As much as he hates (or indifferent) to the Royals, John is British to the core. Doing the "Keep Calm and Carry On" when under fire thing with aplomb, no shtick!

"Scientists" who falsify data or skew experiments to get their preconceived results should be ignored and silenced....those who steal from the company they were just fired from deserve jail.

Just read her wiki page...only bat shit crazy conspiracy nuts believe the government and scientific community as a whole conspired to ruin her because she told the truth....She's disgraced because she made repeatedly proven false anti vaccine claims they want ignored, but antivax conspiracy nuts love her. Reality is she's an anti vaxer whose experiments proved to be faked and whose theories are just insane.

Judy Anne Mikovits (c. 1958) is an American anti-vaccination activist, conspiracy theorist and discredited ex-medical researcher. She has made discredited claims about vaccines, coronavirus, and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). As research director of CFS research organization Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI) from 2006 to 2011, Mikovits led a research effort that reported in 2009 that a retrovirus known as xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) was associated with CFS and may have had a causal role. However, the research came under fire, leading to an eventual retraction on December 22, 2011, by the journal Science.

In 2020, Mikovits drew attention online for promoting conspiracy theories about the COVID-19 pandemic, via the conspiracist YouTube video Plandemic[6] that were fact-checked and found to be either false or not based on scientific evidence.

Mikovits began to look for XMRV in her Chronic Fatigue Syndrome samples. In late 2008, a graduate student, who subsequently was hired as her technician, obtained two positive results from a group of twenty samples. He and Mikovits successively altered the experimental conditions until all samples gave a positive signal.

In 2009, Mikovits and co-workers reported in the journal Science that they had detected XMRV DNA in CFS patients and control subjects. Negative results were published soon after, disputing Mikovits's findings.

She's a fraud. Why else would Bobby love her so much?

List of people in Trump's administration that have quit or been fired. The Trump Administration has seen the highest rate of turnover among White House staff in decades.

During the president’s first year, the administration saw a 34% turnover rate. This is the highest of any recent White House, according to a Brookings Institution report that tracked departures of senior officials over the last 40 years.

The next-highest turnover rate for an administration’s first year was Ronald Reagan’s, with 17% of senior aides leaving their posts in 1981.

Former presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton saw much lower turnovers during their first year in office—9%, 6%, and 11%, respectively.

------

John Kelly – December 2018. The retired Marine Corps general was hired in July 2017 to bring order to the White House.

Matthew Whitaker – December 2018. Named acting attorney general in November this year, replacing Jeff Sessions. Immediately came under scrutiny over past remarks about the investigation into possible Russian collusion with Mr Trump's presidential election campaign.

Nikki Haley – December 2018. Stepped down as US ambassador to the UN at the end of the year.

Jeff Sessions – November 2018. After months of being attacked and ridiculed by the president, the former senator was forced out as attorney general.

Don McGahn – October 2018. Mr Trump revealed in August that the White House counsel would leave following strains between the two over Robert Mueller’s investigation.

Scott Pruitt – July 2018. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief quit after he came under fire over a series of ethics controversies.

David Shulkin – March 2018. He left his position the Veteran Affairs secretary, telling the media he had been fired rather than resigning.

HR McMaster – March 2018. Mr Trump’s national security adviser was replaced by John Bolton.

Rex Tillerson – March 2018. The secretary of state was fired by the president on after a series rifts.

Gary Cohn – March 2018. The National Economic Council director and former Goldman Sachs president said he resigned his advisory role.

Hope Hicks – February 2018. The White House communications director, a long-serving and trusted Trump aide, decided to resign.

Rob Porter – February 2018. The White House staff secretary stepped aside following accusations of domestic abuse from former wives.

Omarosa Manigault Newman – December 2017. The former star of The Apprentice was fired as assistant to the president.

Richard Cordray – November 2017. The US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s first director quit his administration role.

Tom Price – September 2017. The Health and Human Services secretary quit under pressure from Mr Trump over travel practices.

Stephen Bannon – August 2017. Mr Trump’s chief strategist was fired in after clashing with other top White House figures, including the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.

Anthony Scaramucci – July 2017. The White House communications director was fired by Mr Trump after only 10 days on the job. Mr Scaramucci had openly criticised Mr Bannon.

Reince Priebus – July 2017. Replaced as chief of staff by John Kelly, Priebus lost Mr Trump’s confidence after setbacks in Congress.

Sean Spicer – July 2017. Resigned as White House press secretary, ending a turbulent six-month tenure.

Walter Shaub – July 2017. The head of the US Office of Government Ethics, who repeatedly clashed with Mr Trump.

Michael Dubke – May 2017. Resigned as White House communications director.

Katie Walsh – March 2017. The deputy White House chief of staff was transferred out to a Republican activist group.

Michael Flynn – February 2017. Resigned in as Mr Trump’s national security adviser. Mr Flynn later pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. He is set to be sentenced later in December.

Sally Yates – January 2017. Mr Trump fired the acting US attorney general after she ordered Justice Department lawyers not to enforce is immigration ban.

Your video, Apple under fire for allegations of controversial business, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Most places have a no vulgarity, no hate speech, no sex rule applied across the board, which is fine....

I look at it differently. In a business, especially any creative business, the decision to pursue or participate in a particular transaction/venture should heavily prioritise individual freedom of choice. On the whole, I'm on board for requiring that business not decline service to people based upon attributes they are born to. Even there however, gender segregated spas are something that I still think should be allowed. That's not an arbitrary choice, up here in Canada a spa is under fire for declining access to a spa based on someone having a penis.

More succinctly, I think everyone should have as much right to think, do or act however they like. Equally though, people should have the right to not participate in other people's lifestyles as well.

Your video, Trump Discusses Guns; Hicks, Kushner and Carson Under Fire, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

And then there was this one - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/16/angela-merkel-comforts-teenage-palestinian-asylum-seeker-germany

Really there was no way to come out of that one looking good... although I do give her points for at least showing up and talking to the girl. Our own local version of the CDU would have locked her up in the Gulags of Nauru or Manus Island, and prevented any interviews or reporting punishable by 2 years gaol http://gu.com/p/4abgf/stw

Something else from Australian politics, the speaker of the house has come under fire for her travel expenses - http://gu.com/p/4akdp/stw - strangely not so much for the $A90,000 on a trip to Europe, but instead for the $5,000 for a helicopter trip to Geelong for a party fundraiser... go figure.

This one was just funny - our chief lizard trying to stay on message seems to have suggested that a grocery code would have prevented the Greek financial crisis - http://gu.com/p/4ae24/stw

I took her video to be more skeptical of his historical claims, his assertions that he rediscovered them, and that modern techniques isn't valid, than if the trick shots work or not. She goes to show many of his techniques are still in use in some cultures.

Like others said, even from a fairly small knowledge window, it looked like trick shots. Back in the day you would have had to film on expensive film making hundreds of shots to get one that worked, it would have been more complicated to do this. Now with video, it is easier than ever to record it as many times as you need to get the shot that worked.

Would his technique work while hunting or on the battlefield is the main question. Take an arrow through the armor joints in the knee or whatever from his technique won't kill, but probably will hurt enough to take you out of the battle, which would be the point. Would it put a deer down though? Doesn't seem there's enough draw strength to really kill the deer or large game, rather it would torture the animal for an overly long period of time before it might finally die. My understanding of modern archery is to put the game down as quick as possible to minimize suffering.

We need to see him doing his things live. Don't let the myth busters do it, have him do it, in situations that would represent a battlefield. Have armored mannequins moving, some still, have him use his techniques, see how many of his shots would have taken that soldier out of the battle. Unfortunately, you can't safely test having him under fire at the same time since that puts a level of stress on top of everything. Have a deer mannequin and see if his technique would be effective at the sort of range you need to be at to avoid startling the deer, again at a stand still and in motion (generally you are going to wait for it to be still enough to fire anyhow in that case since it is rarely a matter of life and death to kill the deer or other game).

That all said she keeps saying archery is about what works, and it does seem to work for the situation he's in. The question is as I noted above would it work in hunting or the battlefield and even if not, would it work on regular archery targets live without many repeated filming attempts. Would it work at an Olympic style event better than modern techniques? If it could do better, or even near as good, as modern ones at competitions, then, even if it fails at hunting and battlefield situations, it could still be valid.

As an aside, the videos I saw of him weren't trying to sell anything specific beyond him perhaps. I haven't bothered to Google him up to see if he's selling stuff, or just demonstrating things for now. If he's not selling people on teaching in person or via video or whatever, then all the more reason to suspect he's just showing off trick shots the same way basketball trick shot videos do. In which case the historical research could have been lazy just because it was more in jest than anything meant to be taken serious. He could have been pulling a poe in that regards.

I haven't read everything above. I'm going to assume it's more of the same old argument that is always delivered when it comes to comic characters.

BUT here's something to think about:
When I was in art school. We drew and painted nude models. male female, old and young. none were particularly "attractive", just normal.

But the the Feminists banned together in our school and started chastising men, saying they had no right to ever paint/draw a nude female. regardless of how mundane the pose was - saying, "No man can EVER draw a nude female because men are incapable of not sexualizing them.
So many of the men buckled because these women were very threatening. I didn't paint nudes but but had over 50 messages left in my studio because I included clothed images of my female friends in my paintings.
As a result, one of the guys in a studio next to mine, started painting nude images of "Himself" because he was going out of his way to avoid them. Guess What. He came under fire for painting nude images of himself in semi-erotic poses (not pornographic) because he wasn't Gay. How dare he paint a male figure that way. ONLY the gay men should be able to paint men that way. How dare a Hetro male paint a nude figure of a male because hetro males only want to sexualize everything.

There was no escape, If you were a Hetro male, you were only allowed to paint landscapes or Men in Parkas it seemed. The point is, it doesn't matter what you paint/draw or even photograph, someone is going to find a reason to stand up against you because of their sexual hangups and preferences. They will read into your vision with all the hate they have built up for issues that have been used against them in their lives.

It sucks and that's the society we're living in. Artists have a choice. Either cave and conform or be suborn, stand up for themselves and carry on.. I, myself choose to be stuborn.

Edit: And I will not appoligize for being stuborn when it comes to my art. (no matter how badly I want people to like me.)

Thanks for the link... seen it before, but good nevertheless.
In the media lock down we have right now it takes someone like R.B. to make the mental leaps and join the dots.
If there is better sociopolitical commentary out there about current events I am all ears (links please).

If Brand was more 'together' he'd be towing the corporate news line and sucking that teat or joining the rest of the celebrity morons in drowning us in bullshit.
btw. this guy was just (days ago) character assassinated on Fox news, so he's making waves and also under fire.
Massive props for what he's doing and for keeping it 'real' ie. fuck bland talking heads and regurgitated government/corporate propaganda.

The plot thickens:

"A Boy Scout leader who came under fire for pushing over an ancient boulder in a national park filed a suit last month claiming he was suffering permanent "disability" and "impairment" from an auto accident four years ago.

Taylor initially faced scrutiny after a video of him pushing over a Jurassic era rock formation in the Goblin Valley State Park in Utah went viral.

Taylor, a Boy Scout leader, told ABC News that he should have handled the incident differently but thought the boulder was dangerous and thought it would be safer to push it over.

"The Boy Scouts didn't teach me to do this," Taylor told ABC News. "Would I do it again? Yes, with a ranger standing there. That's what we should have done.""

How is changing teams for defense (which has as much to do with specialized players as it does resting) or the breaks in play which are procedural rules in football compare to the use and acceptance of "flopping" to elicit an unjustified benefit in what is supposed to be a fair and competitive sport?

American Football players are under fire for lying about their health to keep playing and to maintain respect which sets a certain expectation for fans and basketball players are heavily criticized for flopping as well so it's not just hating on soccer....its just more accepted in soccer it appears to the uninitiated.

Also google why it's called football so you sound less ignorant. It makes complete sense why American Football is called football just like it makes sense for Rugby Rules, Australian Rules, and Association Rules (Soccer) to be called "football".

Yeah, sorry, I have to disagree with that last part. You read that whole exchange, you can see for yourself how he tried to change the subject, shift the burden, and otherwise distract from the argument at hand.

The central argument is not whether or not freedom of religion is under fire. No one is disputing that Chik-Fil-A or the cake store owner is within their rights to refuse service. The misunderstanding is that they seem to believe that because it's their right, they're immune to criticism.

That's two different things.

I have every right to change my name to Foo Foo Farty Pants. That doesn't mean you can't give me crap about it.

They're trying to have their cake and eat it too. He wants to be free to express his opinion, but other people are apparently not free to voice their opinion that he's full of shit.

Others have already mentioned it but if a store refused service to christians, there would be massive amounts of outrage from the right and they'd be screaming at the top of their lungs about the "war on Christianity"

The right to refuse service swings both ways. I would argue that refusing service to ANY demographic is unnecessary and dumb and ultimately a poor business decision. That's not what the right to refuse service is supposed to be for. I'm pretty sure it's meant for dealing with unruly, disruptive, belligerent people, not to advance a religious/political agenda.

>> ^dag:

Good discussion. Be gentle with SB - he's the only one we've got - and an important perspective.

In reply to this comment by VoodooV:
No one is discriminating against Christians, you wannabe martyr. We're just calling you out on your bullshit.

You: I disapprove of gay marriage
Everyone else with synapses: That's fine. Believe what you want, but the facts are that you're wrong and here's why and because of separation of church and state, you don't get to make any laws based on your nonsense unless you can back your shit up with more than just "gay sex is icky and they make me uncomfortable" And now you also alienated yourself from the rest of society because of the growing acceptance of LGBT.

Not all opinions are equal, dumbass, get over it. We put Christian beliefs to the test for a long time and they just don't pass muster anymore...deal with it. Adapt or die

If someone came in and started arguing that hitler was awesome, It's not discrimination if we tear into him for being a moron.

You being Christian has nothing to do with it. It's your shitty ideas that demonstrably infringe on other's rights that are under fire, not your freedom of religion.



Well said! I'd upvote that twice if I could.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Don't try that shit, it's discrimination, you know exactly why he was refusing to make a gay wedding cake that type of lying isn't going to help your argument. 2nd it's not a double-standard to hand someone their ass when they say something stupid. You do something counter to the way a society has been going you get shouted down in the public square. We're moving towards legalizing gay marriage and giving equal rights to all americans, you go counter to that you're gonna get yelled at.
Sorry but you're wrong, it isn't discrimination. They were still able to do business there if they wanted another kind of cake, and I'm sure they're still welcome to do so. The man doesn't want to make a gay wedding cake because he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, and that gay marriage is immoral.
Also filth posted on message boards? Is this your first day on the internet? I'm pretty sure Justin Beiber hasn't done anything to anyone on the internet and still he's talked about worse than Hitler. You're in hyperbole country mother fucker, deal with it.
Now you want to continue discriminating against people and not doing your job to make cakes or hand out birth control pills than yeah your life is gonna be made harder. Too bad because you're lives are already way too easy as it is. Complaining about christian discrimination, bitch there's children dying in Africa, shut the fuck up.
So discrimination against Christians is okay, because people talk trash all the time and children are dying in Africa? In other words, you just wave your hand and make excuses..proving that you don't really think discrimination is wrong, so long as its against people you disagree with. It's clear you want equal rights for everyone except Christians.
>> ^Yogi


No one is discriminating against Christians, you wannabe martyr. We're just calling you out on your bullshit.

You: I disapprove of gay marriage
Everyone else with synapses: That's fine. Believe what you want, but the facts are that you're wrong and here's why and because of separation of church and state, you don't get to make any laws based on your nonsense unless you can back your shit up with more than just "gay sex is icky and they make me uncomfortable" And now you also alienated yourself from the rest of society because of the growing acceptance of LGBT.

Not all opinions are equal, dumbass, get over it. We put Christian beliefs to the test for a long time and they just don't pass muster anymore...deal with it. Adapt or die

If someone came in and started arguing that hitler was awesome, It's not discrimination if we tear into him for being a moron.

You being Christian has nothing to do with it. It's your shitty ideas that demonstrably infringe on other's rights that are under fire, not your freedom of religion.