Your news for the day....

Devin Nunes is sour because he can no longer milk his lawsuits over his fake cow (and fake mother) slaughtering him on Twitter after a judge put them out to pasture by releasing all defendants unbranded to live their lives unmolested out on the free range.

Twitter was released previously, and he has no idea who the cow or his mother are to sue them....not that he has any case to begin with, parody is protected from libel and slander laws. It's udderly ridiculous.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Lev Parnas, Devin Nunes, coconspirator, Derek Harvey, fox watching hen house' to 'Lev Parnas, Devin Nunes, coconspirator, Derek Harvey, fox watching hen house, Maddow' - edited by BSR

Let Devin Townsend do Garfunkle's lines.

If Devin Townsend isn't on this list representing Prog Metal, there's gonna be some head-bangin' trouble!

The entire thing is bias, not factual, or at best misleading because of intentional omission of fact. I can't say what fact is false if there's no fact. Opinion about perceived/alleged bias isn't factual.
A lie by omission is a lie. The whole thing is that kind of lie.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/feb/05/devin-nunes/nunes-memo-twists-james-comeys-words-steele-dossie/

The "unverified and salacious" (not wrong or debunked, mind you) part was personal accusations, you know, the golden showers with Russian hookers part, which was NOT used to get a warrant. He was clear that was not his opinion about the entire thing.

Yes, as I've told you at least twice now, I read it twice before commenting on it looking for anything in it and found nothing but biased whining. "Steele said bad things about Trump, so he's an untrustworthy liar" is hardly even an honest accusation, much less evidence he lied about anything, and farther from proof that this one piece in the puzzle of evidence against Trump's administration was key. One statement by one person taken out of context and misrepresented is not even an indication, much less proof that this was THE key bit of evidence, without which there was no case, but that's what this is all about. it was likely the most damning bit that tipped the scales from 'could just look bad' to 'this is something that needs investigation today'.
Recall, the continuing investigation already actually found criminal activity PROVEN, ADMITTED, AND CONVICTED.

As I've told you repeatedly, they (democrats , the fbi, and the DoD) tried to block it because 1) they wouldn't let the FBI screen it for secrets/classified information/pure lies and 2) republicans blocked (and continue to block) releasing the full story because it paints a completely different picture from the memo. Don't pretend to be so dumb you don't understand that.

Just keep saying bombshell, that will make it real...Jebus Christ.

I'm sure it is just the tip....of the ass fucking the Republicans are giving our democracy and system of checks and balances. What it's not is the tip of some insane conspiracy iceberg between liberals and top law enforcement.

Get your head out of your ass. No one is ever going after Obama or Clinton, as they committed no crimes, they've both been investigated with pure malice and bias for years and Republicans found nothing, this is just more nothing. It's almost funny you would even consider that, but it's actually sad you are that deluded you could keep thinking such nonsense after so many disappointments.

Really? A pure bias opinion piece from ' the hill' is your evidence? It was factless, logic free garbage that actually referenced Benghazi as one of Obama's prosecutable crimes, I'm dumber for having read it. You should feel shameful.

Clearly you don't recall that Obama's administration had zero convictions for misuse of power, zero indictments, how many has Trump's had already? 5? 6? 10? At least 4 high ranking members have been convicted or plead guilty already before year one or the first investigation is complete. Only Nixon's record was worse, and that only after he left office after Watergate.
Trump has by far the worst criminal conviction record for sitting administrations on record....by FAR!

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/11/1619079/-Comparing-Presidential-Administrations-by-Arrests-and-Convictions-A-Warning-for-Trump-Appointees

Devin Graham is the new Peter Pan? He's never going to grow up, and it's awesome. =D

Yeah, I thought that was a Vooray-Devin Supertramp video at first as well.

I thought Devin Michael was far more believable than Lloyd, even back when I saw this extra on the DVD.

>> ^Deano:

Hmmm. Surely this is more interesting as a talk? talks
He's a skilled musician but he takes an awful long time to do anything and then he doesn't totally blow you away.
Thing is, if I removed the recent UFO video which had, to be fair, some very impressive guitar work why should this stay in?
I'll remove for now but if you can convince me I'll put it back in - though that mean UFO getting in. And you know I don't like music sifts in Skillful


Yeah, don't worry about it. I'm just being a fanboy.

Devin is great. Been a fan for a few years now

>> ^Deano:

Hmmm. Surely this is more interesting as a talk? talks
He's a skilled musician but he takes an awful long time to do anything and then he doesn't totally blow you away.
Thing is, if I removed the recent UFO video which had, to be fair, some very impressive guitar work why should this stay in?
I'll remove for now but if you can convince me I'll put it back in - though that mean UFO getting in. And you know I don't like music sifts in Skillful


i skipped up and down that video and all I heard was " blah blah blah "

no worries.

Love this idea. I'll add something a little different...

You really ought to check out some Devin Townsend if you're into some really unique sounds.. The guy has an incredible range but dedicates his base music to "metal." Though the genre is closest to metal most of the time, he also has some really outside music as well with a recent example being the paired 2 disc project of deconstruction and ghost, 2 wildly different albums. One of my favorite projects by Townsend, however, is an album called Synchestra, which when played as intended is a seamless blend of an entire album. There are no gaps between most of the songs making it very easy to listen to the whole album. It's also got cameo artists like Steve Vai and Deborah Tyzio in some tracks.

On a side note I he's incredible live. Seen him twice, once headlining. Amazing. He talks to the crowd the entire time and got down in the crowd to play a few times. Wonderful energy, great personality and really intelligent.

I'll stick a few links from synchestra in here though it's better to go start to finish and enjoy the rollercoaster

All from Synchestra:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc2dsNQX4Tw - Triumph. Metal + banjo? why not...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XERqZRMG5Cg - vampolka. Directly precedes vampira, which can be found on the sift.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzewVfIX9_w - Gaia. awesome tune. A "sprinting" song for me when running..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ0T7_3YD6o - Pixillate, follows Gaia. awesome vocals once it gets going. goosebumps.

Actually there is a whole wikipedia entry on Matthew 5:17 and the contention around it, so to say that there is no debate and never has been is clearly false. A quick google search shows that there's actually quite a bit of debate about it within the christian community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:17

Also from wikipedia:

---------------
New Covenant Theology is an Evangelical position,but within evangelicalism there are divergent views on a number of topics. One of those topics is how the salvation history fits together, and the relationship of the covenants within salvation history.
Some logical deductions of New Covenant Theologians and advocates have been that since "the whole Old Covenant is obsolete", "none of the commands of the Mosaic Law are binding on believers today." Covenant Theologians, on the other hand, believe that at least portions of the Old Testament law is binding on Christians, though there is some variation on which parts and how they apply.

--------------

Sure looks like there is some debate going on to me. This is hardly the only issue that is under contention in the christian faith.




>> ^shinyblurry:

That is plainly false, there is no such contention or contridiction. There may be Christians out there who aren't sure, but within the church there is no debate about it, nor has there ever been. The bible itself clarifies the issue, because there were many jews who still wanted to keep the law of Moses. Read Galatians for an overview. The verse you quoted is exactly right..Jesus did not destroy the law, but rather fulfilled it..the ceremonial requirements are no longer necessary in the era of the New Covenant, as this was given to the jews for the time prior to the coming of the Messiah. Jesus fulfills those obligations of the law, so by following Him, we are justified. >> ^LiquidDrift:
Jesus actually said that he holds up mosaic law:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)
Apparently there is some contention among christians as to whether to follow mosaic law or not. This is one of the many problems with the bible. There is so much contradiction that man must interpret the nonsense that a bunch of other men wrote thousands of years ago. Given there is so much contradiction, you can end up with many disparate interpretations that end up being whatever the interpreter feels is the way to go. Therefore the bible is at best no better a guide than any philosophical text.
If we are going to follow religious text then how do we determine which one to follow? The Roman and Greek mythology was interesting. How about the Koran? Maybe I'll write down the devine law that the flying spaghetti monster gave me on golden tablets. There's a homeless guy down by the waterfront that says he's Jesus, maybe I should ask him. The Scientologists certainly have some fascinating ideas about morality, although it would cost us all an awful lot of money to find out exactly what they all are.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, that was just the mosaic law that was done away with. The New Testament gives a cohesive framework for how to live a moral life, and what actions are sinful. There isn't a list persay..it is spread out in the different books.

I just gave you a contradiction right there in the quote from Matthew. Asking me to go read Galatians just proves my point. Surly you aren't claiming that the rest of the bible contains no contradictions.

Which church by the way? There are hundreds of denominations, and any of them that denounce homosexuality are following mosaic law.

What about the 10 commandments? That tossed out too?

Why should we pay any attention to the bible vs. any other religious text?





>> ^shinyblurry:

That is plainly false, there is no such contention or contridiction. There may be Christians out there who aren't sure, but within the church there is no debate about it, nor has there ever been. The bible itself clarifies the issue, because there were many jews who still wanted to keep the law of Moses. Read Galatians for an overview.
>> ^LiquidDrift:
Jesus actually said that he holds up mosaic law:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)
Apparently there is some contention among christians as to whether to follow mosaic law or not. This is one of the many problems with the bible. There is so much contradiction that man must interpret the nonsense that a bunch of other men wrote thousands of years ago. Given there is so much contradiction, you can end up with many disparate interpretations that end up being whatever the interpreter feels is the way to go. Therefore the bible is at best no better a guide than any philosophical text.
If we are going to follow religious text then how do we determine which one to follow? The Roman and Greek mythology was interesting. How about the Koran? Maybe I'll write down the devine law that the flying spaghetti monster gave me on golden tablets. There's a homeless guy down by the waterfront that says he's Jesus, maybe I should ask him. The Scientologists certainly have some fascinating ideas about morality, although it would cost us all an awful lot of money to find out exactly what they all are.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, that was just the mosaic law that was done away with. The New Testament gives a cohesive framework for how to live a moral life, and what actions are sinful. There isn't a list persay..it is spread out in the different books.

That is plainly false, there is no such contention or contridiction. There may be Christians out there who aren't sure, but within the church there is no debate about it, nor has there ever been. The bible itself clarifies the issue, because there were many jews who still wanted to keep the law of Moses. Read Galatians for an overview. The verse you quoted is exactly right..Jesus did not destroy the law, but rather fulfilled it..the ceremonial requirements are no longer necessary in the era of the New Covenant, as this was given to the jews for the time prior to the coming of the Messiah. Jesus fulfills those obligations of the law, so by following Him, we are justified. >> ^LiquidDrift:
Jesus actually said that he holds up mosaic law:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)
Apparently there is some contention among christians as to whether to follow mosaic law or not. This is one of the many problems with the bible. There is so much contradiction that man must interpret the nonsense that a bunch of other men wrote thousands of years ago. Given there is so much contradiction, you can end up with many disparate interpretations that end up being whatever the interpreter feels is the way to go. Therefore the bible is at best no better a guide than any philosophical text.
If we are going to follow religious text then how do we determine which one to follow? The Roman and Greek mythology was interesting. How about the Koran? Maybe I'll write down the devine law that the flying spaghetti monster gave me on golden tablets. There's a homeless guy down by the waterfront that says he's Jesus, maybe I should ask him. The Scientologists certainly have some fascinating ideas about morality, although it would cost us all an awful lot of money to find out exactly what they all are.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, that was just the mosaic law that was done away with. The New Testament gives a cohesive framework for how to live a moral life, and what actions are sinful. There isn't a list persay..it is spread out in the different books.