Strictlylogical

7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here is a guy who says it is now all roses and lollipops in China as compared to 5 years ago.

I would not bother with this and dismiss it as propaganda, except Darren Beatie (from Revolver) is anti-CCP in the extreme. He's always on Bannon's show. And Molson Hart is followed by some of the people I follow, not one of whom are CCP-puppet material.

Also, is what molson presents a Chinese version of a Potemkin village? I mean, the effects look real, but at the cost of what? What is missing from the picture?

Anyway, to be fair and use my identify correctly in order to judge correctly standard, I gotta look at this.

I am not sure of what to make of it yet.

I agree with moslon that in the last 5 years, America has decayed a lot. I am suspicious in the extreme of how much he says China has improved (implicitly meaning under the CCP). 

 

There is one thing that scares me.

Those who are into big tech and big government surveillance will hold this up as a model of why they should be in charge. Why they should be our masters.

 

Any thoughts out there?

As Darren said, this one is important.

 

btw - That muted bustling sound you hear is Ayn Rand rolling over in her grave.

 

Michael

I suspect that Darren judges this to be important not so much because of the "what" being said by Molson, but perhaps because of the mere fact that Molson is saying it... and what has lead up to Molson saying it (all the action or inaction of the CPP...) and the timing of Molson's saying it.  I note Darren seems to specifically choose to preface this only with one word and with no explanation... such is not accidental, he is asking us to guess "why", i.e. he prefers not to simply tell us, but wants us to put on our thinking caps.

Perhaps it is an outwardly appearing "improvement" manufactured carefully at huge costs, over many years, and is being permitted to be reported on by the likes of Molson (who is not in possession of all the information) to the west in order that it be seen superficially, and in order that the west's sees the fact that Molson is reporting on it.......  for particular purposes of the CCP.

Big Tech and BiG Govt need no preaching to... but the average citizen tempted by communism and socialism, as well as the swing voter not so sure about the "conspiracies".... they are susceptible to suggestion regarding reality... and in the end, suggestion to act or vote in certain ways.  Few people would get the same sense as I do from the video... the slaves have been brow beaten into obedience and orderliness...

I suspect the final conclusion is that the fact of this and its being reported are big propaganda to further erode the west.

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

S,

These are on my to-do list.

After reading almost everything Rand wrote, there is a little voice in the back of my mind that keeps wondering if the effort to read a book explaining what Rand meant ethics-wise will be a productive use of my time. I mean, Rand was clear from what I understood. I even adopted it as a worldview  Also, there is that academic thing I do not value--not at all--due to the tribalism and elitism and agenda-mongering in higher education. 

I'm not trying to be a snob. These things cause a subconscious resistance in me to reading her books.

But I will get to them. Hell, if I could go through parts of two of Binswanger's books (The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts, and How We Know: Epistemology on an Objectivist Foundation), her books should be a breeze.  

Incidentally, I am no fan of the Binswanger books. We can go into why later if you want. I do like the work he did on joining ITOE to the workshop, though.

 

Also, I have added so much more to my base in Rand, stuff from evolutionary biology--especially brain development, neuroscience, modern psychology, behavioral science, and story, I find books that derive their arguments from Rand as their starting point and presenting themselves as universal are limited for where I am going intellectually.

Once again, I'm not being a snob, you plebeian.

 

Michael

After having read Peikoff, some Brandon, Rand, and Binswanger... I was impressed with Smith's approach.  It is at once accurate and careful about what Rand said, but unapologetic in its independent examination and investigation of why and how (and in what way) what Rand said is valid, without simply parroting or paraphrasing her statements or appealing to her persona.  Smith's mind is a steel trap and her "ripostes" against criticisms of Rand's ethics are unmistakably and refreshingly successful.

Snob or plebeian, if you want to be selfish... for you... yeah... just get and read them books.

On 3/15/2024 at 12:37 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

S,

There are videos of Tara Smith around on the Internet.

I always found her a bit too rehearsed. Kind of like Toastmaster's trained and templated. Moments of forced enthusiasm that seemed like they had a timer on them and came with on-off switches.  

Her leading questions were very very leading if I remember correctly. I mean, it's OK to ask leading questions in a speech, then answer them, since this resets the audience's brain a bit with curiosity. But I remember some questions that were way too obvious for my taste at the time.

I'm not going to say quote me on that, though, because to be fair, I need to look and find examples. So let me also say my memory might be off. I don't think it is, but this needs verification.

 

In the stuff I saw, she was always super-prepared. And I appreciate that a lot.

Robert Campbell, when he was posting on OL, had a strong criticism of her he liked to chew on. If you want to use the search function, I am sure you will find something. I don't recall what it was, though.

 

I will probably check out Tara's new book when it comes out.

Michael

I have no real convictions about her speaking / presentation style or her abilities to extemporaneously tackle questions, I find her her written work quite exceptional in the O’ist arena and generally speaking.
 

Have you read any of her books Michael?

I highly recommend “Viable Values” and “Normative Ethics” the former for its accessibility and sense of life, the second for its logical rigour.

"Egoism Without Permission: The Moral Psychology of Ayn Rand's Ethics (Ayn Rand Society Philosophical Studies)"

This was news to me, so I decided to put it here.  I own most of her books, she is an incredible thinker and I am looking forward to getting this one as well.

13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Let's have a little fun with this goofy sorry excuse for a DA.

And let's remember, she and her lover are the people tasked by the Predator Class with putting a former US President in prison.

Let's also remember, their misbehavior was funded by taxpayers while they were doing their jobs of trying to put a former US President in prison.

All that is now in the court records.

LOLOLOL...

       

 

I bet they like big butts where she is going to end up.

 

Michael

Not in any court records but very funny.

1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

After all of the controversy in this thread, and in the different medias for that matter, this is probably the most important post of all.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Is this a joke?

10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Episode 72.

Calley Means against Ozempic (Big Pharma again...)

Drugs can cause addiction, but so can Big Pharma profits for insiders...

 

Michael

Effectively an addiction to…

addiction.

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

aaaaaand...

So who is assuming the worst, hmmmm?

 

 

I'm blunt, especially when it comes to evading reality. But that does not mean I am assuming the worst in someone as, say, meaning they have bad intentions. I think you are a good person with the best of intentions. It would be an honor to have you as a neighbor. I like you.

I still think you are avoiding reality while worrying about the rules.

Once the crisis is dealt with, we can go back to discussing the guy who cheated at chess while the Titanic was pounding against the iceberg.

But first we have to deal with the disaster and save as many people as possible.

 

Here are a few points where you and I differ on reality and the courts.

Of course that is not your point. That's my point.  

What you describe is the way it should be. Not the way it is.

And even then, making judgments based on precedence from other jurisdictions has poisoned the judicial system with reams of jurisprudence, often contradictory. If you want a law these days, just pick which one you want no matter what you want it for. You will find a law that favors your whim. And if you want jurisprudence about it, you have a banquet, nay, a humongous farm of contradictions to choose from.

If there is one thing I am looking forward to with artificial intelligence, it is what AI will do to that mess.

 

But to say "court cases are decided on the basis of" essentially reason, have you looked at the sheer number of political prisoners in the US right now? Are you aware of the differential enforcement of laws and sentences? Mild druggies serving life sentences? People protest this every day. Take a look at the prisons and see how many people are there that should not be, whereas people who burn down buildings, attack innocents as thugs, and so on walk the streets and are often let off with a slap on the wrist.

(And don't get me started on the war-mongers...)

This observation can be applied to all classes, races, whatever collective one wants to use as a standard. 

Nope, the court decisions in theory should be based on evidence, due process and the like. In practice, the system is not only flawed, it is hopelessly corrupt, entangled and bloated beyond it's capacity to function well.

The only reason it works in its flawed manner is that there is a plethora of opposing diversity of thought among judges, juries and law enforcement agents. If you ever have to go to trial and do not take this into account, that is if you do not seek out those who think rationally and try to get out of venues where the system is corrupted beyond repair, I say you run a much higher risk (much, much higher risk) of incarceration, being bankrupted, etc., than if you did otherwise.

(And if you are guilty and want to get off, do the opposite.  )

 

Then there is this.

What court in the US is higher than SCOTUS?

And should SCOTUS be exempt from reality as your words suggest--or so exempt from reality as to make that meaningless?

SCOTUS just shit all over itself. So where do you get an emergency injunction decreed against the smell? A "higher and higher" court? Where? There is no where else to go. Only SCOTUS can undo a SCOTUS ruling (as in Roe versus Wade). And, of course, Congress can make a new law that the President signs that makes certain SCOTUS decisions moot.

That's it.

 

And another:

Process is not antithetical to reality until it is.

I like to use observation, not just theory and words.

For a super-easy example among countless examples, I remember when the due and proper legal process said that a black man was three fifths of a man.

That's not any reality I can observe.

Granted, this got fixed over time. But tell that to all those people who died, who were injured, and who were incarcerated in the meanwhile. It took a civil war to stop that shit. Not a process adjustment.

 

Notice that the Declaration of Independence did not start with what the correct process should be. It started with identifying reality.

And it goes on to list instance after instance of reality, not process.

 

The good news is that we are not there, yet. We could get there, but I believe such a separation will not take effect anytime soon.

And this has nothing to do with process. This has to do with reality.

Don't think Biden and his crew would not crush his opponents with force if he could get away with it. Just look at the J6 political prisoners and all those large SWAT teams kicking in their doors at night to arrest them.

Then they keep these people--mostly selfie-takers with strong opinions--in prison without a trial for years on end.

How's that for process?  

 

But reality will trump process in the end. It always does.

Here's a reality Biden has to contend with. The federal government does not have the money to pay to fight 25 states on the border if it comes to that. It doesn't have the means. Biden might have the process, but he doesn't have the means. If he tries (and I believe he will), he will learn about this reality real quick. His backing down is going to be a hoot to watch. Printing money will take him only so far.

 

 

On another point, there is much I agree with you about. The importance of accuracy and so on. I just don't think putting the law above reality and calling that process gets us there.

Also, I wish the law worked as well as you present.

It doesn't. 

When thinking about how the law applies to reality, you have to use your brain. There is no way to turn it off and let process take over. You have to constantly identify reality (as correctly as you can) and evaluate it (as correctly as you can) and see how that fits to the processes you want to use as rules and social glue. Then adjust or not as your morality dictates.

A law that is not enforced is neither process nor reality. The US legal processes are full of those. They are certainly no guarantee that the system will survive attacks.

I'm reminded of John Adams's remark (I paraphrase) that the US system of government only works with moral people.

Michael

I wont put words in your mouth but I gather from you said you see the judicial system as quite flawed at the moment.

I have to assume also that you believe there is some credence to the idea of HAVING a judicial system as part of a proper government.

I must also assume given a conflict of powers, governments, perhaps even of different political stripes there must be a way to “resolve” the issues according to SOME process…

What do you have in mind? Should we jettison law because “lawfare” or do we reform the legal system for substantially the same reason?

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

S,

Another top-down ruler?

How many rulers do you want?

 

Balance of powers is not supposed to be smooth as it's primary reason for existence. Sometimes it's messy.

The purpose is to oppose tyranny and the abuse of power.

Adding another potential tyrant does not fix a clash.

 

Have you noticed that you are more comfortable talking about due process and which laws should apply and so on than you are of reality?

Where do millions and millions of illegal aliens flooding the southern border fit into your logic? Is that too much focus on "purported facts"? Notice that many of these illegal millions of aliens are young men of military age from countries hostile to the existence of the US. Russia. China. Iran...

I'm not trying to be personal, but I did put reality on the table. And it got shoved aside and ignored.

 

You will not find the following observation written into law, but here is a reality check. When a governing body is destroyed by conquest, none of its laws can be enforced. So does it matter which law of the defunct government is right or wrong?

How many times in history have we heard the following phrase right before a governing body got obliterated?

"It can't happen here."

Those are the people who ignored reality when it got dangerous.

Rights without enforcement are just words. The first bully who comes along proves that.

Michael

You have to stop assuming the worst in people.  Trust that of the many interpretations of possible meanings and origins, from proper, well reasoned, and rights respecting to rash, superficial, and tyrannical... that you are not dealing with the latter.

I will respond, in earnest... even if perhaps your response does not constitute fair trade for the good will on my part.

1. Not an additional tyrant... an expedited process, by the same usually sluggish court system.

2. Messy is not my point... courts cases are decided on the basis of evidence/facts and the law, and according to an evidentiary standard by the fact finder... beyond reasonable doubt, balance of probabilities etc.  An emergency injunction going higher into the court system asks for circumvention on less and less contact with reality by higher and higher courts.

3.  Process is precisely how reality is introduced and respected in a conflict between parties... whether litigants in a divorce case, accused and prosecutor, or two government bodies.  Process is not antithetical to reality... it is how ensure the application of law respects it.

4.  Illegal aliens do not fit into logic they simply are.  I have not denied them.  Purported facts on which the cases are decided are more about who has power to do what and when... where is the wire... why do they want to cut it... where do they want to go and to do what..l do not have a sufficient view to definitively decide what should be done.. and neither would an appeal court without enough evidence on the record.

NOW A:  The governor SAYS or declares X, Texas SAYS X... BIDEN SAYS Y.... his executive/departments SAY Y... what principles do we apply if we do not have all the facts?... i.e. the sides have not duked in out in a court case in which they have adduced evidence, testimony, etc.

LATER? B:  Newsom SAYS or declares G, California SAYS G,... Trump says B... his executive SAY B....   Trump may ask for an injunction to stop Newsom doing something...
how much do we want to open ourselves to improper re-application of the standards, way things were decided above??

The principle of look into into reality IS ... getting and weighing evidence... which is what a lower court does.  Getting to Reality IS the principle which governs such emergency standards... and I cannot be wholly critical of SCOTUS. 

There is a process for getting that reality into the system... if anything we need to streamline it... but not at the expense of accuracy.
  

56 minutes ago, Marc said:

we are headed towards some sort of a civil war, then martial law, then no election or some rigged election.

This kind of escalation is what the left wants… its the excuse they would love to use to prevent the election of Trump from even happening in the first place

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

S,

You might try the establishment argument.

 

Michael

I think we have a situation where perhaps it is no so clear cut… the law is relatively clear but the facts to which the laws are applicable are not necessarily clear.

sometimes we can focus too much on purported facts… of which often we are not in full possession … and in today’s age are subject to much bias and twisting due to ideological and political forces… as well as pure corruption and lust for power.

Due process and the rule of law help to ensure actual facts, through evidentiary proceedings and careful weighing of facts lower court proceedings can provide… provide the basis for action in accordance with the proper application pf the law in the context … which is justice (assuming good law).

Declarations of emergency can come in multiple stripes… from various persons and on varying levels of factual basis… and clashes of powers can come in many forms and in various directions also stemming from different apprehension of the factual circumstances.

Here two governments are doing things and doing them for reasons (perhaps both factual and ideological) which conflict… whether in the form of asking for injunctions or declarations of emergency, there is risk here that one side is wrong and taking steps quickly without knowing which side it is before the facts are fully known is likely more risky than getting to the facts as quickly as reasonably possible to resolve the issue. 

I am loath to criticize a decision which effectively says a proper court proceeding with evidence etc is required, because of the dangers of acting too swiftly… out of fear?  Again think of other possibilities … with the shoe on the other foot… declarations of emergency powers due to the next pandemic, cyber attack… threat of war… threat to democracy?… “climate crises”

There should be a sort of “emergency expedited court of first instance” process which would serve both the need for speed and the need for getting things right, but in a conflict of governments like this we need to get it right… even if it takes a little longer.

40 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Lots of people are commenting that SCOTUS did not order Texas to do anything with the razor wire ruling.

They permitted the Biden junta to do something.

I disagree.

They are demanding Texas to allow the federal government (controlled by the Biden junta for now) to destroy Texas State property as the law of the land.

Flawed thinking like this from the freedom side will never get us there.

Michael

Do you know of any nice deep-dive summary online of the actual legal issues decided and why they were decided as they were?

If it is the legal issue of State vs. Federal Powers
we have to remember one day a Democrat/Leftist State and a fully Republican Federal Executive Government and WH may come to some BIG disagreement about the border.

The same legal issues of Powers may come up again....

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I feel like writing something about the world, but the world sucks right now.

So I can write that. 

The world sucks right now.

 

I gotta come back later when something happens worth talking about, or I get inspired.

 

Michael

I cannot recall the author but perhaps it was Thomas Paine … who said something to the effect that we should not confuse government with society … one for keeping our vices in check the other consisting of the goodwill extended in civility between people… 

“SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.” Thomas Paine in Common Sense

so too, you have identified certain currents, systems, and forces, controlled by a tiny minority and at work in the world, with the world itself… this is a misidentification.

Thank you!  I will look into that!

Hello:

@Michael Stuart Kelly

If there were an easy way I would send this to you for Christmas from eBay so instead (not sure how to share a link that would actually work) here is the info:

John C. Wright THE GOLDEN AGE TRILOGY 1st SFBC Ed. 2004 The Golden Oecumene

sold by darkstarbooks (100% positive) 

ships from Yellow Springs, Ohio, United States $35 or best offer 

eBay item number:305097285005 18Kitems sold joined Feb 1998

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Episode 51.

UFO whistleblower Dave Grusch.

 

Michael

I'm sorry but UFO stuff smells too much of psyops fear manipulation for me to believe that the leaks and whisperings do NOT somehow serve those who mean to rule us all.

I think these are actual false flags meant to entrap folks like Tucker in order to discredit them. 

OK

I think some things happened since the last post...

But before we delve into it too much... I wanna say "I'm not suicidal."

18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This is going to be weird, but Taylor Swift is making it into this discussion.

And what's more, it all makes sense with gnosticism (or the dialectic) and today's world .

 

I need to write this up, but I don't want to lose the article in the memory hole of lost links, so here is the article.

The dark truth about Taylor Swift - UnHerd

UNHERD.COM

---

Too many young women yearn for annihilation

Stellar, deep and profound thoughts to follow later.

 

Michael

I had a read through... interesting.

I do note, however, that at the time of the troubadours, Shakespeare, the crusades, in any of the medieval and ancient eras, people routinely accepted and were thoroughly immersed in the idea of living and dying for God(s), living and dying for the King or Emperor, living and dying for the glory of a Nation, State, City, or People, and living and dying for social Duty. 

The idea of the "doomed" love she presents is too focused on the "doom" and not on the "love" particularly when looking at it from a historical perspective of her examples.  Romeo and Juliet, songs by the Troubadours, and stories like Tristan and Isolde, are decidedly individual in accent which is immensely counter culture for the times... to raise above Duty, State, King and God something as individual as the personal experience of Love... this is a grand turning point and one of the early steps towards the idea that in order to say "I love" anything of high enough value to live for or risk dying for ... first you must must be able to say the "I"... this is in a very real sense embracing a self affirmation which is the opposite of self-destruction.

As for modern day, I agree there is a darkness and a self-destructive tendency in modern pop music and culture, but it comes not from the romantic ideal of personal love which the troubadours sang so wonderfully about.

MAGA folks must embrace RFK, not as one to elect, but as a darling presence for the election outcome.

MAGA folks and the far-right MUST be incredibly vocal about how GOOD it is that RFK is running, about how he sheds light on some truths while also splitting the vote of the left... they MUST state they LOVE the fact that he is in the mix BECAUSE it HELPS Trump.

Why?

Because he is a thorn in the side of the Predator Class, because he is also (like Trump) standing in the way ... between Them and You... and because if They could cause him to "go away" and somehow blame the far-right extremists...  i.e. set him up as a martyr for the left while simultaneously blaming and putting a stain on MAGA folks and the right... they absolutely would. 
 

So MAGA folks MUST loudly and clearly cry out for all to hear undoubtedly that they LOVE the fact that RFK is running in the 2024 election... laying any plausible explanation for any misfortune clearly at the feet of the left and the predator class.

Plus, I kinda like the guy.

I think MAGA folk can literally save his life, win the election, and secure the future of America by being vocal about this.

On 11/19/2023 at 12:48 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This is a pretty good thread for that following item.

After all these years...

The part I find disturbing is not the perverts involved in abusing children in the Pizzagate scandal, although they are monsters.

It's the sheer amount of people defending the perverts without knowing anything about them.

And I don't believe the majority of them are perverts, so why? To feel superior to others?

You look and you wonder. Why are so many people are so passionate about defending evil and so gleeful about "debunking" those who try to expose it?...

Michael

Paradoxically (almost), although the leftist leaning predator class are helplessly hypocritical, haplessly self-contradictory, and intellectually bankrupt, they cannot escape the consistency of identity.

They ARE chronic abusers and true believers in tribalistic collective identity (observe their racism and sexism and groupism in general), which implies guilt (or innocence) by association with the group or tribe. 

This belief system justifies (and is further reinforced by) the deployment of guilt by association attacks, which we see from them all the time.  Individuals are not guilty because of anything they specifically do, e.g. that entire "right-wing" group is guilty... all of them... (it's like a grotesque two for one sale... why get one guilty person when you can impune an entire class of people?).  Equally no single person is innocent... every member of their group or tribe of choice is innocent.

This world view cannot brook a bad apple in their ranks, not only because it is distasteful to them, but because of the entrenched consistency of their flawed thinking: guilt or innocence by tribal membership... blanking out and denying individual responsibility and culpability as such... This consistency of blindness will not allow them to see, or pick from amongst their prized group or tribe of so-called "progressives", those particular individuals which are evil... they simply cannot and do not exist for them.

I have the answer:

Refer to radical leftists by the first syllable of that person's first name.

Refer to everyone else, specifically or generally as he or she.

Clarify that you never misgender anyone, and if you make a mistake, you have only "mis-politic" ed them.

24 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

S,

I'm with you, except don't forget that language changes with use. Evolution. I'm sure there were irritations of this sort back when people spoke Old English. But where are they now that nobody knows how to speak it? (Hell, I don't even know what they called Old English back then.  )

On a pet peeve of mine, I hope usage one day will smooth over the "there, their, and they're" barbarities.

Wanna know how?

With the word "thar."

It can mean all three.

Observe how clean it is in the following example: "Jeb and Sue? Thar over thar yonder with thar hog."

 

 

Whether that thar is an improvement evolution-wise, I'll let you decide.

 

Michael

Were the language to develop in order to include further nuance, subtlety, specificity, or complexity in order to keep up with an ever growing level of intelligence, conscientiousness, civility, artistry, sophistry, and poetry in the population at large, I for one would not hinder it, no matter how much I myself tend to cling to our crass, superficial, trend riddled, slovenly, and moronic Traditional English.

Here’s to the imminent bold new progress of our dear spoken and written word!  Hear hear!!

Three things "kids" say and write today irk me greatly although "acceptable" in modern times.

1.  Forgetting the serial comma in a list.  "A, B, C, and D" is correct,   "A, B, C and D" ain't, unless you mean "C and D" is the last thing in the list, in which case A, B, and C and D, is correct.  (as in tuna, chicken salad, and PB and jam)

2.  Using the phrases "different to" and "different than" rather than the correct phrase "different from".

3.  Forgetting to use the possessive form in a gerund, in:  "Your taking the initiative has proven very useful." as opposed to the incorrect "You taking the initiative has proven very useful.".   

This last earsore is rampant throughout mainstream and pop culture...

ugh.

6 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Rapinoe Sendoff

It looks like the woke weird Megan Rapinoe is gone as a current soccer star for good.

Megan Rapinoe's Career Ends After Suffering Non-Contact Injury Three Minutes Into Final Game

WWW.BREITBART.COM

---

Megan Rapinoe went down with an injury just three minutes into her final National Women's Soccer League (NWSL) game on Saturday night.

She tore her own Achilles heel on the field all by her lonesome. Not another player in sight.

 

She says this is proof God does not exist.

Gwinn: WATCH -- Megan Rapinoe After Injury in Final Game: 'If There Is a God, This Is Proof There Isn't'

WWW.BREITBART.COM

---

Megan Rapinoe questioned the existence of God after suffering an apparent Achilles injury minutes into her final professional soccer game.

Many people say it is proof that God does exist.

Hmmmmm...

 

Michael

IF she were a philosopher, she weren't no philosopher. 

Not sure if this qualifies:

Far from Good.

But Good from Far.