Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/11/2019 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    Ted (in) Lieu (of fill in the blank) pulled out his cell phone and on the Congressional record called Candace Owens a ****er lover. I saw it !
  2. 2 points
    That guy is a Christian Nazi. He should stay away from the holy smoke if he wants to be a rational holder of public office. I despise people who want to wed their religion to public law. Even with a powerful Episcopalian entity in England, there was some separation of church and state going back to earlier times, which was reinforced in the U.S. Constitution. Back then, you couldn't be an atheist without being lynched or booed in the mid to late 1700's but you could be a Deist. And the more intelligent of the West's leaders and intelligentsia called themselves Deists.
  3. 2 points
    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
  4. 2 points
    I have begun to wonder if Obama is running the Deep State behind the scenes. He might be an Acting President, everyone in the Federal civil service working hard to oust Trump. Sort of makes sense. Obama lives in Washington. Be interesting to have NSA metadata on who he talked to last week, and whether he personally directed Lynch and Comey to bury the Hillary evidence. Anything is possible.The caravans were a stroke of genius. Motor voter registration and driver licenses for illegals. Yep. Recent history has Obama's fingerprints all over it. Rush Limbaugh speculated that NATO diplomats agitated for an FBI counterintelligence putsch to smear candidate Trump. No way. It was an Obama White House op, start to finish.
  5. 2 points
    Sunny Lohmann hosts a podcast featuring Ed Powell and Ed Mazlish: youtube.com/watch?v=995Riq8JdUo
  6. 2 points
    Many of them sincerely believe, it’s just that they want you to die, first. They want your home burned down and turned back to prairie. Then they can enjoy earth with a smaller, sustainable population. How many who oppose pipelines have turned off their pipeline? None. That would be suicide.
  7. 2 points
    Ayn Rand would never agree to open immigration from today's context, which is war. --Brant
  8. 2 points
    Makes sense. I wasn't thinking in terms of strategy and financial benefit re Japan. Jon, an issue I've raised before in your accounts is the "total control" bit. Can't be acquired. Brainwashing, blackmail, bribery, whatever - no method turns a human into a complete automaton with no power of choice. And regarding Iran, are you indicating that the Ayatollahs aren't in fact Islamic fanatics? Ellen
  9. 2 points
    Sad life? One that is someone else's fault? If only they would get out of your way... But, alas, you are doomed to constant punishment for virtues lesser souls can't even dream about as you rant, "The bastards! The bastards! The bastards!" in impotent solitude... (How am I doing so far? I can do this with my hands tied behind my back because I've been there. Never produced a goddam thing when I was in that state. Heroism is not only fighting others, it's fighting your own self-destructive urges that are seasoned with self-pity and a growing taste for laziness--and actually producing something. That's not psychobabble. Suicide is a dangerous idea to cultivate. It eventually transmutes on its own from idea to reality. It starts with a shrug...) Reality is wonderful, even with idiots in it. Brush them aside and build. Besides, how can you win a world you haven't produced? What have you actually won by pretending? A feeling? You can't lose what you don't have. Most of all, stop looking down at others. Paraphrasing Nietzsche, when you look into the abyss, the abyss looks back into your soul. You become what you gaze upon. Michael
  10. 2 points
    Heh. That's a "TANTRUM"? And that's a "real" interviewer with "difficult" questions? Mr. Shapiro, I've selectively misinterpreted some fragments of your past statements to mean what I want them to mean. I gotcha. Defend yourself against my accusations. Pro Boss Real Interviewer right there. Is he the male Cathy Newman? J
  11. 2 points
    I haven't looked at the article yet, but the statement made in the title strikes me right off as false. The globalist elitists are parasitical. They require people who aren't like them to feed on. Consider a comparison to thieves. If everyone were a thief, who would be producing the goods for thieves to rob? Ellen
  12. 2 points
    Brant, Yes they do. That's what you are not seeing. They are using the Matt Drudge model of journalism: presenting headlines of news articles in a certain order and including only those that tweak their agenda. Notice that Drudge shows predominantly pro-progressive headlines one day, headlines that are chosen to get people riled up (threats, offensive things, etc.), then he presents the conservative knockout headlines the next day, including lots of headlines that put conservatives on the moral high ground. That's just one form of doing that. The tech giants learned it and added a gazillion others, especially through micro-targeting. Take a good look at their news feeds some day. Or the items they say are "trending." Or take a look at the same ads that keep showing up everywhere you go on the Internet. This is called "retargeting" and is mostly commercial stuff, but pay attention to the political things. You will see mostly easily debunked fringe things when conservative issues show up in these retargeted ads, and plenty of uplifting-like message ads from Dem establishment people like Kamala Harris. btw - Just for people to know, retargeting happens when a pixel of an image is placed on your harddrive with instructions embedded in it. You don't give permission for the pixel to be placed there. It just happens when you visit certain sites and interact with something on them. My joy and hope stem from the current stupidity of the social media giants. Instead of keeping to their covert stuff, they have gone full-on authoritarian and think they will persuade by persecuting certain individuals at a cartel level (notice Alex Jones was eliminated from a bunch of places all within the same 24 hour period). You can do that and be persuasive in a dictatorship where people will show up in the middle of the night, drag your ass out of bed and either put you in a political prison or kill you. You persuade thus by fear. But when you do that to Americans, they get really pissed and some strange alliances pop up to stand up to the bullies. Look at this authoritarian urge showing its ugly face with the midnight raid on Roger Stone by a large number of law enforcement people armed to the teeth. The fake news media was right there covering it all in real time. And the news feeds showed nothing but that for a time. They want nightime arrests of political opponents. They want their political opponents silenced and punished by the state with jail or worse. They salivate at the image and take joy in it. These people are enemies of individual rights, not victims of the state when they are restricted from doing harm to the individuals they wish to target for political differences. This is the press, you say? Not social media? The truth is, they are in bed with social media giants right now, sharing the same advertising sponsors. That is their leverage. Social media giants and the fake news media know what each other is doing. They are colluding. Michael
  13. 2 points
    Brant. It is exactly the contrary. There is a lot under the hood and I think you don't believe much in it because it's new and you aren't familiar with the extents and proofs. Look at it this way for just one angle. The NYT is constantly struggling to stay alive financially. And without Bezos, WaPo would have folded. The amount of money these companies generate and need to operate is very small compared to the financial world of the social media giants. It's the elephant and mouse thing. What's worse, but more of an indication of the influence of these giant Internet companies, they made their billions and billions in the last ten years or so from practically nothing. That's not much time at all. Besides, neither NYT nor WaPo convince anyone of anything these days. They don't change hearts and minds. They sing to a small diminishing (but loyal) choir while resting on their reputations from years past. The social media giants are based on behavioral science at the root. Once you learn what they do, how they do it, and see the results according to split testing, you really get creeped out. (Look up growth hacking sometime if you are curious.) The only reason traditional media is still relevant financially is because of old connections with old advertising models. Once the ad world wakes up, they will leave traditional media and chase bigger payoffs for their clients elsewhere. This is already starting to happen. I could go into a lot of detail, but I don't have time. I believe Obama started the deep corruption of the tech giants. He (and his COBS people) helped them engineer the Arab Spring and they began to believe they could partner with political power to topple dictatorships and remold the world. These are nerds and that kind of power went to their heads. Once tasted, that kind of power is more addictive to nerds than their algorithms. Obama also put lots of his folks into Google while putting lots of Google folks into the government. I could go on and on about all this. Michael
  14. 2 points
    Brant, Nah... Ignoring the problem--and what caused it--is the back door to fascism. Principles operate in contexts. For example, the principle of private property was practically useless when the Titanic was sinking. As were all the principles of good seamanship. And those are great principles. The problem was the ship was going down. Once there are no people and no ship, principles mean what? Nothing, that's what. Would you have fought the different Communist takeovers of the different countries last century with syllogisms and principles? Many people did and look what it got them. What about that big pile of bodies, millions and millions of them, from Communist purges? Do dead people use syllogisms? In today's world, allowing government protected communication cartels to skew the next election toward an authoritarian elite because of a principle that doesn't work with government protected cartels is playing with that kind of fire and, frankly, it is a foolish way to enforce individual rights against a hightech cartel (one that is protected by the government) that is starting to run amok. Go on and let fascists win by cheating, then see how they act. Hell, just look what they did when they didn't win by cheating. For over two years they tried to ram a big fat lie down the public's throat that could have started WWIII had it worked and grown in the wrong direction, and they misused the intelligence forces and legal system to do it. (Not to mention all that blackmail due to pedophilia and other misbehavior of powerful insiders). In other words, we will not drift into fascism by recognizing a commons where private Internet companies can operate, but includes the protection of individual rights on that commons. The current social media giants are already practicing fascism there. Most people don't realize how much money and resources they received from the government and the extent of the secret contracts they have with the government, including massive surveillance contracts, facial recognition contracts, and so on. There is another issue. These Internet companies want to have the legal protections of private platforms, but want to act like publishers in operating their platforms. You see, publishers can choose the slant of their content. They can choose who they publish or not. But they are also legally liable for what they publish. Platforms are not legally liable for what is published on them. They want the powers of publishers, but the legal situation of platforms. This is a question of the law not catching up to technology while mixing in a lot of government money and legal cartel-oriented protections. Note: these companies are not de facto private companies. They have the shells of private companies, but they have the substance of something more like the Federal Reserve. They are intertwined with the government on many, many different levels. And now they are going fascistic. This problem of fascism is not something in the future to avoid. It is something in the present and we have to deal with it now, especially since it is still at a size we can deal with it. After it grows to a tipping point, we will no longer be able to deal with it through peace and law. Look at what they are doing--what they are doing right now and right here--and see if growth of that to a dictatorship by technocrats that will have no use for individual rights can be ignored. I, for one, have no intention to ignore it while cautioning about virtual back doors. I mean, who needs to worry about a back door when the fascists have already come in through the front door? Michael
  15. 2 points
    I’m not knowledgeable or passionate about art but I have followed many of your conversations with interest. When you point out the inconsistency that music doesn’t fit her criteria but she called it art anyway, they break into gibberish or avoid the issue, it’s comical, I’m always entertained by it. I also don’t get the either–or rigidity regarding whether this or that discipline is art, say, architecture. Keeping water out is utility not art, but a textured roof that looks like waves of wind over tall grass and costs three times a traditional roof and raises the cost of the home by 8% is art because it was done for contemplation and aesthetic consideration, the essential characteristic of art. Insisting on the absence of utility strikes me as definition by exclusion. We can make distinctions, we can call it fine art or pure art when there is no utility at all. But if someone’s favorite sculpture turns out, unbeknownst to them, to be a personal aircraft — you press this button here and wings fold out and you can fly away in the thing — then now they have to pick a new favorite sculpture because this one isn’t art anymore? Seems like definition by non–essentials to me.
  16. 2 points
    President Trump Prime Minister Trump King Trump 2020 , and let’s get 2024 for Ivanka !!!!! God bless POTUS
  17. 2 points
    Ellen, I see some. The Notre Dame Cathedral is definitely a human species thing. It was not built by one man or woman. It was a group effort over generations--the best of mankind--from the 1100's (with history continuing to be added over the centuries). The ancient building was in a form--a concrete, not abstract, form--anyone could walk into today. Walking into it (before the fire) was not like looking at artifacts from an archaeological dig, but was walking into a fully functional building in use in today's society. When you do that, all you can do is marvel about the human species (and about God for the religious) that it was built about 900 years or so ago. Knowing that things like that exist gives most people comfort on a deep "I came from that" level. That's what I feel. I think that is a species-related emotion although I don't recall Bloom talking about this particular emotion. But, to me, seeing that building go up in flames left me feeling like my great grandfather, who was in perfect health yesterday, just died. (That's a hypothetical to demonstrate the emotion.) The comfort of belonging to a historical lineage is something so much a part of me and underground in my mind, I never verbalized it properly. And hanging around Rand-world drove it further underground except as banter about coming from hillbillies and things like that. Now, one physical proof of my inner certainty of belonging to a long line of humans who strive for greatness has gone away. No wonder it's bothersome. It makes me sad and melancholy and really pissed off when I think it may have been arson. As an aside, Bloom says people who wither away and die of depression are suffering from a species emotion (my paraphrase since I'm going by memory--I think his words were different, but the concept is the same). Super-depressed people don't feel like they are worth anything to the species, to anyone else, or even to themselves anymore. Bloom says this self-destructive shutting-down emotion is built into all of us, meaning it can manifest under the right conditions in anyone, so the species can be culled of useless members like cells of a body organ die. The dead get replaced by the new. I find this thought fascinating and--for now at least--it sure seems like this mental mechanism (including for other emotions as well) is one of the core components of human values. For a fiction writer, this opens up a whole world of compelling nuance in big picture events and character motivations--nuance that will resonate universally in others as it does in me. Like I said, I don't believe this species thinking is either-or with individualism. Humans are both individuals and members of the human species. Good and evil exist for both the individual and the species. Ditto for illness and health. If some of Rand's scope excesses can be reduced to a size where their validation can be checked by observation of anyone, and room made for the stuff pertaining to individual human nature she left out, I think this kind of species thinking aligns perfectly with her kind of thinking. At least, I intend to pursue this path until it leads somewhere good or bad (or both ) in my writing and my own thinking. Michael
  18. 2 points
    You've probably heard of the concept "man cold" or "man flu." I've heard it mentioned in pop culture for a few years now, and have been observing it with interest. And I just experienced it firsthand for the first time. I'm not talking about the cold, but about certain women's reactions to it. The glee. The superiority. I have a cold. I'm still up and about. I've taken the standard over the counter remedies, but I'm coughing and sneezing, my nose is running, and my voice is a bit rough. Despite going about my life as normal, I've been ridiculed by a few women whom I barely even know. They're very excited about mocking me for having a "man cold," even though I'm not actually displaying the behavior that defines it (staying in bed, doing nothing, moaning -- in other words, being affected by it, where women with colds are said to not be affected, or are strong enough to not allow colds to affect them). It's very psychologically fulfilling to them to verbally kick men when they are experiencing illness or weakness, and to derive a sense of superiority from doing so. There's no accompanying interest in science or comparing symptoms and ailments. It's just pure psychological thrill of belittling the enemy. Anyway, it reminded me of this thread, and the excitement that Billy seems to experience in focusing on right-wing conspiracy believers, but not so much left-wing conspiracy believers. Seems to have a lot of similarities to the "man cold" relishers. J
  19. 2 points
    Her white nationalism is settled consensus.
  20. 2 points
    Yeah, but I've heard that she loves Hitler. They say that she's a black white-nationalist, and was caught on tape admitting that she wants another holocaust. Why would they say stuff like that if it wasn't true? Huh?
  21. 2 points
    Second that. Partly second that. Jon's form of trash talk doesn't bother me in the circumstances in which he's using it. He doesn't use it indiscriminately. I'd use a different metaphor for William. Insidious poison. Slithery. Never quite coming out with a thing. Insinuating. I've seen that for some while. Ellen
  22. 2 points
    One of the general differences between those on the left and right is that the right understands the left's views... You can see this with their parody and satire. Leftist characters are portrayed accurately, and sometimes, right-wing media creators can even explain the left's views better than actual leftists. The parody and satire created by leftists, though, is consistently egregious--like the description of Jussie Smollett's attackers, for example (pretty much every right leaning person knew it was bullshit immediately). Again, it's a generalization. Obviously not all right-wingers understand the left's talking points, but for the most part, they get it... while for the left, the opposite is true. They can't even conceive of what they are arguing against. So what you end up with is ignorant, and possibly stupid, people who the right is gently trying to point out as ignorant and stupid... which reaffirms the leftist's belief that people on the right are immoral (mean). Obviously accusing someone of being immoral is worse than accusing someone of being stupid... so it's insane. This is pretty much just venting... but it's really annoying that this is the case. Politics has become a chore where people with good ideas have to hold the hands of their attackers to help them see what they're missing.
  23. 2 points
  24. 2 points
    Vote fraud in Texas and Illinois elected the Kennedy-Johnson ticket in 1960. Massive vote fraud has made California a state completely dominated by the Democrat Party. If not for the Electoral College California would have made that criminal bitch Hillary President. Whether the Electoral College will do the same next time is problematic. It could give the Senate to the Dems. I find your naivete hard to get my brain around. ---Brant
  25. 2 points
    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
  26. 2 points
    I love "on the sidelines" of #TrumpKimSummit. He's negotiating peace with a nuclear—armed country, ending a state of war that has existed between us for the last 70 years. While doing that he scores a deal for $12.7 billion of planes, then goes out for a smoke break with Phu Trong and a few of the Bamboo guys and returns with an additional $2.9 billion dollars. Best President ever.
  27. 1 point
    Eliminate all them Christians, bro! Get 'em all! If people can't see 'em, maybe they'll stop existing... (I'm being sarcastic, of course.) I don't want to defend Christianity, but that's just plain gross. Even more, it's just plain stupid. These idiots think this kind of bullying will win a culture war. btw - You know what Christians have in the US that social media doesn't? What social media will never have? Churches. Physical churches where people go using their cars and legs and feet to get there, not a mouse or a keyboard. And, boy are there churches in America. Lot's of 'em. In every city, in every suburb, in every patch of country. And guess what? Christians vote. I almost feel sorry for the social media giants. They are committing suicide right in front of our eyes without even realizing it. They are smart people in doing social media platforms, but man are they as dumb as a bag of left-handed hammers about how to use their platforms to persuade. Michael
  28. 1 point
    This is too delicious. Yesterday, when President Trump was meeting with the Queen of England, the fake news media was lamenting the lack of protests, but projecting this was the case because today the protesting would be ramped up. They would show Trump, that's for sure. They would show him. Well, this happened today: Here is the video of the crime: Looks like it was a pissy little rally anyway. There's just not much enthusiasm in England for protesting President Trump when he is there, I guess. What can one do? Oh dear, oh dear... Throw another milkshake at Farage? Michael
  29. 1 point
    Jon, Because you don't win culture wars with bans. I'm playing the long game. You seem to prefer short term gratification. I won't be doing any podcasts with any leftie authoritarians, though. They went for the short term gratification and bans (social media and elsewhere). Now they're losing the culture war big time as they sell out to crony corporations just to stay relevant and they are too hate-filled to see it. Once their idiocy stops making money and/or power for the elitist establishment, they will go the way of Avenatti. Slower than him, granted, but the path is the same. Michael
  30. 1 point
    Tony, I think you're perceptive and eloquent about "globalism" as a religion and the way it works "[quoting you] collectively in the mass of minds." But I think that you miss something about the instigating role of persons whom Michael and Jon and I call "global elitists." Those persons aren't just responding to popular desire as it were in order to take advantage of it. They're cynically manipulating in order to produce the mass phenomenon. They aren't themselves actually believers in the religion they're fomenting. Brandon Smith, whose articles Jon featured in starting this thread, thinks that the ringleader elitists subscribe to their own "Luciferian" religion. I'm doubtful about specifics of Smith's views. My current belief is that the history behind today's global elitists hasn't been so organized and unified an effort as he thinks it was. However, there has been an occult history which has laid groundwork for the machinations of today's international-power-seeking elitists. Ellen
  31. 1 point
    S, Robert used to be a friend of mine and we are still cordial. It's a term of affection (even when we disagree). Lighten up. In fact, I can do this the other way. Why do you feel the need to do micromanaging PC language control freak behavior on everyone? You make terrible presuppositions about people you don't even know. Michael
  32. 1 point
    No, from Saudi Arabia. He had you, though, didn’t he? How long have you thought that? Didn’t make all those billions in oil, either, so how did he make all those billions? Who Owns The New York Times? Who Is Carlos Slim? Is he 'from Saudi Arabia,' or are the two discussants above thinking of someone else?
  33. 1 point
    Brant, Can of worms time. Right now I can't delve into making a case about the value and nature of mythology and religion in terms of human evolution (see Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society by David Sloan Wilson for one scholar's quite reasonable presentation of that), so I will simply quote a few pertinent thoughts about religious stories and some tangential but related thoughts. Let's just say that most people hold major religious events as coming from (or informed by) a realm different than everyday reality. Rod Sterling called it the "realm of the imagination." Christians call it Heaven and Hell. Either way, this different realm has been a concern of humans ever since recorded history. And even when there are odd happenings in the stories using only everyday reality as a standard, like the Virgin Birth, it's not pure 100% unadulterated everyday reality. It's a mixture with this other realm. There is always a mythic element to it--myth meets and mixes with physical reality so to speak. That, to me, puts these stories in a different class of mental event that deserves more thought than simply sniffing in superiority and calling all of mankind stupid for believing in them. I mean, one can do that if it rings one's ding-a-ling, but pointing at people and saying, "See how stupid religious people are? I'll never understand how they can believe all those crazy stories..." doesn't explain reality and, frankly, doesn't explain people. All it does is scratch a vanity itch. It's like Person A asking Person B what the meaning of life is and Person B responds by complaining about the flavors of chewing gum available. Person B is totally clueless about the issues at stake, but highly interested in something that tastes good. To use another analogy, a fish isn't aware of the water it swims in until there is no water. If the human mind were not constructed to swim in story, it would not have to create other stories (like the big bang) to replace the ancient ones when people begin to find them silly. And, frankly, as a foundational story, the big bang is a piss-poor story. It does not come with the ability to be used as social glue, for instance. No one will get married or buried in its name. And that's just one shortcoming. There are a slew of them. (A foundational story helps integrate the different modules of our highly modular brains so we--as individual members of a species--can behave in a manner where we survive and reproduce with relative success.) If people wish to sever their own beliefs from ancient foundational stories (and I'm not saying they shouldn't), they at least need to replace such stories with something that fills in the human life gaps left over when the old stories are removed. For those who laugh at people's current beliefs in myths and religious stories, I have yet to hear a single merrymaker explain why religious foundational stories have survived ALL of human history. Just saying people are stupid is a piss-poor excuse for thinking about that issue. Now a few quotes. I could--and probably will--write a whole book about this. I just looked and did find it in her Journals. Quoting Ayn Rand: Rand's metaphysics is essentially the axiomatic concepts. No stories of why and how things work. Just that things are and that things work. Done. Notice her phrase: philosophy is primarily epistemology. This means that she has no response to the big questions of philosophy like: What is the meaning of life? Why do we have to die? Why is the universe so infinitely large and infinitely small at the same time while we are so limited in scope? And so on. Rand did not even attempt to answer these questions. She essentially implied that people who ask these things are stupid to ask them. And if that thought bothers you to disagree, then let's just say she blanked out that people ask these questions and why they ask them. How can a philosophy spread when it leaves out such a big chunk of the human soul? It's not like you can't observe people mulling these questions over in records in all societies throughout all history. I can't resist the following entry as a playful gotcha to Barbara. (I wonder what she would have thought about my current conclusions. ) At one time--I don't remember where and when, I think it was in her apartment, I mentioned to her that philosophy was like an instruction manual on how to use your mind. She had a fit on me. She said that philosophy dealt with the fundamental nature of the universe. Period. End of story. But thus spoke Rand... None of this has anything to do with writing techniques, but it's interesting as all get out--to me and I bet to many readers. That's the nature of discussion forums, I guess... OL is OL. Michael
  34. 1 point
    You're well expressing what I feel, and I'm crying a bit reading your post. Tears came to the point my eyes stung and the picture blurred when I saw a photo of the wreckage in the nave. I'll continue reading now. Ellen
  35. 1 point
    Carbonic acid in the atmosphere ... from the Spencer Weart online verson of The Discovery of Global Warming, featuring a brief overview of the work of John Tyndall in the Victorian era: See also: "John Tyndall: founder of climate science?"
  36. 1 point
    This video is not about autism but about vaccine studies. It is about real science vs fake science. The purpose of real science is to find truth. The purpose of fake science is to peddle a product. When there is a product to peddle a red alert should go off in your head. A vaccine qualifies as a product to peddle.
  37. 1 point
    Yeah, dumbass, for emotionalism. Co–conspirators are guilty of every crime the conspiracy commits. For example, if your role is to arrive in the getaway car and all you do is drive that car, you are going away for a long time for bank robbery. If one of your co–conspirators shoots a teller, even though that was against the plan, you are going away for murder. If one of your co–conspirators murders someone years later, in order to keep the robbery hidden, then you can be put away for that murder, as well. Maddow can and will be put away for any number of acts of sedition and other high crimes committed by her and her Mockingbird handlers.
  38. 1 point
    We can check—off Mueller exoneration.
  39. 1 point
    Apologies for not interpreting your question as simply what did the GHE refer too. Apparently I've spent too much time arguing with deniers about basic founded principals that I saw your question as an attack on the existence of the greenhouse effect. In regards to your question about repeatable science, I'm going to go back once again to radiative transfer models(RTM or LBL for line-by-line). This is how we approx the GHE for the system. The RTM's demonstrate that we have a very solid understanding of how much energy the system emits when it's fed the proper inputs (as is the case for all models). This is demonstrated when we run models for a particular region and then use a satellite to take a snapshot of the upwelling infrared (IR) of that region. That is what the original image I linked you was demonstrating. Here's another prime example of how well MODTRAN matches satellite observations. For reference, the x-axis simply represents wavelengths (or wavenumbers) and the y-axis represents intensity.
  40. 1 point
    Here is a perfect example of why I am not going to engage much with this person. I said I was not interested in him. I don't like his bullshit bullying manner of showing up out of nowhere, bossing people around and giving out homework. I refuse to talk to people like that. I never show up anywhere the way he did. He interprets my objection to him as not showing interest in science. Legend in his own mind and so on. It's just bullshit. No wonder these people are losing the climate change moral panic. (btw - I vote. Millions of people like me do, too. If we have any say about it, these jokers will never compel us to do or fund anything. There's an object lesson there, too, but I doubt it will be learned by these kinds of folks.) Michael
  41. 1 point
    Former Trump White House lawyer calls Mueller 'American hero,' says probe is no witch hunt.
  42. 1 point
    Veritas is now getting the goods on Facebook. I just learned a new word: deboosting. Here's the written story on the Veritas site: Facebook Insider Leaks Docs; Explains “Deboosting,” “Troll Report,” & Political Targeting in Video Interview More... we need more... Michael
  43. 1 point
    tmj, I remember a time when who what when where why and how were taught as elements of clear expression. Now the thing is blurting out cryptic opinions that I call "cheap profundity." It makes the blurter feel good, I guess. If there is an idea or something specific that led you to share your wisdom with us, I would be interested. I'm serious. I'm curious. What are you talking about? Michael
  44. 1 point
    Man , Vlad is just leading him around by the nose.
  45. 1 point
    Jon, I frequently disagree with with your style of presentation and I'm having a hard time getting my brain around this "Q" stuff, but you're grounded. I can deal with that. Ed declines to be grounded, he says or implies by the likes of you. I can't take it further into a broader characterization like you did for that'd be unfair to him by me which is not to say you were unfair to him. Maybe you were and maybe you weren't. But he was unfair to you. That's because he does not participate here. He floats in and floats out. That makes his rudeness to you primary and your rudeness to him secondary. Sometimes with others here your rudeness might be described as primary to primary as with Carol. (She doesn't float in and out; she walks☺️.) --Brant
  46. 1 point
    Wow. That's cool, Master of Chutzpah! I have the old and new testaments in my full name which I will not broadcast. I grew a beard when I got out of the army but it itched and had dandruff so after shampooing it a few times when I did my top hair . . . I cut it off. edit. My cat Sparks, named after the Jodie Foster character in that movie Contact? who is my, icon had to have an ear cut off because of cancer, but she is still going strong. She is now a renowned thousand dollar cat.
  47. 1 point
    People used to call Monsanto critics cranks and conspiracy theorists. Mockery with tin foil hats and so forth... Where did the smug superiority go all of a sudden? Michael
  48. 1 point
    Subject: Educating the Educator in how to Educate--The Power of Story I was going to post this on the "my job" thread, but since a new thread opened up specifically about Phil, I'll do it here. When I saw the following post from over there, I cringed. I kinda knew what was coming. After all, I'm no stranger to this stuff. I am going to presume that this was not presented with malice, but with an intent to bring truth (as Phil sees it) to the eyes of the people he cited. I do not agree with these observations as stated, and I definitely know that Jonathan is not malicious (he apparently has a carbon-copy of my own BS meter and even more intolerance for hypocrisy than I have), but I don't want to discuss defending or attacking right now. I want to discuss persuasion. Agree or disagree, the Truth According to Coates is in his post. I think it is reasonable to assume that he believes it as he said it and he wanted to convey this truth--with good intent--to those he mentioned. That given, and with the reader's permission, I will tell a story (my version) from ancient Jewish culture. There was a beautiful maiden named Truth who wandered throughout a city greeting all people she passed. No one greeted her back and few looked at her for more than an instant. As she walked on, she became lonely and frustrated, so she tried to speak louder, but to no avail. People would not listen. She stood right in front of them and they walked around her. In a moment of inspiration, she thought, "I know what will make people notice me." So she disrobed and walked the entire city nude. She was stunning to look at. What a sight! But not only did people act as before, they started to shy away from her with intent. Some folks crossed the street to avoid walking on the same side she was on. Those in houses closed their windows so they would not have to gaze upon her. She was shunned. As Truth walked along dejectedly, a stranger came up and told her he had been observing her plight and could make people notice her. She asked what he wanted, and he replied, "Nothing. Merely that you cover your nakedness with this cloak. It is called Story." So Truth vested the cloak of Story and forged on. The very first person she encountered said, "How beautiful you are!" Others started gathering and praising her. Soon there was a crowd of people following her footsteps. Those in houses opened their windows and doors and invited her in. Truth was finally welcome in the city. This ties in well with the purpose of this forum (people thinking for themselves). Story is one of the main keys. Nobody likes to be ordered what to think, even if it is right, but especially if it is wrong. Each person needs to decide for himself. Story is the most effective manner to get into a person's thoughts during the choosing. A good story will not necessarily convince a person of anything, but it echoes unbidden in the person's mind whenever he ponders the problem it addresses. Story is a context that thrusts itself into a person's thinking as an alternative way of looking at something. Story is an influential handmaiden of volition. People have a choice about what they decide. But most of the time, they do not have a choice about remembering a story they heard when it is walking right alongside that choice. If you force a person to agree with you, say through intimidation or ridicule, he might say he agrees but he will not. If the person chooses to agree with you because of a story you told, you left the choice up to him. He will mull the issue over in the light of the story and come to his own conclusion. Thus, when he agrees, you will have no stronger advocate than him. Now look what Phil did. Instead of getting agreement from the very people he apparently wanted to "command to rise" (to use Rand's term), he pissed them off. Even should they agree with something he said, they will tend to close their minds to the message, simply because of his presentation. People call Phil a "schoolmarm"? Marm, maybe, but I don't see the school part. I say a good educator educates by getting through to the student. He tells stories and talks about the meaning of them. He guides a student to a choice. He doesn't ram ideas and agreement down where they are unwelcome. I want to tell another story, because this one is so appropriate to the present situation. I got it from an author named Annette Simmons, but it is my paraphrase. A person came upon a construction site. He walked up to a worker who was obviously toiling very hard and asked, "What are you doing?" The worker replied, "I am laying bricks." He went to another worker, one who looked busier, and asked the same thing. The other worker said, "I am building a wall." He saw a third worker whistling and apparently having a great time. He asked, "Why are you so happy?" This guy looked at him and smiled. He said, "Because I am building a cathedral." Taking this to Phil, I now ask him, which approach and vision do you think will make people change to suit your idea? Inviting them to build a cathedral with you or fussing at them for pissing on the bricks? You are an educator, Phil. So educate, if that is your heart's desire. May I suggest a good story once in a while? (After all, if it was good enough for Ayn Rand...) Michael
  49. 1 point
    My wife, who is an avid reader of detective stories, police procedure novels and such like, thinks that Child's series is the best she has read. I might even try reading the first of the series. Ba'al Chatzaf
  50. 1 point
    I have excerpted some paragraphs from the article below. If you want a real hoot, read the comments at the bottom of the article, but not with a full mouth. THE INNER WORLDS OF CONSPIRACY BELIEVERS Those who subscribe to 9/11 conspiracy beliefs are generally suspicious and inquisitive, a new study suggests. By Bruce Bower June 20th, 2009; Vol.175 #13 (p. 11) Shortly after terrorist attacks destroyed the World Trade Center and mangled the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, conspiracy theories blossomed about secret and malevolent government plots behind the tragic events. A report scheduled to appear in an upcoming Applied Cognitive Psychology offers a preliminary psychological profile of people who believe in 9/11 conspiracies. A team led by psychologist Viren Swami of the University of Westminster in London identified several traits associated with subscribing to 9/11 conspiracies, at least among British citizens. These characteristics consist of backing one or more conspiracy theories unrelated to 9/11, frequently talking about 9/11 conspiracy beliefs with likeminded friends and others, taking a cynical stance toward politics, mistrusting authority, endorsing democratic practices, feeling generally suspicious toward others and displaying an inquisitive, imaginative outlook. “Often, the proof offered as evidence for a conspiracy is not specific to one incident or issue, but is used to justify a general pattern of conspiracy ideas,” Swami says. His conclusion echoes a 1994 proposal by sociologist Ted Goertzel of Rutgers–Camden in New Jersey. After conducting random telephone interviews of 347 New Jersey residents, Goertzel proposed that each of a person’s convictions about secret plots serves as evidence for other conspiracy beliefs, bypassing any need for confirming evidence. Goertzel says the new study provides an intriguing but partial look at the inner workings of conspiracy thinking. Such convictions critically depend on what he calls “selective skepticism.” Conspiracy believers are highly doubtful about information from the government or other sources they consider suspect. But, without criticism, believers accept any source that supports their preconceived views, he says. “Arguments advanced by conspiracy theorists tell you more about the believer than about the event,” Goertzel says. Conspiracy thinkers share an optimistic conviction that they can find “the truth,” spread it to the masses and foster social change, Goldberg asserts. Over the past 50 years, researchers and observers of social dynamics have traced beliefs in conspiracy theories to feelings of powerlessness, attempts to bolster self-esteem and diminished faith in government. Much as Swami’s team suspected, beliefs in 9/11 conspiracy theories were stronger among individuals whose personalities combined suspicion and antagonism toward others with intellectual curiosity and an active imagination. A related, unpublished survey of more than 1,000 British adults found that 9/11 conspiracy believers not only often subscribed to a variety of well-known conspiracy theories, but also frequently agreed with an invented conspiracy. Christopher French of Goldsmiths, University of London, and Patrick Leman of Royal Holloway, University of London, both psychologists, asked volunteers about eight common conspiracy theories and one that researchers made up: “The government is using mobile phone technology to track everyone all the time.” The study, still unpublished, shows that conspiracy believers displayed a greater propensity than nonbelievers to jump to conclusions based on limited evidence. “It seems likely that conspiratorial beliefs serve a similar psychological function to superstitious, paranormal and, more controversially, religious beliefs, as they help some people to gain a sense of control over an unpredictable world,” French says.