search results matching tag: smoke

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.002 seconds

    Videos (1000)     Sift Talk (42)     Blogs (106)     Comments (1000)   

ant (Member Profile)

Professor Brian Harvey On Why Not To Cheat

newtboy says...

I thought you were saying everyone can benefit from chemical compounds that react in their body to produce certain effects.
That I agree with.

That everyone should use recreational (I'm assuming including unregulated, blackmarket, psychoactive) drugs I strongly disagree with.
Many people are not mentally equipped to have a single light beer, one of the least potent recreational drugs while some few can successfully smoke crack in moderation. Many don't have the experience to avoid fake, adulterated, or deadly drugs. Some have physical limitations that could make a joint deadly.

Remember, especially with humans, there are always exceptions to any rule.

kir_mokum said:

i am talking about recreational drugs.

and what is it you think i'm saying?

Professor Brian Harvey On Why Not To Cheat

newtboy says...

Marijuana has been a recreational drug in America since America was founded if not before. It just became legal as a recreational drug, this doesn't change the drug itself.

Recreational drugs in my nightstand can differ from those in my system....What are you saying? Are you complaining we don't have YOPO on street corners, or congratulating us?

Easy solution, eat your cat. Slow smoked for 24 hours with a lemon rosemary reduction and you've got munchies and your face is safe!

surfingyt said:

marijuana was not a recreational drug. now it is.

recreational drugs inside the united states can differ from recreational drugs outside the united states.

so... which moral compass is he setting his yacht to, the rest of us must suddenly obey, or be doomed to face-eating cats?

Radicalize

BSR says...

True but I think we can all see bob for what he is.

Personally I think newtboy does an excellent job of presenting factual counterpoints to bob's hopes and dreams. No matter how many fires bob starts, newt grabs him by the ankles uses his torso against the flames to snuff out the burning lies. And when the smoke clears I think everyone's a little better for it.

bob is actually a good thing here. Through him we get a good glimpse of how Trump supporters think and feel. It makes me feel a little sorry how vulnerable they are to his lies and the false hopes Trump offers them.

The way I see it, newt is probably the best friend bob has. I think bob enjoys the attention too.

shagen454 said:

Haha, after all these years, he is still posting brain-dead shit. He never comes back to reply. I almost think he is a right-wing extremist bot troll.

Fox News Confirms Trump Called Vets "Suckers" and "Losers"

bobknight33 says...

Sound like he has the smoking gun. Lets see it.

Yet not 1 FOX new clip confirming YTY.

Yet not 1 clip from any news source.

*Lies

2 more months of lies from secrete source or Anti Trumpers,"close aids" etc etc etc.

Trump hates blacks
Trump hates women
Trump hates Gays
Trump hates military
Trump hates poor people
Trump hates everyone.
Trump raped more woman
Trump watches other men F his wife and J Off.
Trump raped little boys
Trump raped little girls
Trump has perverted sex dungeon in secrete side room in WH and many on this properties.
Trump and Putin lies
Trump and China lies
Another investigation by Adam Schiff


Fake news has no choice but to super dump on Trump next 2 months because they know he will win by a land slide and they need to stop it by all means necessary.

eoe (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Moved this to profile pages, better late than never.

I'll try to be brief....and fail miserably I expect.
I accept the fact that some theories I hold will be wrong, and cause failure. At least theories can be tested and discarded when proven false. Yes, some are so engrained it would take TNT to dislodge them, but they aren't unchangeable, beliefs are immutable.

No morality in that claim. Moral excuses might be 1) I minimize any suffering by buying mostly family farmed meats and 2) those lives only exist for human pleasure and substance. If no one ate cows and pigs, they would be extinct nuisance animals. (And chickens rare) If the animal has a nice, pain and stress free life, but in trade that life ends early, as long as the end is humane I'm not bothered. That's life it otherwise wouldn't enjoy at all.
Factory farms don't meet those requirements.
They're tasty is why I eat meat. It might be snide, but it's honest. Yes, I'm obstinate, I like meat, I'm not claiming it the most moral, ethical, ecological, or empathetic thing to do, but if done thoughtfully it's not the worst either.

My meaning with "it's not the worst t thing people do" was to reply to " I believe (assuming humans survive) humans will look upon this time of killing billions of animals for nothing but human pleasure with disgusting disgrace." with a few other examples of things worse that we will be judged for, not to distract or excuse. I'm not sure how that's a logical falicy. Tens of Billions of animals are killed horrifically for pure greed and not even used as food, that's a disgusting disgrace I could denounce.

I read the WHO study he was referencing and it said no such thing, I told him, showed him, he kept repeating the bullshit lies. I'm not receptive to people who blatantly misrepresent science. I don't rely on any industry produced studies for any decisions, that would be dumb. The study said certain highly processed and preserved red meats had some carcinogens, not any meat at any level is equivalent to two packs a day. My degree is general science, I can read a study.

Oh shit, nutritionfacts.org is Dr Gregor, the one who outright lies about scientific studies, and the one who made the false equivalency between tiny amounts of meat and constant chain smoking, he also loved to misuse "plant based" to mean vegan and claim the studies on plant based (not plant exclusive) diets proved vegan benefits when they really proved a mixed diets benefits. I've been deep down his rabbit hole, and found him incredibly unscientific and dishonest. I don't trust him one bit, sorry.

I've only known a hand full, including the one who introduced me to Dr Gregor, my aunt, uncle, and cousins, and a few here in hippy central where I live. Not one was honest, they acted like it was religion and took statements as gospel with no investigation and were forceful in their insistence that everyone agree.

I once ate fish and thought it was fine. Three years of marine biology cured me of that, so my theories are changed by facts. I promised myself to never learn too much about chicken, pork, or beef because I don't want to know what's in them unless it's broken glass. That's a conscious decision. There is no hell hot enough to scare me away from good bacon. That said, I do care that they have a good life before being harvested.

I'm willing to change behavior and thinking. I previously thought the fda was good at protecting us, I decided I couldn't trust that.

I make some decisions based on MY morality, some on self interest, some on group/global interest, etc. I'm not willing to make any based on someone else's morality, especially if they're pushy.

I have no clue who visits, but this is where I come, so it's where I speak up.

I always make the mistake of thinking people will be logical.

eoe said:

Woo boy, this is a doozy! The fact of the matter is a video comment section is not the place to have this conversation. There's too much to discuss, too many questions from one another that are best asked soon after they're conceived, etc. I frankly just don't have the time to respond to everything you said. Don't take this as acquiescence; if you'd like to have a Zoom chat some time, I'd be down.

In any event, I'll respond to what I find either the most important or at least most interesting:

Having theories is definitely the best way to go about most of the things you consider fact (for the moment), but the fact of the matter (no pun intended) is that at some point you'll need to use some of those claims as fact/belief in order to take action. And it's just human nature to, if one believes in a claim for long enough, it becomes fact, despite all your suggestions of objectivity. It's easy to say you're a scientist through and through, but if you're really someone who doesn't believe anything and merely theorize things, I think you'd be a sad human being. But that's a claim that I leave up to the scientists.

> Yes, and I eat animals because they're delicious.

You think that's a defensible moral claim? I find that disgraceful. If you truly think your own pleasure is worth sentient beings' lives then... I don't know what to say to you. That strikes me as callous and unempathetic, 2 traits you often assert as shameful. This is my point. You sound pretty obstinate to at least a reasonable claim. To respond with just "they're tasty". You don't sound reasonable to me.

> You may be correct, but eating meat is hardly the worst thing humans are up to.

Aw, come on @newtboy, I thought better of you than to give me a logical fallacy. The fact that you're resorting to logical fallacies wwould indicate to me that either you're confronting some cognitive dissonance, otherwise why would you stoop to such a weak statement?

> I gladly discuss vegetarianism with honest people, but I'm prepared when they start spouting bullshit like " eating any red meat is more harmful than smoking two packs a day of filterless cigarettes" ...

There is a lot of scientific research (not funded by Big ___) that is currently spouting this "bullshit". What happened to your receptive, scientific, theory-based lifestyle? It's true nutrition science is a fucking smog-filled night mare considering how much money is at stake, but I find it telling that a lot of the corporations are using the same ad men from Big Cigarette to stir up constant doubt.

Again, I find it peculiar that you are highly suspicious of big corporations... except when it comes to something that you want to be true.

Again, this is my point. Take a moment, take a few breaths, and look inside. Can you notice that you're acting in the exact same fashion as the people you purport to be obscenely stubborn?

Check out NutritionFacts if you want to see any of the science. Actual science. I would hope that it would give you at least somedoubt and curiosity.

That's a true scientist's homeostatic state: curiosity. Are you curious to investigate the dozens (hundreds?) of papers with a truly non-confirmation-biased mind? How much of a scientist are you?

> I've never met a vegan that wasn't a bold faced liar in support of veganism, so I'm less likely to give them a full chance at convincing me.

This, for me, raises all sorts of red flags. That's quite a sweeping claim.

> Again, that would be long held theories in my case, and it's not hard to change them. Mad cow disease got me to change until I was certain it wasn't in America. No, I'm not recoiling. I'll listen to anyone who's respectful and honest.

So, you're willing to make decisions based on self-interest and not morality? Well, duh. Everyone does that. It doesn't sound like you had a self-reflective moment. It sounds like you merely had a self-interested decision based on the risk to your own health.

And finally, all your talk about Bob -- of course he acts, consistently, like a twat. I just don't like feeding trolls. I don't think there's anyone on Videosift who's on the precipice and would be pushed over into the Alt-right Pit by Bob's ridiculous nonsense.

> Edit: in general I agree that dispassionate fact based replies with references are better at convincing people than derision, there are exceptions, and there are those who are unconvinceable and disinterested in facts that don't support their lies.

Ironically, I think science has disproved this. Facts don't change minds in situations like this. There are lots of articles on this. I didn't have the wherewithal to dig into their citations, but I leave that (non-confirmation-biased) adventure for you. [1]

---

I knew I wouldn't make this short, but I think it's shorter than it could have been.

Lastly, I'm with @BSR; I do appreciate your perseverance. Not everyone has as much as you seem to have! Whenever I see Bob... doing his thing, I can always be assured you'll take most of the words from my mouth. [2]

[1]
Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds | The New Yorker
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

This Article Won’t Change Your Mind - The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/519093/

Why People Ignore Facts | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/words-matter/201810/why-people-ignore-facts

Why Many People Stubbornly Refuse to Change Their Minds | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/think-well/201812/why-many-people-stubbornly-refuse-change-their-minds

Why Facts Don't Always Change Minds | Hidden Brain : NPR
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/743195213

[2] This comment has not been edited nor checked for spelling and grammatical errors. Haven't you got enough from me?

RNC 2020 & Kenosha: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

eoe says...

Woo boy, this is a doozy! The fact of the matter is a video comment section is not the place to have this conversation. There's too much to discuss, too many questions from one another that are best asked soon after they're conceived, etc. I frankly just don't have the time to respond to everything you said. Don't take this as acquiescence; if you'd like to have a Zoom chat some time, I'd be down.

In any event, I'll respond to what I find either the most important or at least most interesting:

Having theories is definitely the best way to go about most of the things you consider fact (for the moment), but the fact of the matter (no pun intended) is that at some point you'll need to use some of those claims as fact/belief in order to take action. And it's just human nature to, if one believes in a claim for long enough, it becomes fact, despite all your suggestions of objectivity. It's easy to say you're a scientist through and through, but if you're really someone who doesn't believe anything and merely theorize things, I think you'd be a sad human being. But that's a claim that I leave up to the scientists.

> Yes, and I eat animals because they're delicious.

You think that's a defensible moral claim? I find that disgraceful. If you truly think your own pleasure is worth sentient beings' lives then... I don't know what to say to you. That strikes me as callous and unempathetic, 2 traits you often assert as shameful. This is my point. You sound pretty obstinate to at least a reasonable claim. To respond with just "they're tasty". You don't sound reasonable to me.

> You may be correct, but eating meat is hardly the worst thing humans are up to.

Aw, come on @newtboy, I thought better of you than to give me a logical fallacy. The fact that you're resorting to logical fallacies wwould indicate to me that either you're confronting some cognitive dissonance, otherwise why would you stoop to such a weak statement?

> I gladly discuss vegetarianism with honest people, but I'm prepared when they start spouting bullshit like " eating any red meat is more harmful than smoking two packs a day of filterless cigarettes" ...

There is a lot of scientific research (not funded by Big ___) that is currently spouting this "bullshit". What happened to your receptive, scientific, theory-based lifestyle? It's true nutrition science is a fucking smog-filled night mare considering how much money is at stake, but I find it telling that a lot of the corporations are using the same ad men from Big Cigarette to stir up constant doubt.

Again, I find it peculiar that you are highly suspicious of big corporations... except when it comes to something that you want to be true.

Again, this is my point. Take a moment, take a few breaths, and look inside. Can you notice that you're acting in the exact same fashion as the people you purport to be obscenely stubborn?

Check out NutritionFacts if you want to see any of the science. Actual science. I would hope that it would give you at least somedoubt and curiosity.

That's a true scientist's homeostatic state: curiosity. Are you curious to investigate the dozens (hundreds?) of papers with a truly non-confirmation-biased mind? How much of a scientist are you?

> I've never met a vegan that wasn't a bold faced liar in support of veganism, so I'm less likely to give them a full chance at convincing me.

This, for me, raises all sorts of red flags. That's quite a sweeping claim.

> Again, that would be long held theories in my case, and it's not hard to change them. Mad cow disease got me to change until I was certain it wasn't in America. No, I'm not recoiling. I'll listen to anyone who's respectful and honest.

So, you're willing to make decisions based on self-interest and not morality? Well, duh. Everyone does that. It doesn't sound like you had a self-reflective moment. It sounds like you merely had a self-interested decision based on the risk to your own health.

And finally, all your talk about Bob -- of course he acts, consistently, like a twat. I just don't like feeding trolls. I don't think there's anyone on Videosift who's on the precipice and would be pushed over into the Alt-right Pit by Bob's ridiculous nonsense.

> Edit: in general I agree that dispassionate fact based replies with references are better at convincing people than derision, there are exceptions, and there are those who are unconvinceable and disinterested in facts that don't support their lies.

Ironically, I think science has disproved this. Facts don't change minds in situations like this. There are lots of articles on this. I didn't have the wherewithal to dig into their citations, but I leave that (non-confirmation-biased) adventure for you. [1]

---

I knew I wouldn't make this short, but I think it's shorter than it could have been.

Lastly, I'm with @BSR; I do appreciate your perseverance. Not everyone has as much as you seem to have! Whenever I see Bob... doing his thing, I can always be assured you'll take most of the words from my mouth. [2]

[1]
Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds | The New Yorker
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

This Article Won’t Change Your Mind - The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/519093/

Why People Ignore Facts | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/words-matter/201810/why-people-ignore-facts

Why Many People Stubbornly Refuse to Change Their Minds | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/think-well/201812/why-many-people-stubbornly-refuse-change-their-minds

Why Facts Don't Always Change Minds | Hidden Brain : NPR
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/743195213

[2] This comment has not been edited nor checked for spelling and grammatical errors. Haven't you got enough from me?

newtboy said:

If the remarks being contradicted are not only smug they're also ridiculous, devoid of fact, racist, and or dangerously stupid (like insisting in May that Coronavirus is a hoax that's not dangerous and is a "nothing burger", and everyone should be back at work), and contradicting them with facts and references and +- 1/4 the disrespect the original remarks contained makes people vote for Trump, that does indicate they were already trumpsters imo.

Edit: It's like Democrats have a high bar to clear, but Republicans have no depth too deep to stoop to.

Trump changes Bob's beliefs daily, every time he changes a position Bob changes his belief to make the new position seem reasonable to him. He is not consistent. No other opinion matters to him.

I don't hold beliefs, I have theories. It's easy to change your theory when given new information, I do all the time. Beliefs don't work that way, so I avoid them as much as possible.

Yes, and I eat animals because they're delicious. I would eat people if they were raised and fed better, but we are polluted beyond recovery imo.

You may be correct, but eating meat is hardly the worst thing humans are up to. Killing for sport seems worse, so do kill "shelters", puppy mills, habitat destruction, ocean acidification, etc....I could go on for pages with that list. I try to eat free range locally farmed on family farms meat, not factory farm meat. I know the difference in quality.

I gladly discuss vegetarianism with honest people, but I'm prepared when they start spouting bullshit like " eating any red meat is more harmful than smoking two packs a day of filterless cigarettes" (yes, someone insisted that was true because they didn't care it wasn't, it helped scare people, I contradicted him every time he lied.) The difference is, I could agree with some of their points that weren't gross exaggeration, I agreed that excessive meat eating is horrible for people, I agree that most meat is produced under horrific conditions, I would not agree that ALL meat is unhealthy in any amount and ALL meat is tortured it's entire lifetime because I know from personal experience that's just not true. We raised cattle, free range cattle, in the 70's. They were happy cows that had an enjoyable life roaming our ranch until the day they went to market, a life they wouldn't have if people didn't eat meat.

I've never met a vegan that wasn't a bold faced liar in support of veganism, so I'm less likely to give them a full chance at convincing me. The fact checking part of my brain goes on high alert when talking with them about health or other issues involved in meat production, with excellent reason.

Again, that would be long held theories in my case, and it's not hard to change them. Mad cow disease got me to change until I was certain it wasn't in America. No, I'm not recoiling. I'll listen to anyone who's respectful and honest.

Here's the thing, Bob consistently trolls in a condescending, self congratulatory, and bat shit crazy way. Turnabout is fair play.
As the only person willing to reply to him for long stretches, I know him. I've had many private conversations with him where he's far more reasonable, honest, willing to admit mistakes, etc. (Something I gave up when he applauded Trump lying under oath because "only a dummy tells the truth under oath if the truth might harm them, Trump winning!") When someone is so anti truth and snide, they deserve some snidely delivered truth in return. Bob has proven he's undeserving of the civility you want him to receive, it's never returned.

Bob does not take anything in from any source not pre approved by Trump. I've tried for a decade, and now know he only comes here to troll the libtards. It doesn't matter if you show him video proof and expert opinions, he'll ignore them and regurgitate more nonsense claiming the opposite of reality. He's not trying to change minds, in case you're confused. He's hoping to trick people who for whatever reason refuse to investigate his factless hyper biased claims and amplify the madness. That he comes here to do that, a site he regularly calls a pure liberal site (it's not) is proof enough to convict him of just trolling.

Trolls deserve derision.

I spent years ignoring his little jabs, insults, derisions, and whinging and trying hard to dispassionately contradict his false claims with pure facts and references, it was no different then.
While privately he would admit he's wrong, he would then publicly repeat the claims he had just admitted were bullshit. When he started supporting perjury from the highest position on earth down as long as they're Republican but still calls for life in prison for democrats that he thinks lied even not under oath, he lost any right to civil replies imo. He bought it when Republican representatives said publicly in interviews that they have no obligation to be truthful with the American people, and he applauds it and repeats their lies with glee.

Edit: in general I agree that dispassionate fact based replies with references are better at convincing people than derision, there are exceptions, and there are those who are unconvinceable and disinterested in facts that don't support their lies. How long are you capable of rebutting them with just fact and references when they are smug, snide, insulting, dangerous, and seriously delusional if not just purely dishonest?

Rebuttal?

RNC 2020 & Kenosha: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

newtboy says...

If the remarks being contradicted are not only smug they're also ridiculous, devoid of fact, racist, and or dangerously stupid (like insisting in May that Coronavirus is a hoax that's not dangerous and is a "nothing burger", and everyone should be back at work), and contradicting them with facts and references and +- 1/4 the disrespect the original remarks contained makes people vote for Trump, that does indicate they were already trumpsters imo.

Edit: It's like Democrats have a high bar to clear, but Republicans have no depth too deep to stoop to.

Trump changes Bob's beliefs daily, every time he changes a position Bob changes his belief to make the new position seem reasonable to him. He is not consistent. No other opinion matters to him.

I don't hold beliefs, I have theories. It's easy to change your theory when given new information, I do all the time. Beliefs don't work that way, so I avoid them as much as possible.

Yes, and I eat animals because they're delicious. I would eat people if they were raised and fed better, but we are polluted beyond recovery imo.

You may be correct, but eating meat is hardly the worst thing humans are up to. Killing for sport seems worse, so do kill "shelters", puppy mills, habitat destruction, ocean acidification, etc....I could go on for pages with that list. I try to eat free range locally farmed on family farms meat, not factory farm meat. I know the difference in quality.

I gladly discuss vegetarianism with honest people, but I'm prepared when they start spouting bullshit like " eating any red meat is more harmful than smoking two packs a day of filterless cigarettes" (yes, someone insisted that was true because they didn't care it wasn't, it helped scare people, I contradicted him every time he lied.) The difference is, I could agree with some of their points that weren't gross exaggeration, I agreed that excessive meat eating is horrible for people, I agree that most meat is produced under horrific conditions, I would not agree that ALL meat is unhealthy in any amount and ALL meat is tortured it's entire lifetime because I know from personal experience that's just not true. We raised cattle, free range cattle, in the 70's. They were happy cows that had an enjoyable life roaming our ranch until the day they went to market, a life they wouldn't have if people didn't eat meat.

I've never met a vegan that wasn't a bold faced liar in support of veganism, so I'm less likely to give them a full chance at convincing me. The fact checking part of my brain goes on high alert when talking with them about health or other issues involved in meat production, with excellent reason.

Again, that would be long held theories in my case, and it's not hard to change them. Mad cow disease got me to change until I was certain it wasn't in America. No, I'm not recoiling. I'll listen to anyone who's respectful and honest.

Here's the thing, Bob consistently trolls in a condescending, self congratulatory, and bat shit crazy way. Turnabout is fair play.
As the only person willing to reply to him for long stretches, I know him. I've had many private conversations with him where he's far more reasonable, honest, willing to admit mistakes, etc. (Something I gave up when he applauded Trump lying under oath because "only a dummy tells the truth under oath if the truth might harm them, Trump winning!") When someone is so anti truth and snide, they deserve some snidely delivered truth in return. Bob has proven he's undeserving of the civility you want him to receive, it's never returned.

Bob does not take anything in from any source not pre approved by Trump. I've tried for a decade, and now know he only comes here to troll the libtards. It doesn't matter if you show him video proof and expert opinions, he'll ignore them and regurgitate more nonsense claiming the opposite of reality. He's not trying to change minds, in case you're confused. He's hoping to trick people who for whatever reason refuse to investigate his factless hyper biased claims and amplify the madness. That he comes here to do that, a site he regularly calls a pure liberal site (it's not) is proof enough to convict him of just trolling.

Trolls deserve derision.

I spent years ignoring his little jabs, insults, derisions, and whinging and trying hard to dispassionately contradict his false claims with pure facts and references, it was no different then.
While privately he would admit he's wrong, he would then publicly repeat the claims he had just admitted were bullshit. When he started supporting perjury from the highest position on earth down as long as they're Republican but still calls for life in prison for democrats that he thinks lied even not under oath, he lost any right to civil replies imo. He bought it when Republican representatives said publicly in interviews that they have no obligation to be truthful with the American people, and he applauds it and repeats their lies with glee.

Edit: in general I agree that dispassionate fact based replies with references are better at convincing people than derision, there are exceptions, and there are those who are unconvinceable and disinterested in facts that don't support their lies. How long are you capable of rebutting them with just fact and references when they are smug, snide, insulting, dangerous, and seriously delusional if not just purely dishonest?

Rebuttal?

eoe said:

Fair enough.

^

Ku Klux Klan Member interview-Chris

wtfcaniuse says...

Same mentality and radicalism as ISIS. He even wants his own white Christian state.

"They're against drugs" while chain smoking
"The Klan ain't never lynched people"
"The Klan ain't gotta go out and kill black folks no more"

All while talking nonsense and quoting bible passages that could easily be interpreted to mean the OPPOSITE of what he claims.

Tire Hits House at 65 mph

White supremacist Kenosha County Sheriff david beth

newtboy says...

Sorry, you seem to have bought the right wing antifa lie. Where did you get this explanation?

Most people caught shooting or committing arson were dressed as antifa but were in fact right wingers, largely boogaloos boys, who's plan is to commit crimes and blame antifa and BLM in hopes of sparking a civil (and race) war. Nearly 100% of shootings and fully 100% of attempted bombings fit that model.

Because someone wears a black facemask is no indication they support antifa. If they're armed, it's a near guarantee they are anti antifa.

1) the kid came from out of state with armed friends intent on confronting unarmed protesters with guns, you don't do this to protect a random gas station, you do this in hopes of shooting someone.
2) he sure didn't look like he had been sprayed as he ran from the murder he just committed, hands were on his weapon or above his head, not covering his face like a sprayed person.
3) white pedophile? Explain please....how would you know...because he had a 17 year old girlfriend?
4) white guy in a crowd of black men shouting "nigger"?! Doesn't sound right, and I haven't heard it in any videos, but are you saying that excuses the militia boy shooting him and others?
5) gunshot from Antifa?!? Now I know you're duped by right wing media. Antifa is pretty hard to identify unless you're dishonest and just call any black mask wearing person antifa. Also, what evidence is there of this single gunshot from the BLM crowd?
6) he was NOT running to police lines, he was running past them. He didn't stop at them and say "btw, I just shot at least 3 people and maybe more when I just shot into the crowd.", he just walked on by, still carrying the smoking gun.
7) again, where are you getting this info?

8 ) in short, a cowardly murderer who crossed state lines heavily armed who shouldn't have been there but went looking for trouble, started a fight, murdered another man, ran away armed pointing his gun at many uninvolved bystanders, shot and killed those trying to stop an armed murderer (should have emptied that glok if it existed) so he shot one, murdered another and fled the scene, the city, and the state without ever reporting that he had shot at least three people and killed at least two.

I hope he gets sentenced to life in prison, his dad too if they went together, he went heavily armed to a protest hoping to shoot some liberals, he did, now he wants to use the fact that some citizens tried to disarm and citizens arrest him after he shot someone in the head as an excuse for both murders and the other shootings?! And you buy it?!?

I'm so extremely disappointed you would buy such obvious self serving slant where the out of state multiple murderer who travelled armed looking for conflict is the victim.
That's totally asinine. I have much higher expectations for you.

Again, references for these claims please.

Mordhaus said:

I don't agree with him, but there are normal protesters and then there are Antifa people.

If you dig a bit deeper into the whole Kyle Rittenhouse thing, you find out a lot that is being flat out ignored.

1. The kid was protecting a business that had already been vandalized by Antifa.
2. He was pepper sprayed by Antifa 'protesters' for guarding the site.

3. Then a white pedophile started attacking him while saying the n word, "Cmon and shoot ME, N****!"

4. In the ensuing conflict, which included at least one gunshot from the Antifa folks, Kyle shot that guy and then tried to run to the police lines as multiple Antifa people tried to chase him down to beat him/take away his gun.
5. He tripped and a person with a skateboard, as well as a rap sheet for assaults a mile long, started beating him with the skateboard as he lay prone. This was the second person who got shot.

6. The final 'protester' was carrying a Glock 17 and later said (paraphrasing) "I wish I would have just mag dumped the Glock into him while he was laying there". This protester also had a massive rap sheet and shouldn't even have had the Glock, but in his intelligence he started trying to wrestle the AR-15 from Kyle...from the business end. He was the last person shot and lost a bicep.

So, in short, a scared kid who shouldn't have been there was attacked, shot at, and mauled by several 'peaceful' protesters. He defended himself and then tried to run to the police, but they weren't having that, so some more people got shot.

Now he will probably get sentenced to life in a highly politicized trial because he stood up and tried to guard property that 'peaceful Antifa protesters' were trying to burn to the ground.

Dad

newtboy says...

Even if Joe himself were currently crack addicted, probably the next claim, he would still be leaps and bounds ahead of Trump in the "fit for office" category.

No one cares how you whine about Biden or what nonsense you come up with, people are voting AGAINST the biggest pile of shit to ever enter politics, we would vote for Ashy Larry if it was against Trump.

Side note, according to your ilk, Hunter Biden is such a business genius that he's made billions off foreign countries while high on crack. Wow, we could really use someone like him in the administration instead of losers like Jarred and America's biggest loser, Trump.
Also, according to you, he managed to do that without ever getting caught breaking the law or going bankrupt repeatedly, again in stark contrast with Trump. Hunter sounds pretty on the ball by your description. Incredibly above average, miles above Trump's lackeys and worthless children.
Also, according to you, Joe managed to do his job so well during the stress of a close family member having a problem while another had brain cancer that no one had a clue. Trump has done so poorly it wouldn't surprise anyone if it turns out he's been smoking crack every single day in office, it would actually explain a lot of his inexplicable behavior, and HE has been photographed with drawers FULL of European Sudafed in his office.

And let's not forget, Donald is a certified long term racist and rapist. True story.

TangledThorns said:

Biden's son is a certified crack head. True story.

Baroness + Mutoid Man + TOWER do “Foreplay / Long Time"

newtboy says...

Pretty good, but the singer really needs to start smoking cigars, her voice is too smooth.

What's the deal with the Cyclops Jolly Roger?
*quality cover

Beirut explosion ripping through hospital

moonsammy says...

The shot at :50 is fascinating to me, because you can see the... vapor? cloud? smoke? hit the edge of the city center and get shoved upwards and off-camera. The shockwave keeps going though, invisible at this angle but for the dust / material blasted off of the buildings as it goes.

Also: woohoo! at 1:43. Didn't expect that.

StukaFox (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Lol. I've done similar at that turn in my Civic with super wide tires, it was a go-cart, totally rode on rails, but that turn had the rear end hanging out and the front tires smoking. I also got pulled over doing 110, but on the straight right after the turn, just before the artichoke fields. The cop asked didn't I think over 80 was a bit fast, I said yes, he let me go. I was so lucky. Should have lost my car.
Then there was the Acura Legend I inherited...the Speedo topped out at 150, but the car sure didn't. I think I got it to around 175 based on rpm calculations. Ahhh, to be young and stupid again. Crashed it into a K rail at 55 mph, went airborne. Good times!

StukaFox said:

I love 84!

I had some friends into exotic cars and we'd take 84 over to the coast now and again, mostly because we had a shit-ton of money and a shit-ton of spare time to kill -- the Dot-Com fucking rocked!

There's a bend in the road just outside La Honda on the coastal side that's a 15mph hairpin with a tree at the apex. It's a lovely goddamn thing, especially when you forget it's there. So here we all come, lane-trading and exercising general assholery in cars that cost what a nice single-family home does.

Oh FUCK, the turn!!

My friend in the 911 does this beautiful trail-brake and swings through the curve. Elise follows suit, complete with smoking tires. Next up is Countach. He BARELY holds it together, but gets through without any real drama.

Now it's my turn.

Did I mention I was driving a '97 Camaro Z-28? Yeah, Camaros of that year are good at exactly one thing: driving very fast in very straight lines. Corners? Yeah, not so much. I realize I'm in trouble and I'm coming into the turn WAY too fast. I grab the shifter and get ready. My plan is that I'm going to slam it into first, let the rev limiter do its thing to save the engine, pull the e-brake and swing the tail, then punch it and swing the ass-end around and launch out of the curve with smoking Z-rated tires and all!

And HERE WE GO -- grab the shifter, yank it all the way down and...

That's when California emissions standards fucked me.

You see, when you buy a Camaro Z-28 in California, you don't actually get first gear. You get what's called a California First, which is actually SECOND gear, because if you were actually able to use FIRST gear, the goddamn car would belch enough emissions to make a farting Brontosaurus blush. And second gear ain't exactly gonna work for my little plan.

tl;dr is that I hit the no-lock brakes hard enough to get my speed down and was able to bring the ass around with the little e-brake trick. I wasn't out of the woods because I over-corrected on the way out and spun. The same God that I spite and don't believe in actually saved my ass and I didn't end up going off the road. Apparently, he loves fools and Z-28 Camaros.

I honestly had more fun in that car than the law allows: sometimes literally, like when I got clocked at 110 coming onto the straight at King City. Good times, man, good times.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon