Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 03/25/2019 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
    Well, I think you deserve a lot more than a pork chop. Just to let you know: I might not be able to be responding to anything further for a couple days. I have a dental operation scheduled for early tomorrow. Oh, such fun. Ellen
  3. 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.
  4. 2 points
    Jon, tks, tsk. You are a naughty child. Might be? You said, "Might Be?" So you don't know. But you are just fine saying things without any proof. How do you know Richard Branson? How do you Richard knew NXIVM? People lie all the time, and they can EVEN lie under oath or they can fool a lie detector. You lack credibility.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 2 points
    Sunny Lohmann hosts a podcast featuring Ed Powell and Ed Mazlish: youtube.com/watch?v=995Riq8JdUo
  8. 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.
  9. 2 points
    Ayn Rand would never agree to open immigration from today's context, which is war. --Brant
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 2 points
    President Trump Prime Minister Trump King Trump 2020 , and let’s get 2024 for Ivanka !!!!! God bless POTUS
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 2 points
    Her white nationalism is settled consensus.
  22. 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?
  23. 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
  24. 1 point
    Those statistics are reasonably sound. But what of the causes? There is a hypothesis which I moderately subscribe to , to wit, the mating customs of Ashkenazim in Europe put a high value on males who mastered the intricacies of the Babylonian Talmud and the very strict reasoning of the Scholars, Rabbis and Sages. These bright young fellows had their pick of the women in the villages and shtetils. The matchmakers (marriages were arranged to advantage the families of the women who paid a bride prices for a good husband) would often pair up the brilliant young Talmud-Bucher with the daughter of the richest man in the Shtetel. It turns out this was a breeding program to make intelligent children (although the mechanisms of human biological inheritance were unknown at this time). Now contrast this with how Catholics arranged things. The best and the brightest sons were encouraged to go into the Priesthood where their opportunities for biological mating were .... limited..... So the Catholics were taking half of the gene pool for intelligence out of circulation. There you have a crude and semi-plausible account for why the Ashkenazim were "so smart". Also for cultural reasons every Jewish male was encouraged to become as learned as he could in matters of Talmud and Torah. The logic of and about the Talmud (and logic there was) was a kind of hybrid between inferential logic and inductive logic. It was, at its root Bayesian reasoning. To become an accomplished Talmud scholar of repute required decades of study. Jews have traditionally put a high premium on "being smart" and practical! It is just the thing one needs to survive in a hostile or potentially hostile environment. So in a strange way, the anti-Semites promoted the breeding of super-smart Jews. One had to have one's wits firmly attached to survive in that environment. Breeding programs of other sorts have emerged in the Asiatic nations. China is renowned for turning out its share (and more than their share) of very smart people. Some thousands of years ago China was several light years ahead of Europe in both abstract thinking and practical engineering. China, which has dumped Lenin and Marx for good old practical reasons is in the process of reclaiming its eminent position in the world of ideas and technology. Japan has also done well and in the smaller Asiatic nations as wells as Japan and China the "tiger-moms" who push their son's unmercifully is a known phenomena. There is a shortage of women in the Asiatic nations (sons are preferred to daughters for cultural reasons) so the brightest and most ambitious males are more likely to "score" in the reproductive struggle and competition. And so it goes. A combination of genetics and culture, in some cases, is an effective breeding program for intelligence. Ba'al Chatzaf --- a descendant of Abraham, if not in the flesh, then certainly in the spirit.
  25. 1 point
    Just when I think he has "understood" the rules of civilized banter he proves me wrong, Jules. Though his last few forays in big game hunting have been better. At some point Michael may even think we will be laughing together, though still "Friars Club roasting" each other. Who knows? Now back to me being his father figure . . .
  26. 1 point
    “Grabs some popcorn.” hahaha?
  27. 1 point
  28. 1 point
    I agree Michael. One other point about being civil. A person may involuntarily cuss "in person" when that is normal group speak. You can't go back and edit "What the "F"" to your Army buddies. But when writing you can edit yourself before sending. To claim otherwise, is not logical. When I engage anyone in conversation online and it is not a personal message, I look at the "Activity" list for guidance. That is when I engage or not. If a person had no activity I would not engage. That is not stalking. On another list Azrael Rand wrote: Let me ask this question? If Ayn Rand were alive today and was able to keep up with the scientific discoveries of the day as well as current events do you believe she would have amended her philosophy to be consistent with its original premise based on the feedback given to her by reality or do you believe she would have stayed the course even up until today. I choose to believe in the former which is one of the reasons I believe in the concept of Open Objectivism. end quote What would Ayn Rand think of someone cussing, accusing, name calling, and being uncivil? I don't need to answer because it is obvious. Another line of thinking about that quote may be the subject of another thread. If she were still alive and writing, what would Rand change or expand upon? Peter
  29. 1 point
    Look at your sources man. RonSneaky? If you read it on the net or hear it on the telly, must it be true? Can you converse without getting emotional and worked up?
  30. 1 point
    And you know this from what source? Come on Jon. You are thinking things and those things become truths to you, and then you present them as obvious and call anyone who wants proof of your assertions an idiot or worse.
  31. 1 point
    This is more related to themes covered by various personalities in this thread (the story is in the context of Australia): Not everyone cares about climate change, but reproach won’t change their mind.
  32. 1 point
    YouTube lashed out, though. It will not suffer principle lightly. YouTube ends monetization of conservative commentator Steven Crowder's channel, several others after left-wing outrage Then some deeper intentions became clear--YouTube wants to ban--not just demonetize--people of certain thoughts on the platform: YouTube will remove thousands of videos supporting white supremacy, Nazis and conspiracy theories that deny the existence of mass shootings and other violent events (GOOG, GOOGL) And, of course, you can't make omelettes without breaking eggs. YouTube boots journalists seeking to expose white supremacists and extremism YouTube deletes award-winning history teacher's World War II videos in 'hate speech' purge Man are people pissed off--both sides. Everybody is yelling at everybody. But, as usual, there is always the real story behind the story. Youtube To Step Up Suppression Of Videos That Don’t Violate Any Rules, Promote News Outlets The deal is money from crony communications corporations that both advertise on YouTube and need audience. The ideology is a ruse to get at smaller news content creators with humongous audiences--the ones the crony communications corporations think they can get by cheating. Now why would they want to cheat, I wonder, I wonder? After all, they have the big budgets for their fake news. To answer that, we have to go back to Vox and see the real real story behind the story. This is why they tried to stir up controversy with a shitstorm at this moment. Some of the mainstream fake news outlets can't pay their bills anymore. YouTube wants to save them by killing their non-crony-corporate competition. When you look at the plot points of this unfolding story, you are seeing a Randian story play out right before your eyes. Add the philosophy, a Randian hero, and make the villains look a little more weaselier than they do on the surface (like Ellsworth Toohey, Orren Boyle, etc.) and you have a story worthy of Rand herself. Actually, the Vox dude, Carlos Maza, already looks and acts like a youngish Randian villain without any tweaking. Michael
  33. 1 point
    Brant, That's an interesting point. I could never see Rand agreeing with open borders during war time. That would be an invitation for enemy soldiers and sympathizers to walk right into the country without a fight. If the enemy uniforms would be a problem, they can change clothes once they are inside the US. I can't see Rand agreeing with this logically, practically or ideologically. But think about this. George Bush declared a "War on Terror" right after 9/11. On May 23, 2013, President Obama announced on that the Global War on Terror was over. That's a technicality. Still, I can't see Rand agreeing with allowing wholesale communist immigration to the US in an open borders policy. Ditto for Islamist. Taking the logical chain from there, you have to arrive at a conclusion that there is a reality-based need to set legal immigration standards if a country wants to survive as a country. Rand loved the US, so I doubt she would have agreed to its destruction by foreign governments using mass immigration as a weapon. I would love to call Brook stupid for his views, but he is not. In posture, he is an Objectivist, but, politically, I see him as a proponent of globalist values more than Objectivist ones. Michael
  34. 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
  35. 1 point
    Monsanto is getting its ass kicked so hard that they gotta clear their throat to fart. https://www.brighteon.com/603709449100
  36. 1 point
    One does not even need any math to resolve the paradox (explain the apparent contradiction). It was resolved at the beginning. It only takes a little thought and a discovery of the fallacious assumptions in the statement of the "contradiction." One can state things in mathematical terms afterwards, but that is not necessary. The thread is useful only in showing how screwed-up a mind can be, and still seem brilliant (and perhaps be such, in certain quite limited aspects).
  37. 1 point
    President Trump just weighed in on the recent bans of conservatives on social media, especially Facebook. (I wonder what Farrakhan thinks about being the Token Black among that group? ) Good. President Trump needs to kick their asses hard. In our neck of the woods, the immediate kneejerk is that these social media giants are private companies and the government has no business telling them how to run their businesses. However, ALL of the tech giants enjoy--and have enjoyed--massive injections of government money, both in exclusive contracts and outright subsidies. That means taxpayers fund these things, at least in a significant part. So it is unreasonable--and probably illegal in the hands of a good attorney--to ban people from platforms they themselves helped to fund--and still fund--on the basis of their ideologies and religions. If people in O-Land and l-land want to use the "private companies" argument, it would be a good idea if they talked about actual private companies, not elitist crony corporations actively setting up a government-protected cartel and busting their asses to influence elections through covertly manipulating their users and banning voices they disagree with politically. If they don't want the government involved, then they should not take government money in such massive amounts. The "private companies" principle really dilutes as a principle when it is used to defend elitist government cronies over the citizens who are forced to pay for them through taxes. Michael
  38. 1 point
    The belief that one cannot be Christian and objectivist presupposes: that all gods require human sacrifice; that Jesus Christ was merely human; that anything else "under the sun" is practically closer to God than the individual human being; and that 'faith' and 'reason' are antonyms. Even as Jewish faith is based on what specific people experienced: a deliverance from slavery in Egypt, the Christian faith is based on the witness of specific people who walked up close and personal with Jesus Christ both before and after his death from crucifixion. Even if how to interpret this experience was revealed to them, the interpretation made more sense than any other attempt to explain the phenomena.
  39. 1 point
    As long as I am doing the Trump tweet thing, here's one for Mitt-mouth. Michael
  40. 1 point
    Be still my heart .... Conspiracy Theorists Will Have a Field Day With a Redacted Mueller Report. History shows that skeptics seize on redacted information to fuel their theories. By Brendan Nyhan ... reading the article to this song from the Glory Days, Sylvester.
  41. 1 point
    William, The YouTube version is merely a repeat of the Periscope. I prefer YT because I have controls where I can speed it up. You can't do that live. Here's the video I saw. Michael
  42. 1 point
    NOTICE Starting tomorrow, April 8, 2019, OL will be down for a couple of days or so. Nothing to worry about. Backroom issue. Sorry for the inconvenience. Michael
  43. 1 point
    Everything You Need to Know About Cooking Octopus Photo: Kelsey Hansen; Food Styling: Rishon Hanners; Prop Styling: Audrey Davis Octopus may seem like the sort of thing you only order while out at a fancy restaurant, but the truth is, you can cook this impressive sea creature at home—and it will impress your dinner guests. GILLIE HOUSTON August 02, 2018 Though the pink-ish, eight-tentacled, suction cup-covered sea creature might look like something from outer space, octopus has become a favorite seafood dish of earthlings across the globe. And while ordering octopus from a restaurant is familiar territory for many, the idea of cooking the slick sea creature at home is far more intimidating. The good news is that preparing your own octopus at home is much easier than you thought, and once you’ve got the hang of it, the sky—or sea—is the limit. Whether you’re roasting, grilling, or pan frying, get ready to have a new favorite homemade seafood dish you’ll be serving to highly impressed friends and family every chance you get. Cooking dinner shouldn't be complicated Sign up for our daily newsletter, Well Done, for expert cooking tips and foolproof recipes from your favorite food brands. SIGN UP Buying Your Octopus Photo: Kelsey Hansen; Food Styling: Rishon Hanners; Prop Styling: Audrey Davis The first rule of buying octopus is: more is more. Because this soft-bodied animal will significantly reduce in size during the cooking process, it’s important to invest in about 1 pound of octopus per person if you’re planning to serve yours as a main course. Though you won’t find octopus in every supermarket, it’s a good idea to phone ahead to your go-to grocery store or fishmonger to ask if they can put in a request for the mollusk. If the only octopus you can find is frozen (this will more than likely be the case), don’t fret—the freezing process actually benefits the end quality of your octopus, as the meat will tenderize while thawing, leaving you with a fresher, more tender product to work with. Prepping Your Octopus Photo: Kelsey Hansen; Food Styling: Rishon Hanners; Prop Styling: Audrey Davis The most intimidating part of your octopus journey will be preparing the meat to be cooked. If cooking from frozen, thaw your octopus for at least 24 hours in the refrigerator, ensuring that the meat is totally defrosted before moving on. Make sure to note if the recipe calls for cooking your octopus whole or pre-sliced. If you’re cutting up the meat before cooking, use a sharp chef’s knife or kitchen shears to remove each tentacle from the body by cutting it off at the base while the octopus lies flat on the cutting board. Though the octopus head meat is flavorful, and can definitely be included, you’ll want to remove the beak and ink sac before cooking and serving. While many pre-frozen octopuses will already have these removed, if you’re buying your octopus fresh, ask the fishmonger or seller to clean the body before wrapping up the product. If this service is unavailable, slice the body and head of the octopus down the middle, exposing the innards, beak, and ink sac. Cut away the center portion of the head, including the beak, and remove the ink sac and any other unappetizing parts of the animal from the center of the body. Cooking Your Octopus Photo: Kelsey Hansen; Food Styling: Rishon Hanners; Prop Styling: Audrey Davis Grilling One of the most popular—not to mention, delicious—ways to prepare an octopus is to throw those tentacles on the grill, adding some flavorful smoke and char to the end product. But before you take it to the charcoals, it’s important to pre-cook your octopus (you can do this in the oven or on the stovetop), as adding it straight to the grill as-is will result in tough, dry meat. First, you’ll want to cook your octopus with either the roasting or boiling methods described below to make sure the meat is completely tenderized before adding it to the grill for some extra pizzazz. To keep things simple and delicious, coat the pre-cooked octopus in olive oil and dress with salt and pepper before adding it to a high-temperature grill. After about 4-5 minutes on a covered grill, flipping once during the cooking time, the octopus should be perfectly browned and ready to dress with fresh lemon, herbs, and a little more oil. If you’re ready to try something a little next-level, give our Grilled Octopus with Korean Barbecue Sauce and Baby Bok Choy Slaw a go. Roasting Though roasting an octopus to tender perfection takes some extra time and labor, in the end it will be well worth it to get the texture of your dreams. Simply prinkle the octopus with a little salt and place it on a foil-covered baking sheet before covering the meat with another layer of foil and crimping the edges to create a completely contained cooking environment. Place the octopus on a low rack of a 250 degree oven for up to 2 hours, occasionally checking on the meat’s texture by piercing it with a fork until its reached your preferred tenderness level. Let the octopus cool uncovered before serving. Photo: Kelsey Hansen; Food Styling: Rishon Hanners; Prop Styling: Audrey Davis Braising For another low and slow cooking method, that similarly doesn’t require a pre-cook on the octopus, you should definitely consider braising. This is a great (and approachable) technique for cooking octopus, as the initial sear seals moisture into the meat and then, the octopus tenderizes and soaks up flavor as it simmers in your cooking liquid. Give it a try with our Braised Octopus in Tomato Sauce.
  44. 1 point
    Today is the day after the day the United Kingdom was supposed to have left the European Union. The way forward is ... unclear. Brexit news latest: Theresa May faces calls for cross-party 'unity government' to end deadlock after deal rejected again -- from a story on the person who proposed a 'national unity government' ...
  45. 1 point
    I don't get drunk in company - or precisely "drunk," period. But once or twice a week I have two or three beers over the course of a few hours while pacing and thinking and listening to an overnight classical music program I like. My thoughts make phantasmic shapes somewhat like a dream tapestry but with more coherence. Where the "force" thing comes from, I don't know. I've had it since I was a young child. (And, yes, Michael, I do have a mothering thing, too, but not so strongly as some women. It tends to be more situational, activated in some circumstances.) Ellen
  46. 1 point
    I saw that Patton Oswald is still working in Hollywood and on TV. IF he freely admits to being a pedophile how is this possible? It makes me wonder if the "confession" was really him bragging or someone pretending to be him on the internet, which should be a prosecutable crime. Anyone who calls someone else a prosecutable crime like pedophile, and it is a lie, they should be sued for defamation of character. And what would Tony Soprano do? "Take me out to the ballgame. Hey Hun, where's my bat?" Perhaps Patten not speaking about this incident may be because he is trying not to glorify his accusers or give them airtime. If anyone has anything verifiable on the Oswald case, I would be interested. I hope OL's management makes sure no one is called something they are not, here on OL. Were those messages from Patton Oswald that were posted on OL, or were they made up? If Smollett loses his job with Fox for alleged crimes which are now NOT be prosecuted can he get his old job back . . . or can he sue Fox? So why did Jussie pay two immigrants to attack him? I saw copies of the checks and they were real. Was it for gay sex? Damned if I can figure it out now that Smollett, if not exonerated, is still crying about his innocence. Are the two African brothers ashamed of the "possible," "rough" sex acts? That's just a theory. Peter
  47. 1 point
    How long do you think it will take to forget the name of the judge overseeing this decision, I'm not even aware of the name now. Any bets that person retires in say two years, just to be safe, and lives remarkable well on a judge's pension (?) , or am I just too cynical.
  48. 1 point
    Just Jussie escaping justice ...
  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
    Hi Bradley, I can’t buy that one is a Christian who never turns to faith in contradiction of reason. I can’t buy that one is a Christian who never turns to mercy opposed to justice. I can’t buy that one is a Christian who pursues monetary riches for himself. I can’t buy that one is a Christian who never sacrifices his own judgment to a higher-than-human intelligence in the universe. I can’t buy that one is a Christian who in no way believes he and his loved ones will arise from the grave and live forever in happiness in the presence of Jesus Christ (the son of God and savior of the world) in the kingdom of God. A Christian can’t be any those five ways. An Objectivist must be all those ways, except the third is elective in degree. An Objectivist may elect to pursue monetary riches for herself, provided she understands the rightness of it. One cannot be a Christian and an Objectivist. Stephen