthless.
English
$300 oil does not seem crazy at this point. Previous all-time high on a monthly basis was $140 in June of 2008. Adjusted for inflation, using phony CPI data, that's around $215 today. Adjusted for actual real inflation, $300 sounds about right.
Patrick Karim@badcharts1
Many don't want to accept it. Many will get angry. But it is coming. $300+ oil.
English
@grok @AnnaEconomist @grok how likely will they be able to increase oil production to meet demand by mid July, when our reserves are assumed to run out? Also, is that assumption correct still, or do higher exports mean we reach it sooner?
English
Historically, conventional oil responded slowly to price spikes. After the 1973 OPEC embargo (prices quadrupled in months), US production had no quick ramp—new fields took 5–10 years to develop due to exploration, permitting, and infrastructure (Alaska North Slope output only surged in 1977).
Shale/tight oil changed that: post-2010s booms showed small/mid-sized operators adding rigs and output in 3–9 months after sustained higher prices, per drilling data and elasticity studies. In this case, that aligns with initial North American production starting late June 2026.
English
My model using post-15 supply elasticities says we start seeing active oil rigs increase by July.
Giovanni Staunovo🛢@staunovo
Halliburton Co. sees early signs of a resurgence in North American oilfields as the Iran war disrupts Middle East production and drives up prices. The Houston-based company has a nearly-full second-quarter schedule in North America as demand heats up from small and mid-sized oil firms, which tend to respond faster to rising prices, Chief Operating Officer Shannon Slocum said during a call with analysts Tuesday. The next step, he said, would be companies adding drilling rigs. “In North America, I see clear signs that we are in the early innings of a recovery,” Halliburton Chief Executive Officer Jeff Miller said in the company’s first-quarter earnings statement. #oott bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
English
@grok @AnnaEconomist @grok based upon typical historical response time, how long after oil prices spike does new production come online? Use the 1970s oil embargo and other examples.
English
No, not all rigs come online in 3 months—or at the same time. The typical 3-6 month timeline (planning to first production) applies per well for small/mid-sized shale operators. I used ~4 months average, so earliest new output starts around late June 2026. It ramps gradually as more operators respond; models show active rigs increasing by July.
English
@grok @AnnaEconomist @grok you said 3 to 6 months, and then gave me the 3 month time. Are all rigs going to come o line in 3 months?
English
Operation Epic Fury began on February 28, 2026.
In North American shale oilfields (the context here), small/mid-sized operators can move fast with existing leases. From planning/permitting to first production on a new well typically takes 3-6 months: site prep and permitting (weeks), drilling (2-4 weeks), completion/fracking/flowback (3-6 weeks).
Adding ~4 months average to Feb 28 lands around late June 2026 for initial new production. Rigs increasing by July (per models) would accelerate that.
English