I'll point out a couple of significant differences in the way you characterise Joe's comment and what your Dear Leader said -
1. Biden made this statement in public and to their faces, and...
2. It was clearly said in a joking manner and meant to be in the spirit of camaraderie judging by the reaction he got from the troops.
Very different than the way Donnie snidely and backhandedly disrespected those who gave their lives many years ago and who still serve today. The fact that Mr. T could not be bothered to attend the memorial in France for these fallen heros because he was worried about mussing his ridiculous comb over (due to a misting rain) adds insult to injury.
So, technically, you are correct in ascribing Bidens quote, and probably not one of the smartest comments he has made, but you evidently can not understand, or don't want to admit, that the situations and context were totally different. Seems a little trollish to me, but that's just my take.
Btw OAN, really?

Thanks to BSR for having this posted. This is the sort of stuff that needs to get more airtime and eyeballs.

I think that pairs to the worst crime the left has been involved in related to the dumpster fire that is today. The entire notion of de-platforming or silencing 'offensive' speech, and that Universities have if anything been leading the way. Universities need to instead be having guys like the one here getting their views known more broadly, and then point out loudly what is considered bad and dangerous about them. More importantly, to also point out how closely it aligns with Trump and his rallying cries.

When the left could have been discrediting this filth, they have instead been accomplishing the opposite by actively rallying moderates to 'defend' the freedom of speech of these guys.

The passive majority has been watching for a long time as advocates on the left have used force and violence to disrupt speech they don't like. Now, cities are burning and despite it being for entirely other reasons, you have a lot of middle america only seeing the same angry mob of leftists at the same stuff again as before. Demand everyone do things their way or violence will be used. The worst/scariest thing to me is the Dems still seem confused by how people aren't flocking to them in the face of Trumps malice. They somehow can not fathom that there are an awful lot of right leaning people honestly worried that their only choice is between a Trump they loath in most everyway, but on the other side and angry mob of leftists willing to use violence on anyone that doesn't conform. If Trump wins the next election I'll be sickened, but also entirely unsurprised.

Oh Fuck @bobknight33....
Your guy here is attempting to talk shit about New Zealand because some people lost jobs, 229000, most of which are in tourism and will return, but America lost well over 40000000, a huge number of which are gone permanently.
New Zealand has had 22 deaths, America, which fudges the numbers worse than China, has a reported 170000 and screaming upwards, the true number is likely twice that.
As for civil rights, they're not the same as America, no one took their rights you morons.
And again, you incredible fuckwits, days after ENDING lockdown they were reinfected, the lockdown worked.
New Zealand has different laws, and while the prime minister can delay the election in New Zealand legally, Trump absolutely can not, no matter the circumstances. Also, it's abundantly clear New Zealand isn't postponing to benefit any one candidate , but Trump was.
It's also abundantly clear New Zealand will hold their election. If Trump had his way, most people agree 2018 would be the last presidential election of his lifetime, after which he would designate Jarred (because as a woman, Ivanka couldn't possibly do it) to inherit the throne.
Besides, Trump wants to postpone not due to Covid, which he says is already over, is safe, is just a cold, only infects Democrats, only kills people already on their death beds, and is a hoax scheduled to miraculously disappear November 4th, he wants to postpone due to polls....or can you admit all that bullshit about how safe it is to vote in person is just that, utter bullshit, and he should be trying to help make vote by mail work to ensure maximum possible numbers of safe votes are counted, but no, he's both trying to postpone and saying it's safe and doing everything possible to make vote by mail AND absentee voting (which are the same thing, exactly the same checks and regulations despite Trump's lies) unreliable if not impossible.
He seems to forget absentee ballots, the vote by mail he's trying to get Republicans to use, also use the USPS. You can't cast absentee ballots if you can't cast vote by mail ballots. The only difference between them is absentees must claim in person is a hardship, otherwise they're exactly the same with the same verification processes.

More *lies and bullshit propaganda. The desperation is growing. Just fucking ridiculously dumb.

Oh man I can not wait for season 2.

I keep watching the ending over and over to see if i can NOT laugh. I'm sorry but i'm 4 for 4 so far in laughing out loud. The whole thing seems cartoonish to me.

(edit) I however am very aware of the pain and suffering some of these men surely went through. I'm in my fifties and fairly fit, and my body seems to get injured at the slightest things these days. I can't imagine taking the kind of fall these guys did.

@newtboy,
"Actually, I'm selling their audience short. When real scientists present the real data dispassionately, I think the average person gets quickly confused and tunes out."

I'd argue bored maybe more often than confused. Although if we want to say that most of the problems society faces have their root causes in human nature, I think we can agree.

"I had read the published summaries of the recent U.N. report saying we had 12 years to be carbon neutral to stay below 1.5degree rise, they were far from clear that this was only a 50% chance of achieving that minimal temperature rise"

Here is where I see healthy skepticism distinguishing itself from covering eyes, ears and yelling not listening.

Our understanding of the global climate system is NOT sufficient to make that kind of high confidence claim about specific future outcomes. As you read past the head line and into the supporting papers you find that is the truth underneath. The final summary line you are citing sits atop multiple layers of assumptions and unspecified uncertainties that culminate in a very ephemeral 50% likelyhood disclaimer. It is stating that if all of the cumulative errors and unknowns all more or less don't matter. then we have models that suggest this liklyhood of an outcome...

This however sits atop the following challenges that scientists from different fields and specialities are focusing on improving.
1.Direct measurements of the global energy imbalance and corroboration with Ocean heat content. Currently, the uncertainties in our direct measurements are greater than the actual energy imbalance caused by the CO2 we've emitted. The CERES team measuring this has this plain as day in all their results.
2.Climate models can't get global energy to balance because the unknown or poorly modeled processes in them have a greater impact on the energy imbalance than human CO2. We literally hand tune the poorly known factors to just balance out the energy correctly, regardless of whether that models the given process better or not because the greater run of the model is worthless without a decent energy imbalance. This sits atop the unknowns regarding the actual measured imbalance to hope to simulate. 100% of the modelling teams that discuss their tuning processes again all agree on this.
3. Meta-analysis like you cited usually sit atop both the above, and attempt to rely on the models to get a given 2100 temperature profile, and then make their predictions off of that.

The theme here, is cumulative error and an underlying assumption of 'all other things being equal' for all the cumulative unknowns and errors. You can NOT just come in from all of that, present the absolute worst possible case scenario you can squeeze into and then declare that as the gold standard scientific results which must dictate policy...

Edit:that's very nearly the definition of cherry picking the results you want.

Read it, it said almost exactly that.

"The entire religion of Islam is simply the violent ideology of a sixth century despot masquerading as a religious leader, which justifies endless war against anyone who opposes it and calls for the murder of unbelievers and apostates.
The truth is Islam is not like any other faith. It is the religious equivalent of fascism, and just because the followers of this savage belief were not the killers in this instance does not make them blameless.....
....Those who follow a violent religion that calls on them to murder us can not be surprised when someone takes them at their word and responds in kind."



He clearly says ALL who follow Islam. He says they are all fanatics. His speech did not include the words homosexual, Jews, free speech, or woman, you added that in it's entirety.

The dumb lie that no one condemns the destructive parts of islam is ludicrous. People are lining up to shoot Muslims over these usually ignored parts of the Koran, not egg them. Christianity has all the same requirements to murder non believers and apostates, the same violent prescriptions against women's rights, Jews, Homosexuals, atheists, inpious people, nonchristian people living where they want to, etc. and has actively done so for centuries, and it creates plenty of viciously violent fanatical terrorists too, obviously. Why does he not attack them as well?.....hmmmm.....since these related religions share so much of their doctrine, what's different about the average worshipper....hmmmmmmm......just can't put my finger on it.

I heavily edited my comment because it came out much harsher in text.

Sounds like you've been thru a lot. I can only wish you well.

I used to suffer from nephrotic syndrome, I nearly died in my teens. I had ulcers opening up on my skin, my joints so swollen they would not bend. Daily blood tests etc. A plant based diet saved my life and as you can tell I can not stop telling people about it.

It seems to solve almost every western chronic disease. And even though the science backs it up clearly doctors and the public see it in the same category as homeopathy. I don't know what is keeping you so ill but I can tell with confidence that if you eat the ForksOverKnives.com way you will have more time at the very least. I can only encourage you to try it for a week or two and feel it for yourself.

@newtboy,

missed your reply, you need to check the video again as you clearly didn't watch what I'm watching.
You said:
"I disagree 100%. Sane people did this to stop the rapidly escalating anger between the kids and (disgusting) black Israelites before the kids attacked the Israelites, which seemed inevitable because no one was controlling the kids (or the small group of Black Israelites) and the kids were getting more and more rowdy."
At 1:09 the Black Israelites are making fun of the kids specifically because they are "keeping their distance". At 1:11 the kids are presumably standing/jumping doing one of their school chants, moving no closer to the black Israelites. At 1:12 after the chant, the kids all sit down. After the kids have been not only 'keeping their distance', but sitting down now for a minute is when Nathan Phillips comes in to 'de-escalate' things. You can not honestly paint that as looking like an 'inevitable attack' was coming from the kids. The reality is the kids were staying back, and sitting down while the Black Israelite adults continued trying unsuccessfully to escalate things.

You later said:
"and note smirk boy is not there, he gets into the stationary elders face later. "

If you look at 1:13, smirk boy is 3 rows back from the elder. If you watch till 1:14 you notice that the camera man isn't moving, but Phillips gets further and further away because is walking slowly into the crowd of students. The students don't so much surround him, they make way as he invades their personal space until they move until about 1:15. If you watch 1:15, the camera is the same place as it was back at 1:11, the kids are at the same distance from the camera and the same location on the stairs, but now you can't even see Phillips because he's so far into the group.

I gotta admit, I'm a little floored you can come away still seeing what you want to see...

Can not understate how big 7 - 11 is in Thailand and most other Asian countries.

*promote how crazy insanely strange this is. It truly has me flabbergasted. I can not for the life of me figure out what the possible angle is.

This I agree. ST is indisputably more science based than SW, and deservedly earned that respect. It's fun to argue whether warp drive can/can not exist and all that, but to just compare the different warp speed of different ships, across different classes is kind of pointless, as the numbers are arbitrary to begin with, no?

Say, if the video instead compares Mach speed between F-15/16/18/22 etc. and argue which fighter got the more advanced engines (accounting for weight/speed/aerodynamic profiles factors) then I see the point...

You can not ideally travel in USA with out an ID.
Walk to work
to the store
walk with your date to the movies

On paper the right to travel is good in reality you can not move about without a vehicle and hence you need a ID


Unless you vehicle is a horse

This made it all the way through production and aired. One can not knock the state of affairs today too much.

@newtboy,
without racial preferencing FOR white kids
I know for a fact though that in Canada any law, policy or practice that in any way, shape or form stated that has been abolished long ago. Any new ones would be destroyed in court immediately and without question. I've always understood the US to be the same, is that not correct? Is there anywhere in existence in US law, or policies that discrimination based upon race, outside of affirimative action, is ever allowed to exist?

I was convinced enough that the US was like Canada in this regard that back when Obama was president I had someone tell me about a Breitbart report claiming anti-white racism being dictated directly from the President's office. I barely bothered to look for evidence to disprove such a blatant lie from a known extremist propaganda rag. It's hard to express my shock/discouragement to hear that very same refrain, not from a right winger, but from the sources on the left adamant about the necessity of it...

I don't know how else to say this without repeating myself, but you can't achieve equality with racism. It is a situation where even if you are right, your still wrong. Putting actual race based discrimination into official party policy, and now apparently even into law is no longer something society is willing to tolerate. Doubly so when their children are the ones being discriminated against. The people will vote you out of office. You can kiss swing states goodbye. They will stack the Supreme Court against you to challenge and throw out the discriminatory law as unconstitutional.

You are fighting a battle you can not win. You are wrong to think that solving the problem of underfunded schools in bad socioeconomic regions is the harder nut to crack. Maintaining a law and systematic racism against whites to 'balance' the lack of opportunity is much harder, it's being dismantled already because people will not tolerate it. Demanding that university's open up XX spots for socioeconomically disadvantaged kids, regardless of race is already normal practice here in Canada and everyone can get on board. Doing it for race though, humans just don't work that way. The only times that's been successfully maintained is through force of numbers or military strength.