Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/09/2009 in Blog Comments

  1. I think you're right, in the long run. (POTUS has already made clear he'll intervene if the mayor and governor don't step up, and since they're flipped him off in response, he most likely will.) But I admit that I personally can't just casually dismiss the short-term threats, if the reports are true about businesses being "shaken down", the property damage, etc. I'm also thinking about how it's affecting people psychologically, having to witness this, especially the potentially innocent people caught in the cross-fire. (And now, there's someone acting as "warlord" already edging out Antifa?) The O'ist conception of government's legitimate function is to protect people from the initiation of force, and in Seattle, government has not only abdicated that function, it's aiding and abetting in that initiation. This headline says it all: "Antifa Deserves a Military Response" https://pjmedia.com/columns/stephen-kruiser/2020/06/11/the-morning-briefing-antifa-deserves-a-military-response-n516040 And yes, I know Trump is letting the leftists state leaders expose themselves before he steps in, to "show" the people, and maybe that's necessary. But for HOW long? How long do people have to watch and endure other's suffering before it crosses the line from strategy to sadism? When is it enough? "Trust the plan", I hear. Still, it chafes against the O'ist impulse in me to stop the initiation of force. (Yes, maybe those people aren't so innocent, ideologically speaking, etc. Or, regarding the innocent, the Q explanation "you can't just tell the people, they have to be shown." Perhaps. Still isn't easy to watch. Like the Taggert Tunnel disaster scene. Even Dagny had to be told, upon leaving New York to the darkness, "don't look down!", lest she turn into a pillar of salt...)
    2 points
  2. My thought wasn’t directed solely at Brad and not necessarily only about money. Gore and Gore-like people do it to fleece money from the ‘system’ , Hollywood type virtue-signalers are probably motivated by an inherent narcissism. And they need their parrots to help move masses to accept the building of the ‘system’ or even to just be complacent enough to not fight back against the building .
    2 points
  3. Sorry, I guess I'm not understanding the issue in regards to falsifiability. Once again, falsifiable hypothesis and their approx date: And their conclusions:
    2 points
  4. Jonathan, I looked. Nothing but retweets. Lot's of 'em. (burp...) Michael
    2 points
  5. It's true that the strategy isn't going to work, but "dealing with climate change" isn't what it's aimed at. Ruling the world is. Ellen
    2 points
  6. So does William discuss? No, he posts a link: Slide, slip, slither, avoid - and then whine if you're called dishonest And what the linked-to list is about, as Michael points out, isn't how to have a discussion but how to indoctrinate. Ellen
    2 points
  7. 2 points
  8. Jonathan, It's funny. When you ask for repeatable scientific results re Climate Change, you always get blah blah blah and they never use the term "repeatable results." It's like going into a small eatery and saying, "Do you have an ice cream cone?" And the person says, "Here's some tasty steamed octopus." You ask, "What about an ice cream cone?" The person says, "Look at these green beans and mashed potatoes. How big a portion do you want?" "But I want an ice cream cone." "Well, you've come to the right place. Our mac and cheese is amazing." "Don't you have ice cream cones?" "Only stupid people think we don't have hamburgers." "You really don't have ice cream cones?" "True believer idiot. The dinner rolls are right in front of you. God, some people..." He throws a stack of menus in your face--ones that do not list ice cream cones... And on it goes. It's amazing to watch. Michael
    2 points
  9. Oh, I am staggered! It is a genius plot and This Story Must Be Told. And finally the world will see sex scenes that reflect Real Life and Right Values and Canadian Respectability, I can't wait! I must commune with my muse now -- the first lines of dialogue are coming to me -- oh, oh, ohhh!
    2 points
  10. Many thanks for this, the arguments he has are pretty much clear from this forceful statement. The arguments themselves are kind of unforceful to me, and sometimes inadvertently comical. "Rod Rosenstein who is trying to protect hHillary Clinton who is trying to protect Mike Pence."Mr. Wood says. he continues, "I didn't say that." Sure, I lifted the text out of its surroundings there, but I couldn't resist this time. And the names of course are accurate and boy, talk about strange bedfellows. Besides instructing the legally uneducated in his audience about consistent consistency's important place in building credibility, he mentions documents which have disappeared and mountains of hard evidence which no judge would look at,but he doesn't tell the audience where they can look at it either. If it has been around the block so many times, why isn't it available to public view? Why was the guy threatened and tortured, To make him keep quiet?And since he wouldn't keep quiet why can't he accuse his torturers now, since he is resolved to face whatever happens bolstered by his faith? It seems ,to me with all the public nexposure he would be!/safer to do so now than never before. Just my reactions and maybe way offbase, but I'm a stranger in these parts.
    1 point
  11. All Polls are Wrong.....? "Republicans by double-digit margins said they are willing to ditch their party to follow former President Donald Trump if he breaks out on his own, according to a new poll released Sunday. Members of the GOP by 46 percent to 27 percent said they would put the Republican Party in the rear-view mirror if Trump creates his own, a USA Today/Suffolk University poll found." Source: https://nypost.com/2021/02/21/republicans-willing-to-break-from-party-to-follow-trump-poll/
    1 point
  12. Just for the reader: Q clearance. This is a super-high-level government security clearance, not QAnon. Michael
    1 point
  13. I know that there are more than one guy with 'you disgusting scumbag' in his mouth reading here. I think 'yds,' and I and invisible readers are all dealing with some relatively straightforward questions, questions that should be amenable to reason of the Randian stripe. Which explanation of of the Twitter Card image behaviour is the more reasonable, makes least assumptions, is the fruit of investigation and inquiry? Which stands up to close scrutiny? Which accounts for all the evidence (including such items as the Q cut and paste from a dev blog)? There would be plenty more questions in play, maybe, if we had a bigger quorum of active members. "Did Obama.org (or Obama race riot sorrows machine) organize a ritual murder of George Floyd?" "Some folk may claim that Q 'warned off' Obama in drops 4436 & 4437*. Does the evidence brought forth from rational inquiry support that claim?" "How would you explain in your own words the three Q drops that caused much discussion and explanatory hypothesizing?" My question to myself is 'what explains why and how some people's beliefs survive a reasonable debunking?' "Let a hundred flowers bloom," said Deng, before he realized how that would probably work out for one-party rule in China and shut it all down. 'Let your freedom of conscience ring. Don't be afraid of devils conjured up to incite prejudice and rage. If evil there is, beware of making The Fundamental Attribution Error.' I paraphrase. As might be apparent, I am not of the Gibbet Enthusiast Party.
    1 point
  14. I think it was late 2017, wasn't it Billy? When you discovered I had been reading Q. Maybe early 2018, but very shortly after Q started posting. Your reaction was mocking, of course, but I sensed a little bit of fear, a little bit of anxiety, like you actually believe it yourself but just hate all the implications, because you have chosen your side and it is opposite the Q side, etc. Your reaction told me to look even more closely and take it even more seriously as possibly real. Thank you. And now, in the middle of a scamdemic, after months of basically total radio silence from you, you post this. Thank you. Thank You! Reader, please do look into it, because if Billy and his mainstream media heroes are correct, then these Q people are dangerous and they have to be challenged head-on. How else to do that than to familiarize yourself with their crazy nonsense. It is all compiled here: https://qmap.pub/
    1 point
  15. Elon Musk's Favorite Riddle I have no desire to sling arrows at BaalChatzaf. He hasn't posted here in 4 months. He is getting up there in years. Give him a break.
    1 point
  16. The original MSK classic, along with my addition of Brad at the end: Enter Brad: "I apologize for my waiter’s temper, sir. Hi. I’m Brad. I’m the owner and cook here. Now, if I overheard correctly, you would like an ice cream cone. Is that correct? Yes? Well, I don’t want to go though the trouble of making one for you, only to then discover that I’ve wasted my time because it’s not what you really want. So, let’s first explore any grounds for disagreement that we might have. Please answer this question: Octopus is the primary ingredient in Tasty Steamed Octopus, yes or no? J
    1 point
  17. I want more CO2, taller forests, longer growing seasons, more people, less ice more bikinis, "Lost Venice" traveling collections at my local art museums, bikinis.
    1 point
  18. Asshole, how to many times do you have to be told? Answer my questions, or fuck off. I’m not doing it your way. I’m not going to play your games.
    1 point
  19. When you are incapable of discussing science and incapable of even discussing your favorite nature.com article, just tell your interlocutor he is confused. Billy, I really can see now what you see in Brad.
    1 point
  20. I'm trying to start at the beginning so we can pinpoint a specific disagreement. And I've already stated, I'm not going to attempt to address all at once as it would be pointless. But thanks for acting as if I hadn't already stated that.
    1 point
  21. I'll answer one at a time, there's no need to spam answers to all your questions if you won't accept a single answer. So again, falsifiable predictions, I've given a list, it has the years they were made. Are you still questioning this?
    1 point
  22. My favorite thing in all of this was Brad's original acceptance of my questions about following the requirements of the scientific method. Initially, he had no problems understanding my questions and their relevance, because, at the time, he believed that the climate alarmists must have been complying with true science, and that the answers could be easily found. He has since discovered otherwise, and is therefore now dodging the questions, and trying to treat them as if the don't exist, or are not worthy of consideration, while offering no explanation of why the are suddenly not worthy. So, as is true with Billy, open honest discussion is to be avoided, and all that's on the menu is mound after mound of Tasty Steamed Octopus.
    1 point
  23. I’m not living in 1995, douchebag. I’m simply recognizing the reality that there was a hiatus. I haven’t claimed that its currently happening, so don’t try to assign me that position, you dishonest twat. And I didn’t invent the term “hiatus.” It was a term used by the alleged “consensus” scientists and their governmental organizations during the many years that they were fretting about it and panicking about not being able to explain or account for it. Your attempts to downplay it or erase it won’t change the fact that it was a significant worry to the governmental climate organizations, and that a great deal of effort went into damage control. Perhaps you don’t remember all of that because you were like twelve at the time? Well, we remember it, and it wasn’t resolved just because a couple of government spokespersons announced that, hey, how about we were all mistaken, it never happened even though it was official consensus science, so now the new official position is that it wasn’t a big deal at all, even though the scientists aren’t going along with that? Yeah, that’s the ticket!
    1 point
  24. Brad is on Twitter, doing Brad Schrag activities: https://twitter.com/BradSchrag/with_replies Of course. Are you hoping to have him return for a talking-to? That may not be the most alluring prospect for him ... but in any case, here's a recent comment retweeted by Brad Schrag, in which pioneers of climatological inquiry are noted. The names may mean nothing to a reader if the reader hasn't cracked open The Discovery of Global Warming.
    1 point
  25. "We" didn't put any "heat" into the oceans. --Brant ". . . here comes the sun . . . ."
    1 point
  26. Whoever or whatever "Q" is, he or she or they are probably enjoying the break, not having posted since December 29 2019. This break has had zero effect on propagation of the 'cleaned-up' version of the mighty conspiracy-of-all-conspiracies ... from Mike Rothschild: The article is here. As "Q" might say, The 'silent' war continues.
    1 point
  27. Can anyone demonstrate this (icon remains) happening? Or give an example? If so, please do so. This is, as they say, false -- a false allegation. Following will be three tweets that I will have posted to test the "Icon Remains" claim/hypothesis -- while other active members may perhaps fork up supporting warrants. I will leave them up for an hour, then delete them ... to see what kind of remnant is retained once they disappear from Twitter. Members, feel free to do your own experiments here with tweets that are subsequently deleted via your Twitter account. I don't know if Jon Letendre has an active Twitter account, but expect that if he does he can then easily test his contention about 'icon remains' ...
    1 point
  28. "Did you delete Mike's analysis?" No. It is where it was -- embedded in the comment on the previous page. When we quote a post containing an embedded tweet, we need to include in our selection the 'white space' that follows the tweet. Eg, Voici ...
    1 point
  29. She's better than Billy at serving up tasty steamed octopus! Dayyam! People are DYING!!!! Fuckers need to be punished right goddamned now for future catastrophes! We can't wait. Immediate pain to the grups for what they done to Greta's childhood and her future of doom. J
    1 point
  30. Exclusive: Russia Carried Out A 'Stunning' Breach Of FBI Communications System, Escalating The Spy Game On U.S. Soil
    1 point
  31. Heh. I hadn’t visited Billy’s Twitter page in a while. The stuff he’s interested in and reposting is instructive. It seems that there are quite a lot of false things that he savors and needs to believe. J
    1 point
  32. That's some mighty fine tasty steamed octopus! I've heard that Manhattan is 5 feet underwater. Is that true, Billy? Who should be punished first? How exciting! Anyway, do you have any answers to my questions yet? No? Still hoping that we'll forget what actual science is? J
    1 point
  33. Jonathan, I skimmed Diana Brickell's own feed a bit. (Like you, I hadn't seen it before.) Did you see the mountain of love she heaped upon the hoax lady (CB Ford) in the Justice Kavanaugh hearing? This is a direct quote (from here). Ah... the matters of the heart... She also said she's a supporter of Beto O'Rourke. Objectivism in action, that it is... Michael
    1 point
  34. 12. Ignore their questions. 13. Do not acknowledge any gaps in your kowledge, or any inability of yours to address their questions or challenges. 14. Serve tasty steamed octopus. 15. Avoid their questions. Act as if they haven't been asked, even if they've been asking them for years. 16. When you don't have answers to their questions, change the subject. 17. Serve more tasty steamed octopus. Smile. 18. Give them information and advice on how to be polite, and how to influence people. Don't follow the advice yourself. Offer hugs. 19. Reward them with tasty steamed octopus, and a handjob if you're comfortable doing that. 20. Bring in meatpuppets who you think are ringers. Display gleeful anticipation. 21. More TSO. 22. Ignore the fact that your meatpuppets didn't do any better than you've done in addressing any substance. 23. Randomly choose one of the steps above and repeat. Then repeat it again. 24. Tee hee hee. Never forget to tee hee hee during any of the above steps! 25. All they can eat TSO, 24/7.
    1 point
  35. Huh? Doesn't it have everything to do with this thread? As in, if we don't completely get rid of freedom, and if we don't immediately start punishing evil deniers, then, by the end of next week, the entire planet will be on fire just like that, followed shortly by everything being five thousand feet underwater due to all of the ice, everywhere, melting? J
    1 point
  36. It's "Meatpuppets" in general, but our specific special guests are "Meatballs," just out of endearment. J
    1 point
  37. What Brad is doing is trying to bog down the discussion by overwhelming it with minutiae. The game is that we asked for repeatable, so Brad is going to pretend to not understand the context, and give all sorts of examples of repeatable in regard to noncontroversial pieces of the puzzle, while hoping that we didn't notice that he switched to talking about pieces when we were specifically asking for repeatable entire picture. It's like someone saying that granite floats on air. You ask for proof via repeatable experiments, and douchebag then goes into the repeatable science of the mineralogical composition of granite, and what evidence there is to label it felsic. Do you know what felsic means? Huh, stupid? No? But yet you have your big important opinions about rocks not floating! Science denier! That, and another tack is bickering about how badly Brad's being treated, and who said what. Boo hoo hoo. Brad has lots of time for all of that, but no time for answering my questions. That's fanboy/activist stuff, not science. Science is actually the mindset that the alarmist fanboy/activists ridicule: critical thinking, skepticism, caution, testing, etc. A truly scientific mindset is that of trying as hard as one can to find flaws in any theory. I don't get the impression that Brad, Meatball2, or Billy have ever taken that approach. Their mindset seems to be that of confirmation bias, heroically fighting the silly "denier" rubes, tee hee heeing, and high-fiving. But maybe I'm wrong. I guess Meatball2 is gone, but I'd like to ask Brad and Billy to tell us about their critical examination of the idea of anthropogenic climate change. What are your biggest criticisms? Do you have any? What holes have you found in the theory? What are the biggest weaknesses in whatever theory you have the most confidence? Do you feel that you have to hide them? Show us your critical scientific side rather than just the fanboy side. After all, even the IPCC identifies severe weaknesses. It admits to significant limitations. Anyway, there's no need for the trick of trying to obscure the forest with leaves. It's really as simple as X amount of CO2 over time period Y should equal temperature Z. Sounding like a broken record: In regard to the big picture issue of anthropogenic climate change (and not isolated, smaller pieces of the picture), show us the repeatable, successful predictions. Identify specifically what was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what the start and finish dates of the experiment were, provide the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record. J
    1 point
  38. Godwin's Law is not a law of physics nor a true counter argument to anything without an add on explanation. --Brant
    1 point
  39. yawn... False conspiracy theories are the real problem say the elitists. Unending war for profit, mass surveillance, screwing the middle class with bogus crony corporatist schemes, using slave labor and calling it globalism, and so on don't really count to these folks, do they? Well, here's a fact for those who care about facts. Talking about false conspiracies have not caused even 0.1% or the enormous damage and loss of innocent life the elitist boneheads in the ruling class have caused. It's all the fault of the false conspiracies... So say the elitist boneheads on the way to the bank, their power centers and their occupations of unearned privilege. False conspiracies do one thing in reality, though. They make it hard has hell for the elitists to make people agree with them. They need the common people to SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP GODDAMMIT. How else can they perpetrate their garbage and crony scams in peace? So now they are writing books asking nicely and with kindness for people to sit down and shut up goddammit. Fuck them. We don't need fewer false conspiracy theories. We need more. We need robust debate, always, not goddam gatekeepers who think they are better than others to the extent they get to tell all people what they can look at and consider. Most people are good. They are not cattle. They'll figure things out over time. They always have. And they sure as hell don't need idiots from the ruling class to tell them what to think. Here's a far better book by Tucker Carlson that looks at precisely the kind of person who wants such unearned power. It's No. 1 on Amazon right now. I've read it and it's one of the best books on current politics I have ever read. Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution And there's this. Tucker doesn't mean "selfish" in a Randian sense. He means it in a childish and thuggish sense. Hurting people on purpose and taking their things. My favorite observation by Tucker is the sheer incompetence of the current ruling class. He said there has never been a more incompetent ruling class in human history. This batch is just plain stupid. I agree. The've turned science into a religion, are now working on getting rid of due process and believing this is good, and so on. And not one of them can do a goddam thing of value. One video I saw elsewhere asked an interesting question. If you were stranded on a desert island, who would you want to be stranded with? People who wag their finger at you over gender identity crises, who call you racist every time you disagree with them, and so on? Or plumbers, carpenters, fishermen, and so on? Give me a conspiracy theorist any day of the week over an asshole elitist who wants to rule me because he thinks he's a superior life form. He's not a superior life form. He's a goddam fool who's time of cultural relevance is--thankfully--coming to an end... Michael
    1 point
  40. I'm going to have to insist you answer my first question: Is it the responsibility of an employer to ensure the economic stability/status of its employees? Yes, no, maybe, sometimes?
    1 point
  41. It occurred to me that I may have misunderstood Billy's meaning. In referring to "Jonathan's homework," Billy, did you mean not the homework that you think that I have neglected to turn in, but the homework that I've assigned to you? If so, sorry for the misunderstanding above. However, my response still remains the same in essence: It is not homework that I'm giving to you, but rather the reality of the requirements of science, and the dictates of the onus of proof. It's not some irrelevant or tangentially silly burden that old Jonathan has come up with to waste your time, but the core of the issue at hand.
    1 point
  42. So, you're saying that the "switch" was already on? As in automatically? But then, what, the person volitionally turns it on again, even though it's already on? Do you understand the contradiction now? If not, you should think about it a bit more. Focus harder. Let's review: Tony said that "Switching on thinking and focus is volitional..." That means that one chooses to think and focus. But in order to choose, one must already be thinking, and also focused, about the subject of whether to choose to think and focus or not. And if one is already thinking and focused, prior to making the conscious, volitional choice to think and focus, then, therefore, thinking and focusing would be automatic, and not volitional. So, I replied, "If one isn't already thinking and focused, how does one 'volitionally switch on' thinking and focus?" Then you piped in with an answer that reveals that you didn't understand the gist of the question. Your response doesn't answer the question. J
    1 point
  43. I personally know at least 100 Muslims who do not want to kill Robert Kolker, or even Robert Ford. Which is strange because most of the Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus and Zoroastrians in Toronto do want to kill Ford.
    1 point