You sure are. Look at the idiotic nonsense you believe.

This information is directly from the DOJ, not your bogey man THE MEDIA.

Yeah…I’ve seen Fox crying about Biden saying you’re fascists, moaning that he’s dividing us….but how quickly you forget your own slogan….”FUCK YOUR FEELINGS SNOWFLAKES!” If MAGA tears are flowing, we are on the right path. 22+ years of divisive politics from the right calling Democrats everything in the book including pedophile vampires, but calling fascism fascism is going too far. Eat a bag of baby dicks.

Those committing espionage against the United States are the real enemies of the American people, the same people who tried to overthrow the Democratic government.

Several have ended in nothing because the DOJ and AG were acting as Trump’s personal lawyers defending him from government charges instead of how it’s supposed to work where they levie the charges, these are court findings not opinion. Barr was a cover up guy, not the US AG. This is different because he no longer controls the federal prosecutors…and because of the undeniable nature of the multiple serious crimes. Just having the files is a felony he committed hundreds of times, keeping them unsafe is also a felony, lying about having them another felony…he did all 3 hundreds of times over.

Sorry, the DOJ releases are’t spin, they are facts…and facts are he illegally stole dozens/hundreds of top secret documents and kept them unsecured and lied about it repeatedly.

You’re the one squirming in a puddle, buddy.

Yeah, just wait until every scintilla of evidence has been proven in court, like you always do, right? 🤦‍♂️ remember Clinton? You couldn’t keep from pooping your diaper over her for years….over .01% the crimes already proven here…so little it wasn’t criminal, just negligent. This is criminal, intentional, intentionally hidden and lied about under penalty of perjury, and likely shared with hostile foreign powers already with potentially deadly consequences….so suddenly to your ilk national security at the highest level is partisan, only cared about by liberals and only then to hurt Marmalade Mussolini.

So far everything I’ve reported about this treason by the disgraced ex president has turned out to be correct, while every nonsense excuse you give is just that, nonsense.

Lol…EVERY election fraud scheme, and there were many, was a Republican scheme perpetrated by Republicans to get more votes for Trump. EVERY SINGLE ONE little boy. Election fraud was done by Trump and the Trumpists over and over and over and over…..voting multiple times, all Trumpists…trying to invalidate millions of valid votes, Trump… The election fraud fraud was also PURE Trump….idiot. That’s the big fraud among multiple small frauds….then the coup, Trump. Such insane delusion…only a true moron could be so gullible. YOU CANNOT POINT TO ONE ACTUAL DEMOCRATIC ELECTION FRAUD CASE only nonsense lies Fox fed you, I’ve shown you dozens of actual, prosecuted Republican frauds. (Being told by election officials you qualify to vote when you don’t, then registering to vote does not count btw)

A few of those didn't actually ring a bell in terms of having heard them before, and I knew the names of a few that I had heard:

(spoilers, I guess?)
1. I instantly knew that was the William Tell Overture, I would think a lot of people know that one?

2. Know the song, but didn't know the title without seeing it. But I'm sure that I've heard the title (Entry of the Gladiators) before.

3. Didn't know the song (or the title -- Liechtensteiner Polka).

4. Know the song, knew it was Strauss, didn't know it was "Fruhlingsstimmen". Gesundheit. As an aside, the stare plus the eyebrow action in this one is hilariously well-suited to the song.

5. Knew a variant of the song, didn't know it was "The British Grenadiers". Pretty sure I first heard this one as music in the old-school NES game "Pirates" by Sid Meier.

6. Knew the song, knew it was Chopin's "Piano Sonata No. 2 Op. 35", also know that it is commonly referred to as "Marche Funebre" (although that title can be applied to other songs also). Dude also gets a lot of mileage out of the creepy stare at the camera on this one.

7. Don't think I've ever heard this one, didn't know the title (A Dog's Life).

8. Knew the song, knew it was by Strauss, didn't know the title (An Der Scthonen Blauen Donau).

9. Knew the song, knew it was the "Chicken Dance". I'd think that anyone that's ever been to a wedding pretty much has to know this one -- but maybe that's just a midwest US thing?

10. Eventually recognized the song, but not until he got a bit into it. Didn't know the title (Colonel Bogey March). Still think it should 'properly' be titled "Lisa, her teeth are big and green. Lisa, she smells like gasoline."

One of the great intellectual catastrophes of the modern world, and probably the harbinger of the ultimate doom of our civilisation, is the collapse in the distinction between 'compare to' and 'equate with'. We can reasonably compare almost anything to almost anything else, and how unfortunate that we can expect immediately to be confronted by some aggrieved outrage-peddler who imagines they have a right to find the comparison insulting.

It is a literal fact that any group of two or more people, or living things, or indeed most objects of any kind, will possess some internal differences. As a matter of certain truth, not subject to doubt, muslims share with rats and serial killers the trait that they evince diversity of behaviour and belief. This demonstrates the total banality of the 'but they're all different' argument. It's not for their differences that these groups are disliked.

That's probably enough of a lesson for one day, and certainly @oritteropo ought to know better. I don't want to take the trouble to argue deranged claims like 'there are muslims who don't believe in god', or tiresome diversions on how christians and other jews can be just as bad, or to debate the relative merits of various religiously mandated dress codes; but you are right about one thing @SDGundamX: I would much prefer that islamic violence and oppression were a harmless and overblown bogey, but ethics is not a children's game - these are real people, with real victims, and too many of both.

I actually think we're pretty much of the same opinion on virtually all of this.

To be honest i really thought the Russians in this bit were ancillary at best. Sure they make great bogey men but, the point in my eyes is just how easily a candidate for president could be manipulated.

you have people living in artificial environments that use tons of power because they want to, because they like it, not because they REQUIRE it. native americans lived in southwest USA for a thousand years just fine without the need of AC or diverting rivers.

go read up on the absurd agricultural subsidies tied to the colorado river- that isnt a problem created because farmers need to produce food to feed the world, its a problem created because politicians want money making businesses to tax, and because people are willing to spend money to eat what they like instead of what there is, a lot of money is made.

same with trawling- nothing to do with feeding all those people, everything to do with money. trawling has been going on for over a hundred years, well before the world population was even a 3rd of what it is currently- fishermen trawl because they want to be efficient because that makes them more money, not because they are concerned about how they are going to feed undernourished people.

the problem isnt getting people to eat insects. the problem is getting the developed world to stop eating so much, especially so much meat. there is an obesity epidemic around the world, over 3000 tons of food are discarded every day, and you want to tell me the problem is not enough food?

and lets not be disingenuous about nuclear waste, nuclear technology was invented as a weapon, not an energy source. you're telling me that if tomorrow a terrible plague wiped out 90% of the earths population, that nuclear armed states would give up their nuclear weapons? bs.

the video is on point. the environmental crisis is caused by greed, not because there are too many people on the planet. and if you feel so strongly that there are too many people on the planet, I assume you are relieved when your family members die? Unless you are willing to volunteer yourself and your family to die for the greater good, overpopulation is a facile bogey man to mask what you really want to say- lets get rid of all those "other" people so *I* dont have to change my own lifestyle.

Classic example of "gods love."

Knock, knock!
"Who's there?"
"God, let me in."
"Why, What do you want?"
"I've come to save you."
"Save me from what?"
"From what I'll do to you if you don't let me in."

In the 21st century no sane, rational, non-brainwashed, free thinking intelligent human, could believe in the vainglorious, megalomaniacal, vindictive "god" presented by ANY religion. But, of course, the religious are none of these things. They are like children, frightened of the bogey man, who believe that if they worship, bow and prostrate themselves, they will live forever in an eternity of, well, er, worship. Jeez, what a sad bunch. The frightening thing, is that these "believers" are intent on dragging us all down with them.

It's not that there is a 'war' on... it's that there are a bunch of non-scientists walking around saying they're 'creation scientists'.

Many creation scientists have advanced degrees and have published many papers. Why aren't they scientists? What makes a scientist a scientist?

You're absolutely correct, there is no research being done on 'young Universe'... but there is also no science being done to prove 'old Universe'. Science is done by taking small bits of knowledge that have little gaps, and filling those gaps in. We didn't figure out the half-life of Rubidium in order to prove the age of the earth, we figured out the half-life of Rubidium to figure out the half-life of Rubidium. Some other scientists had taken measurements of the natural occurrence of elements and their isotopes in various parts of the world. And then more scientists apply the knowledge acquired in both fields and try to find out what it tells us.

There was a very concerted effort, especially during the 19th and 20th centuries to come up with evidence for an old age of the Earth to support the ideas of uniformitarian geology and macro evolution. There was an ideological war going on, just as there is today, between those secular scientists who wanted to establish their own secular idea of origins to undercut the account of biblical creation. Up until that point, all geologists were flood geologists. Now a days, you're right, they are resting on their laurels, because as I said it has become conventional wisdom, which is not science but philosophy.

I agree, you absolutely should question scientists with an agenda, but I've NEVER heard a non-christian suggest that there is scientific evidence for the earth being younger than 4-5 billion years old.

I grew up in a secular home with a great love for science, and I very activiely pursued studies in astronomy and biology. In all of my studies, I never heard so much as a peep about the controversy. There is an information filter on this subject, and it had kept me in the dark about the whole thing most of my life.

You want to cast doubt on scientists by saying that there are millions of dollars and reputations on the line, but this reasoning is more destructive if you aim it at the young-earthers: Their religion has made explicit claims as to time-spans that occurred 'in the beginning'... their religious leaders have made explicit claims as to the literalness of the Bible. And most church leaders have been explicit that other denominations of Christians may not be allowed into heaven... So you have a large group of individuals who are not only risking their reputation, but what they believe is their eternal soul, on something that they didn't discover, but have worked backward to find evidence to prove that their book is correct.

None of this has anything to do with the question of salvation. The conflict you're seeing is coming from a liberal movement within the church which tends to embrace secular values and rejects traditional interpretation of scripture. As numbers go, it is a small amount of people. As a recent survey shows, the majority of Americans (ie 46 percent) believe in creationism:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

These views get overreprented in the media by liberals sympathic to their causes. It gets presented in such a way that it looks like it is the majority view when it is actually the minority view.

As far as what Creation scientists have to lose..not much. They already lost much of what they had to lose by becoming a creation scientist in the first place.

Young-earthers each, individually, have much more to lose than scientists. And let's be clear... religions have enough money to staff up scientific R&D labs and fund their own research if they wanted. In fact, the Vatican DOES have it's own, world-renowned observatory. So, how old does this Priest thing the Universe is?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OwWqrXGtrRs#!

I don't agree with the catholic church on practically anything, let alone this.

So, to be clear, it's not Scientists vs. Christians. It's Scientists AND Christians vs. People Who Don't Trust Science.

It's actually the wisdom of God versus the wisdom of man.

And I expect this. Christians have long fought against persecution, and it thrived while it was being persecuted. Now that it's the dominant religion, many of the teachings have lost their luster. Members who believe that the Bible has something personal to say to them will pick up on the persecution aspect, which was intended to help those in the year 200AD... not 2012. So they make up bogey-men and pick a fight with anyone who says something that isn't explicitly allowed in the Bible (and is convenient for them)... hence the anti-Gay-Marriage protests, but no anti-shellfish protests.

Over 200 thousand Christians are martyred every year for their faith, all over the world.

You're a product of your environment, shinyblurry... you're as predictable as Islam producing suicide bombers... and just as pathetic in your misunderstanding of the Universe.

All I'll say to this is that ad hominem attacks reveal more about your character than they do mine.

It's not that there is a 'war' on... it's that there are a bunch of non-scientists walking around saying they're 'creation scientists'.

You're absolutely correct, there is no research being done on 'young Universe'... but there is also no science being done to prove 'old Universe'. Science is done by taking small bits of knowledge that have little gaps, and filling those gaps in. We didn't figure out the half-life of Rubidium in order to prove the age of the earth, we figured out the half-life of Rubidium to figure out the half-life of Rubidium. Some other scientists had taken measurements of the natural occurrence of elements and their isotopes in various parts of the world. And then more scientists apply the knowledge acquired in both fields and try to find out what it tells us.

I agree, you absolutely should question scientists with an agenda, but I've NEVER heard a non-christian suggest that there is scientific evidence for the earth being younger than 4-5 billion years old. You want to cast doubt on scientists by saying that there are millions of dollars and reputations on the line, but this reasoning is more destructive if you aim it at the young-earthers: Their religion has made explicit claims as to time-spans that occurred 'in the beginning'... their religious leaders have made explicit claims as to the literalness of the Bible. And most church leaders have been explicit that other denominations of Christians may not be allowed into heaven... So you have a large group of individuals who are not only risking their reputation, but what they believe is their eternal soul, on something that they didn't discover, but have worked backward to find evidence to prove that their book is correct.

Young-earthers each, individually, have much more to lose than scientists. And let's be clear... religions have enough money to staff up scientific R&D labs and fund their own research if they wanted. In fact, the Vatican DOES have it's own, world-renowned observatory. So, how old does this Priest thing the Universe is?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OwWqrXGtrRs#!


So, to be clear, it's not Scientists vs. Christians. It's Scientists AND Christians vs. People Who Don't Trust Science.

And I expect this. Christians have long fought against persecution, and it thrived while it was being persecuted. Now that it's the dominant religion, many of the teachings have lost their luster. Members who believe that the Bible has something personal to say to them will pick up on the persecution aspect, which was intended to help those in the year 200AD... not 2012. So they make up bogey-men and pick a fight with anyone who says something that isn't explicitly allowed in the Bible (and is convenient for them)... hence the anti-Gay-Marriage protests, but no anti-shellfish protests.

You're a product of your environment, shinyblurry... you're as predictable as Islam producing suicide bombers... and just as pathetic in your misunderstanding of the Universe.

warning! Incoming ice bogeys at 1 o'clock.

Captain, I've picked up multiple bogeys on my *gaydar. Shouldn't we get our most FABulous flyboys in the air?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Sure, nuclear reactors are expensive- but keep in mind that they've been sidelined in funding because they are NIMBY bogey man. Most of the problems you cite have been fixed in new model Thorium reactors (half-life is only 500 years, waste is small amount and they actually eat old types of nuclear waste for fuel!)

I'm not sure about that solar panel lifespan- I'm just going by someone I know who has them installed- it may have been the lead acid batteries that they had to swap out ever 5 years or so. Regardless, photovoltaic cell manufacture is a dirty fab process similar to chips- lots of toxic non-recyclable metals and burning a good deal of CO2.

I'm behind new-nuclear as a sensible stop-gap until fusion comes online.

.>> ^curiousity:
>> ^dag:
As far as efficiency goes, I'd take fission over solar.
The amount of square feet required to make solar energy as well as the material required for all of those panels- heavy metals and toxic chemicals- and a short equipment lifespan make them about as well thought-out as ethanol- which is to say not at all.
If we could get over our irrational nuclear fears- nuclear fission really is the best option for the planet in the short term, and then roll on the fusion when it gets here. 10 years right?

Much of the cost for fission reactors is hidden by government subsides. Cost is definitely a reason that there hasn't been a new nuclear reactor build in the US for over 30 years. They are damn expensive. And then the real cost comes with storage of radiated materials. A storage fee that will last a long time.
Last time I checked, most decent solar panels come with a 25-year warranty which means they might last 30 to 50 years if not damaged. There are also solar-based plants that focus sunlight to heat water to drive turbines - much more efficient that current solar panel technology. I can't compare solar energy to ethanol in good faith.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I know I'm not going to turn Russ or these people who are deeply, deeply into a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, but he has almost 1K friends, I'm thinking by being nice and presenting some ideas - I might plant the seed of doubt in some of his followers. ... that's what Satan does after all.

At the very least, I want them to see atheists as people, and not the bogey man- likewise it's helped me get beyond my sterotyping of bible thumpers as an aggregate, to see them as individuals with varying degrees of faith.

There certainly are hues to the fundy rainbow, once you look inside.

Bogey in the highlands... bogey in the highlands..
Also , on whoever could watch this whole vid. :>

Is it wrong that an 9-yr-old kid set off my gaydar? I'm definitely detecting a bogey.