Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/18/2020 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?
    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. And I want you to include the term " deus ex machina" in your open letter to our fearless leader too.
    1 point
  5. Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump Poll: 79 Percent of Trump Voters Believe ‘Election Was Stolen‘ breitbart.com/2020-election/…via @BreitbartNews They are 100% correct, but we are fighting hard. Our big lawsuit, which spells out in great detail all of the ballot fraud and more, will soon be filled. RIGGED ELECTION! Percent of Trump Voters Believe ‘Election Was Stolen’Politico’s 2020 Voter Priorities Survey shows that a vast majority of Trump voters believe the election results are fradulent.breitbart.com November 24th 2020
    1 point
  6. Just for the reader: Q clearance. This is a super-high-level government security clearance, not QAnon. Michael
    1 point
  7. And dontcha know Tony B has a Q clearance , and for some reason he told Tucker that his sister-in-law, who unfortunately passed away after a battle with cancer died at 6:38 . So that's weird.
    1 point
  8. Why "coordinated national" voter fraud? Is that all that they're looking for? They're okay with voter fraud on a less-than-national level? In Trump's criticisms of mass-mail voting, and his suspicions of Democrats' motivations, did he specify that he thought that it would only happen on a nationally coordinated level?
    1 point
  9. No. I didn't ask that. Ah. So, you're interested in discussing Jon, not Q. Why not do so? That might be interesting. Hahaha. Wow, that was so smooth, Billy! Seamless! I didn't even see what happened. No one did. Believing in bullshit (or not applying a coherent realist/small-O epistemology) is not an Objectivist virtue. In my opinion, Q is a fraud and a distraction with all the trappings of a cult movement. It boggles my mind that Objectivish people accept either the soft or hard version of the Q lore, or find the foundational premises of Q captivating
    1 point
  10. Polar Amplification just keeps rolling on ... Siberian heat wave is driving massive wildfires, sea ice melt in Arctic With Fires, Heat and a Cyclone, Arctic Breaks Melting Record
    1 point
  11. I'll wait till the end of October (surprises?) before I post a final prediction. My last prediction was that Kamala Harris would not be chosen to be on the ticket with Biden ... this should be known in a few days. I am currently stocking metaphorical "crow" ... What makes Lichtman's prediction intriguing or notable is that he has was only wrong once (Gore/Bush), and that his 13 Keys criteria are mostly the same as ever. And that none of the criteria take any notice of polling. Enphases added. Also ... He may be "emotional," but the criteria still remain, Peter. The proof
    1 point
  12. Qanon targets pedophiles, sex traffickers and satanists. Twitter, Facebook, the MSM & some others target Qanon. Making sense yet?
    1 point
  13. The forest, the florist, the trees, the logs, the oriented strandboard ...
    1 point
  14. One other thought about "war" in this context that crossed my mind: the blurred distinction between civilian and combatant, in the sense that the civilians are not mentally prepared as the soldier is. If combat gives even seasoned warriors PTSD, what of the civilians watching their streets being taken over in a scene they've ever only seen in movies? Watching their business get looted and burned down. The economic hardship that came with the unemployment of the shutdowns was bad enough to cause "suicides of desperation". They weren't psychologically prepared for this. Hence, my concerns about
    1 point
  15. Not much longer. And it will be particularly amusing to watch the Free Seattle Zone twerps scream like little girls when they are beaten and taken away in unmarked cars.
    1 point
  16. Some readers may not go to a Twitter thread off the OL site, so I'll add this in as an example of what you are missing.
    1 point
  17. Oh, so Q doesn't understand how that works? The Obama website got caught testing the image prior to Floyd's ritual murder. Q is trolling. Just letting the inept scum idiots know he caught them doing that.
    1 point
  18. Q and QAnon having a bit of a ruckus over Obama.org and modern Twitter-enabled website coding. Q-Watcher Feminist Proper Gander wraps up the story in a series of tweets: The kerfuffle started with this Q drop (screen cap from the site Qanon.pub) : "Reconcile" ... Next came drop 4437 ... Some QAnon folks were critical, some were gyrating wildly to explain away the error. The kerfuffle rests on a misunderstanding of how Twitter Cards work their magic in a few lines of HTML code in the 'head' portion of a website. <meta name="twitter:card" cont
    1 point
  19. Elsewhere ... What is funny/sad about this is that whoever is manning the Q account on 8kun had to do some cleanup ...
    1 point
  20. I've been wondering if whoever started "Q" was taking a page from L. Ron Hubbard's book and setting out to found a religion. Ellen PS: I haven't read the article yet. I anticipate that it will be sneery and "sophisticated"-superior in tone. I'm simply reacting to the article's title, which echoes my own question regarding "Q's" long-range intent.
    1 point
  21. 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
    1 point
  22. An article by Adrienne LaFrance, "The Prophecies of Q," in the Atlantic.
    1 point
  23. I started to blush until I realized you didn't call me a genius. Ah, well. One gathers what one can and then one tries further. --Brant if you (I?) only knew the power of my dark side
    1 point
  24. 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
  25. Did you read that, Billy? Cuddlemuffin is free to post more recipes for tasty steamed octopus. Hooray!
    1 point
  26. NOTE FROM MSK: Trolling text removed. Would anybody be concerned if an unseen hand began to remove 'trolling text' ... or 'inappropriate' bits of commentary going forward? The invisible hand guide would be the Objectivist Living rules. Personally, I think such an invisible hand would be wise to "mark" the inappropriate material rather than delete it. Perhaps a spoiler ...
    1 point
  27. To call it facts requires you to provide evidence of such happening. I'll wait.
    1 point
  28. How do you know so much while scientists know so little? --Brant
    1 point
  29. No, I really don't. Whether humans have caused the increase in atmospheric co2 is a key component to whether or not humans are driving global warming. But I guess you know that.
    1 point
  30. It's not a test. It's about whether or not there is agreement. Have human emissions caused atm co2 to rise from 280-~415ppm?
    1 point
  31. 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
  32. Mankind's contribution to warming is considered to be 100%. Actually higher by some because without increased co2 all indications are we would have cooled, so we've offset the cooling plus added warming. You can falsify that humans are the cause of warming by delivering us a mechanism to explain the warming.
    1 point
  33. The article is a bunch of opinions with a whopper that if humans just stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere everything will be hunky dory. Billions dying of starvation while the ruling elites "protect" the planet is not mentioned. The only significant alternative to fossil fuels for life sustaining energy production is nuclear. --Brant
    1 point
  34. 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
  35. Oh, brother. You aren't addressing what I said. You just shifted the discussion. I really thought you were a lot smarter. Let's just say you are, but you aren't using your smarts. Looking for smarts. --Brant
    1 point
  36. Fight the next ice age! Burn fossil fuels! --Brant I don't think that will work, BTW
    1 point
  37. 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
  38. You too have failed to answer. How does Arrhenius hypothesis fail your criteria for a falsifiable hypothesis that increasing co2 would cause warming?
    1 point
  39. Most would consider a mad extinction bad. There previous mad extinction too over 10k years to occur, it's not an overnight or even single generation event. More conspiracy. That's yours to deal with, not mine. Bring evidence next time.
    1 point
  40. As I've said before somewhere, William's bringing Brad aboard, apparently thinking that Brad could handle Jonathan's questions, is itself an example of William's incompetence. Short form: Willism didn't know better. Ellen
    1 point
  41. A bit more information about the basis for the Six Americas ... from the gang at Yale Climate Communications.
    1 point
  42. 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
  43. Jonathan, The answer is social and pure value judgment, not rational. They'll kick his ass right out of the Chosen People club if he treats this issue with true intellectual seriousness. The club is more important than the truth. That's why the intellectual arguments from these people consistently sound good, but when examined are not good. Once in the club, one does not need to make sense. One merely needs to dazzle with bullshit and snark a little for proof. In fact, making sense is the surest way of getting thrown out. The storyline abides... Michael
    1 point
  44. Government job? Or government-tied? (I couldn't resist. ) Michael
    1 point
  45. The jottings you deleted yesterday were titled "The #QAnon phenomena, as explained by various outlets and commenters". Did you mean the plural, or do you not know that "phenomena" is plural? Many phenomena attend the Q phenomenon. To my mind, Q is the ultimate boondoggle for rational inquiry. I've been directed a few times to separate "Q" from "QAnon," and I will probably make the same kind of differentiation errors. Are you taking questions about "Q" and/or "QAnon"?
    1 point
  46. Pithy. If you are a fan of skeptical inquiry, Poker & Politics should be in your Twitter feed. Glory, glory, Halleluja ...
    1 point
  47. 1 point
  48. Q sez not a lot, but has some Twitter suggestions in five new drops ... "Everything's Coming Up Roses ...!"
    1 point
  49. Yeah, sorry about that. Sometimes, since I primarily tweet from mobile, some interpretation is required. bed -> need So where to start. Are we in agreement that the GHE is the reason that the earth is over an effective temperature of 255K, or do we need to back track further?
    1 point
  50. There's never a bad time to think about atmospheric physics. "How does it work?"
    1 point