Open legs to all cumers “family values” slut and Q nutjob Traitor Greene made another baseless accusation based on extreme far right propaganda and nothing more, and because civility, decorum, truthfulness, ethics, morals, and house rules mean less than getting a playground dig at a political opponent, Greene waived the rules of conduct and ethics that don’t allow slander for her and ignored it, tabling the issue herself without hearing the legitimate appeal. Big surprise. She was quickly silenced because she couldn’t control herself though and had her words taken down and lost her time in committee.
Now watch her cry a river over her unending line of affairs with anyone that can get a medically assisted boner and hold their lunch long enough to have sex with a failed sex reassignment case being brought up, but crickets about this baseless infantile accusation.

We all know Traitor Greene tried to sleep with Russian oligarchs but was turned down. We all know she tried to sleep with Saudis but was laughed at. We all know she’s a sloppy, manly slut for anyone BUT her husband. We all know Traitor Greene hates transexuals because her surgeries turned out so horrific.

We don’t know Salwell slept with Feng, there’s zero evidence of that, only that she worked for him for a short time,( just like we never had evidence of the pizza pedophile ring she railed against, the Jewish space lasers she said cause wildfires, the mind control microscopic computer chips Bill Gates put in the vaccines somehow, the crisis actors pretending to be school shooting victims…the list of absolute insanity she spouts on the floor is endless)…and never ending evidence of Traitor Greene sleeping with anyone that can/will have her while abandoning her husband and children and job to sneak around screwing gym owners, sex gurus, reporters, etc,etc, etc. opening herself up to blackmail.

Glass Houses, biatch!

More pure projection.
He says liberal news media is all lies….from Faux News itself. No surprise from Bongino, he’s a treasonous liar who’s willing to say anything no matter how brain dead or false to ingratiate himself with the Trump cult for cash. I’ve pointed out before what a dishonest fabricator he is.

Still trying the fake Hunter Biden laptop story!?! You fuckwits. It’s ignored because you morons had to tamper with the data before turning it over to anyone…and because Giuliani reportedly handed it over to a Russian agent at one point. Also, he was closely connected to Andriy Derkach who was a Russian agent in Ukraine making Burisma accusations and claiming to have a second Hunter Biden laptop.
By the time law enforcement was able to look at it, there was no evidence left, only data that had been altered by criminal liars with a clear agenda to smear Joe by any means. That puts it all in question, and considering the source and the private citizen target it’s not worth anyone’s time. Deluxe nothing burger royal with cheese.

Nice attempt to distract from Faux News being 100% complicit in the failed coup, knowingly pushing the fake narratives that there was massive democratic fraud and the election stolen when now we have internal communications where they ALL admit there was absolutely no Democratic fraud at all and Trump definitely lost big time, and his spokespeople are crazy liars that make up almost everything they say, but they’re going to go along with the lies because if they do, Trump will reward them and if they don’t, he will destroy them (Tucker said this).

How many unflattering or criminal stories about Trump did the righty media fail to air? How often do they tell you how , with Trump’s approval, Jared sold classified information to the Saudis in exchange for a personal investment of $2 BILLION dollars in his new investment company that did not meet basic investment requirements for the crown prince’s funds but he gave them to Jared anyway….quid quo pro?
How often do they report on how many times they repeated known lies to further the failed coup and its defense?
Or the officials who quit because they knew the big lie was criminal?
How many stories on how the CDC said clearly that Trump’s haphazard disjointed contradictory covid message and lack of plan is to blame for over 1/2 of all infections, disabilities, and deaths? Said so when Trump was president.

Sorry, friendo. This whining look in the mirror is nonsense coming from a network dedicated to lies that still makes its viewers less informed every time they watch. Verifiably. It is still the best righty “news”, and it is verifiably wrong 95% of the time or more.

*debunked

And another big court loss, this another in the LONG string of failed prosecutions over the Steele dossier…every one either tossed out for not even being crimes or, more often, found not guilty of the ridiculous charges by juries.
John Durham has proven another maggot fraud a fraud by trying to prosecute non crimes. Every case lost….EVERY….SINGLE….ONE!
Typical.
Since you love to whine that the January 6 committee costs money for an investigation of serious treasonous crimes you don’t want investigated, I wonder what you think about wasting millions upon millions investigating and prosecuting this stupid nonsense about the anti Trump dossier created by his REPUBLICAN opponents, then later sold to Clinton’s campaign? There was no crime there….at all. Just sour grapes that someone said something bad about Trump…so of course they abused their authority by inappropriately investigating and prosecuting their “enemies”….and lost every time in court because it wasn’t a real prosecution, it was a persecution. That’s the Trumpist way.

Now like Patel, go whine and claim the justice department somehow threw the cases (they weren’t involved) and “maybe it’s not worth fighting anymore”, which is true, but because you never had a case to prosecute and juries saw right through the nonsense, not because of some conspiracy protecting Trump’s enemies, like the talking heads are claiming today. This was a pure malicious prosecution of political enemies, the politicization and weaponization of the Justice dept by Trump.

Now….how about that Ashley Babbitt?!? Good kill, right? Shouldn’t have fucked with police…right?

Right after Jackass came out, a couple of friends-of-a-friend decided to stage their own version of the movie -- with a hornet's nest. They found the thing hanging from a tree at the edge of a field and it was not remotely on the small size. Also, this was in late August and the queen had already flown away, leaving the drones to slowly starve to death. Thus, the enormous number of stripey-stripey sting-stings were already good 'n' pissed-off.

They were about to get moreso.

So chowderhead A and chowderhead B have a brilliant plan: they're going to shoot this enormous ball full of astoundingly-irate murderous insects with a shotgun while they're filming it. If you're hearing banjos playing and luke-warm cheap beers being cracked open, you're about in the right frame of mind.

Places, everybody!

The stage is set: on one end, at what's decided to be "minimum safe distance", are our erstwhile David Attenborough/Jonny Knoxville knock-offs. At a decidedly NOT minimum safe distance away is the arthropod version of the T'sar Bomba. All we're missing now is a Mossberg, enough idiocy to think this can end any way but badly, and a camera. With far too much alacrity for what's about to happen, all three are provided.

Aaaaaand, ACTION!

* BOOOM! *

At first, surprisingly, nothing happens. This period of stasis lasts roughly a picosecond. Then, unsurprisingly, things start to happen and they happen far more quickly than the Chuckle Brothers planned on. This plays out in three acts:

Act 1: "Hey, uh, why is the nest still there?"
Act 2: "Uh-oh..."
Act 3: "FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK!!!"

Hubris takes many forms, and schadenfreude takes twice as many, but both combined were statistically zero compared to the number of hornets involved in this fiasco. Had the two Mensa escapees who irked said hornets thought this thing through -- stop laughing -- perhaps they would have arrived at the conclusion that 1. a shotgun slug is not the preferred load-out when dealing with a ball made out of wasp puke and 2. being the only two things visible within a 20 mile radius of the ball made out of wasp puke pretty much negates the mystery of who the hornets are going to sting the ever-loving fuck out of.

With their plans in ruins and the nest not, our heroes decide to quit the field. This is the first smart thing they've done since looking at that big ball of wasps and deciding it was redolent with untapped hilarity. The hornets are having none of this white flag nonsense, however, and they decide to quit screwing around and really inflict some pain. It's a quarter mile back to the car and the hornets are going to make them pay for every inch of it.

The final score:
Hornet losses: meh, they were all going to die in a few weeks anyway.
The chucklenuts: 23 stings, a dropped shotgun, and three minutes of footage that they took in the pre-YouTube era and thus is lost to time.

Moral:
Hornets are not toys.

The U.S. doesn't fight hand to hand ground wars against governments.
China won't be fighting a guerilla war.

China has men, not current equipment. Remember Saddam...he had WAY more tanks, we hardly lost one because ours are infinitely better. Same goes for Chinese, rifles don't beat high altitude bombers.

Kuwait. Iraq.

Everyone loses to those goat farmers, they're called the graveyard of empires for a reason. Russia lost big time, and are so dumb they're poised to try again. We lost the day we went in with troops instead of an assassination squad.

For the 27th time, do you have any actual evidence of that, or just some partisan liars flapping their gums, jealous and bitter over losing historically. No? Thought not.

So then....Why won't republicans accept an honest vote count?

Arizona finished ANOTHER recount, the Republican recount of Maricopa county finished last week, but because it had the same results as the first one, the second one, and the third, Trump lost big time, Republicans are already planning another one....the problem, all the voting machines are now officially invalidated because cyber ninja tampered with them during their second (or is it the third) audit, and they are no longer secure or unadulterated. They cannot even be used in the future because it's impossible to know what they've done or how they tampered with the software and hardware. I must assume this was the plan all along, keep recounting and auditing until they digitally change the votes, and only then accept their own recounts..

So, again, the true question is, why won't Republicans accept a mostly honest vote system they themselves put in place and ran and they themselves certified nationwide repeatedly? Why won't you accept the results of multiple counts and audits that all come to the same conclusion, the counts are valid and there was no significant fraud.

The problem is that sets up what reminds me of the 2000 election. It absolutely astounded me half the country thought George W. Bush was a valid candidate, let alone the better candidate than Al Gore, not that I liked Gore, but given the choice between the two, Gore had viable plans for the budget, a cohesive foreign policy, etc.

It shouldn't have been a close election, but not only was it razor close, Gore lost. Countless times there have been in world history leaders who came about who generally wouldn't and shouldn't have, but they did. All it takes is a bad recession or other event to tilt the odds in their favor at the right time. Hitler doesn't come to power without the Great Depression and the Treaty of Versailles leaving Germany dependent on US loans.

And to me, Trump is absolutely frightening. I honestly have absolutely no idea what he would do as President, and not in a good way. I quite honestly don't even know if he's actually in line with the Tea Party or not. It is terrifying to me that he's on a course where potentially a recession at the wrong time could make him president because so many voters are absolutely ignorant or stupid enough to support him.

Screw the entertainment value of it. I keep thinking back to the George W. Bush Iraqi occupation and the crapshow that was Katrina and realize people's lives are literally at stake by botching the selection of the next President, and when you make one option completely invalid before the election even starts, it doesn't help.

So the British dicked around and gave the Jews a new home that wasn't theirs to really give.

The Jews were attacked and won and won again and go tall the land.

Palestine people lost big time. I'd say they lost fair and square.

They could have had 1/2 but decided to lose it all.

My dry sense of humor has been looked over. That is understandable

Someone put a tag in the video "opem" when they meant "open" so I said "opems then closes". My humor was lost this time.

Similarly, we can instantiate in enough physical rules to get the "chance" universe you describe going, and its rules could get it to the current state either determinalistically or with some element of randomness. I guess I understand how you're using "chance" here... but I don't know that it's terribly useful. Why should "what humans can predict" be of any relevance philosophically? And if we're using it that way, couldn't we similarly describe God's actions as chance? I mean, surely humans (or angels) can't predict everything he's going to do. Chance seems like a pejorative when applied to God.. and to me it seems like a pejorative when applied to the operations of the universe (except where, again, that operation is actually random).

However, again, I don't think this difference is terribly important. I think I understand what you're getting at, I just see things very differently.

The difference between chance and design is the most important distinction there is. If you don't like the word chance, I will use the word "unplanned", or "mindless". An unplanned Universe has no actual purpose; it is just happenstance. Meaning, your life is just a product of mindless processes, and concepts like morality, justice, and truth have no essential meaning. It means you are just some blip on a grid and there is no rhyme or reason to anything. It also means you will never find out what happened or why it happened because no one knows what is going on or ever will. This will *always* lead you to nihilism.

A designed Universe, on the other hand, does have a purpose. A purposeful Universe means that life was created for a reason. It means that there is a truth, a truth that only the Creator knows. Which means that all lines of inquiry will lead to the Creators doorstep, and that trying to understand the Universe without the Creator is completely futile. It is like looking at a painting with three marks on it..you could endlessly speculate on what the painter was thinking when he painted it. However, no matter how clever you were, you don't have enough information to be sure about anything. To refuse to seek the Creator would be to stare at that painting your whole life trying to figure it out when you have the painters business card with his phone number on it in your pocket.

I don't think you're phrasing this in a terribly fair way. Yes, many people assume there's a natural explanation for abiogenesis. This is partly because having another explanation introduces arbitrariness into the system. Say I'm a geologist and I discover Devil's Tower. It's really weird, but my inclination from the very start is that it was formed by similar processes to ones that have explained weird things in the past. Even if I can't postulate even a guess as to why it has those weird columns, I'm not crazy to guess that eventually we'll figure out an explanation that doesn't involve, say, new physical laws or aliens. (And it's certainly not helpful to say "maybe it was made in the flood").

The whole thing is arbitrary to begin with. Naturalistic explanations are assumed apriori, and then the evidence is interpreted through the conclusion. That isn't how science works. You come to the conclusion because of the evidence, not the other way around. I would also note that you would never accept this kind of reasoning from a creationist. Neither does a mountain of circumstantial evidence prove anything.

Abiogenesis is a bigger problem and it's also one that's "lost to time" a bit. It almost certainly requires a mechanism we have yet to identify (or a mechanism someone has guessed at, but hasn't provided good details or evidence for). But, like Devil's Tower, there's no reason to expect that mechanism won't be identified - or that it will require significant changes to our understanding of the rest of science. Again, there's plausible ideas already floating around, and I think we'll probably recreate the process (though likely not with the same actual process) within the next 30 years or so.

Anything sounds plausible, apparently, when you have billions of years to play with. As the earlier quote said, time itself performs the miracles for you. How do you know that the mechanism hasn't already been identified but you have rejected it?

http://creation.com/devils-tower-explained

No... that, I think, is probably our strongest point of disagreement. I'm very much OK with "I don't know", and literally everything I believe has a bit of "I don't know" attached (kind of similar to how everything you believe in has a bit of God attached).

I'm not worshipping ignorance or something - knowing IS better than not knowing. But I'm also not scared of not knowing things - and I'm certainly not just going to pick something and believe in it because I don't like having some of my answer pages blank.

For you, is Scientology better than "I don't know"?

The point I'm trying to make is, I don't know isn't a theory. What most atheists mean when they say "I don't know" is "I know it isn't the Christian God, but otherwise I don't know". The next thing they say is, you believe in God because you're afraid. That I "chose" God because I am scared of death, or because the Universe is too big and scary for my mind to handle the uncertainty of not knowing.

I have to say that this idea of a bunch of hokey. The Christians I know believe in God because they have a personal relationship with Him. It has nothing to do with making a choice..God chose us. He would chose you too, if you were open to Him.

Neither was I afraid of death when I was an agnostic, and I wasn't afraid of saying I don't know (that's why I was an agnostic, because I didn't know). I believe in God because He revealed Himself to me, and that is the only reason. If He hadn't, I would still be an agnostic.

It is credible to believe that the Universe was designed and created by God. We can see that whomever made the Universe is unimaginably powerful, intelligent, exists outside of space and time, etc. Scientology isn't credible and explains nothing. God can explain everything.

Also, thanks for using the big boy version of the Bible. I quite like the Bible artistically, but I can't stand some of the new translations (despite whatever benefits some parts may have in terms of clarity).

Most of the new translations butcher the scriptures. They remove entire verses, words, water down meanings, or just flat out mislead. I can't stand them either. The KJV is the best word for word translation that we have, and although the language is archaic, it is comprehensible with a little research.

>> ^jmzero

If we can boil all of the possibilities down to design and chance, how could you tell which Universe you were in?


I kind of abandoned this part because I don't think our differences on this matter are terribly interesting. But I'll come back to it for a second to clarify. To me, there is no important difference between these two things you're talking about.

I don't see myself as terribly different than a falling rock. While it's useful in many situations to think of myself as designing something, in absolute terms me building a house is no different than water eroding through a rock - they're just things that happen following from the state and rules of the universe. What you're calling "design" and "chance" are both, to me, just parts of "the rules for moving from one state to another" and I don't see a big philosophical difference between them (I also don't think there's any important philosophical reality to "free will", if that helps you understand my position).

If we have a start state with a certain kind of benevolent God, the rest of the stuff flows from that through state change rules of some sort - and I don't find it terribly interesting what sorts of rules and processes are involved to get from that start state to the current one (or, at least, only to the extent that those rules and processes may imply more or less arbitrariness in the start state).

Similarly, we can instantiate in enough physical rules to get the "chance" universe you describe going, and its rules could get it to the current state either determinalistically or with some element of randomness. I guess I understand how you're using "chance" here... but I don't know that it's terribly useful. Why should "what humans can predict" be of any relevance philosophically? And if we're using it that way, couldn't we similarly describe God's actions as chance? I mean, surely humans (or angels) can't predict everything he's going to do. Chance seems like a pejorative when applied to God.. and to me it seems like a pejorative when applied to the operations of the universe (except where, again, that operation is actually random).

However, again, I don't think this difference is terribly important. I think I understand what you're getting at, I just see things very differently.

Yet, it is assumed to be true because "there must be a naturalistic origin to life".


I don't think you're phrasing this in a terribly fair way. Yes, many people assume there's a natural explanation for abiogenesis. This is partly because having another explanation introduces arbitrariness into the system. Say I'm a geologist and I discover Devil's Tower. It's really weird, but my inclination from the very start is that it was formed by similar processes to ones that have explained weird things in the past. Even if I can't postulate even a guess as to why it has those weird columns, I'm not crazy to guess that eventually we'll figure out an explanation that doesn't involve, say, new physical laws or aliens. (And it's certainly not helpful to say "maybe it was made in the flood").

Abiogenesis is a bigger problem and it's also one that's "lost to time" a bit. It almost certainly requires a mechanism we have yet to identify (or a mechanism someone has guessed at, but hasn't provided good details or evidence for). But, like Devil's Tower, there's no reason to expect that mechanism won't be identified - or that it will require significant changes to our understanding of the rest of science. Again, there's plausible ideas already floating around, and I think we'll probably recreate the process (though likely not with the same actual process) within the next 30 years or so.

I think you'll have to admit that God is a much better theory than "I don't know".


No... that, I think, is probably our strongest point of disagreement. I'm very much OK with "I don't know", and literally everything I believe has a bit of "I don't know" attached (kind of similar to how everything you believe in has a bit of God attached).

I'm not worshipping ignorance or something - knowing IS better than not knowing. But I'm also not scared of not knowing things - and I'm certainly not just going to pick something and believe in it because I don't like having some of my answer pages blank.

For you, is Scientology better than "I don't know"?

Edit:
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.


Also, thanks for using the big boy version of the Bible. I quite like the Bible artistically, but I can't stand some of the new translations (despite whatever benefits some parts may have in terms of clarity).

>> ^NetRunner:

Uhh, so acknowledging that the argument is dividing along right/left lines, while decrying the fact that it has done so...is perpetuating it?

I think you went beyond acknowledging when you made a statement on behalf of The Left™. I think there are a lot of people trying to make this partisan politics because they get an automatic support base if they succeed, but I also think the people who are doing that are a loud minority at this point. Most people, even the self-appointed judge/jury/executioners I mentioned before, have not allowed politics to shape their opinions IMO.

>> ^NetRunner:

Here's the rub, what are those investigations aimed at achieving? An investigation of the local police, and whether they conducted their side of things properly, or an investigation that might result in charges against Zimmerman? From what I've heard it's the former, not the latter.

I'm not sure it's plausible to get a new local investigation without showing some sort of negligence or wrong-doing in the first one. I also can't help but wonder if, even after all the investigations are complete, the case will be tossed out because SYG does protect Zimmerman here. Whether the law is right or wrong is a separate trial. It may be that this case is the first domino that starts the repeal of SYG, but it also may be that Zimmerman goes free because it was the law at the time. I'm not saying I'd be happy about that; just that it seems like a possibility.

>> ^NetRunner:

That's the most generous of my theories, but I don't really think it's that. The things they're pushing back against aren't the handful of people saying calmly "this is why the Stand Your Ground law is bad policy", they're pushing back hardest against the people who're suggesting this was some sort of racially motivated murder. They've apparently lost all sense of reason and proportion when it comes to defending white guys who get accused of being racist.

There are absolutely some weird reactions in all this which are based on race. I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference whether Zimmerman is a racist or not. I guess it could make the difference between murder and a lesser charge, as it could be used to establish motive, but here and now it's a minor issue for me. Whether or not he is a racist will not effect this stage in the process. That won't come into play until a trial begins.

>> ^NetRunner:

I agree, there's a real danger of the "Zimmerman needs to be charged" camp making it impossible for Zimmerman to be tried in an impartial manner. Most of the stuff I see though is people collecting evidence of one type or another that suggests the shooting wasn't in self-defense, as a way to demonstrate the need for a trial. Case in point, the video up top showing Zimmerman looking uninjured and unmolested some 20-30 minutes after the altercation with Martin.

It seems to me like that's what you need to do if you want to convince people that there needs to be an investigation and a trial -- you cast doubt on the story that Zimmerman told the police, which was the reason they released him without further investigation.

Truth is, I think it's going to be hard to build a solid case against Zimmerman at this point, mostly because the opportunity to collect the evidence that could've convicted or conclusively exonerated him is gone now. That's why the police's refusal to conduct an investigation in the immediate aftermath of the shooting feels so criminal to a lot of people.

I've not heard anything about evidence collected from Martin's body though. Perhaps there's something there that would be able to definitively establish what happened.

I worry that the "public investigation" ruins the eventual trial if it goes too far. This video seems like extremely weak evidence. The poor quality could easily be hiding cuts and bruises. I'd put more weight in police documentation and hospital records (or the lack thereof) than this video to establish whether Zimmerman had injuries.

I agree that a lot of evidence has been lost to time now. Examination of the gunshot wound can probably still tell us a lot about the altercation, fortunately. Showing who was on top of who at the time of the shooting will probably go a long way toward telling the real story by itself.

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I've watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those ... moments will be lost in time, like tears...in rain.
Time to die.

Totally. It's easy to assume he's nervous, or maybe he was put on the spot. But then you find out he's the one that posted the video, willingly. So you get the impression that he was fine by that pitiful display of knowledge.>> ^jmzero:

I can understand knowing nothing about science. I can understand making the leap from "I don't understand anything" to "nobody understands anything". Fish are smart, electrons are molecules, wind is a mystery. Whatever. There's lots of stuff I don't know, and I might one day decide to make a video. Sure, cool. Free country. Have fun.
What I can't understand is how you make this video and think, "OK, time to post this". Like, surely as he was recording this he couldn't have been thinking "man, this is going really well". He gets completely lost multiple times.. did he feel no temptation to start again? I assume nobody forces him to post these unedited from the first take - why not just think about what you want to say for a few seconds and try again?

I can understand knowing nothing about science. I can understand making the leap from "I don't understand anything" to "nobody understands anything". Fish are smart, electrons are molecules, wind is a mystery. Whatever. There's lots of stuff I don't know, and I might one day decide to make a video. Sure, cool. Free country. Have fun.

What I can't understand is how you make this video and think, "OK, time to post this". Like, surely as he was recording this he couldn't have been thinking "man, this is going really well". He gets completely lost multiple times.. did he feel no temptation to start again? I assume nobody forces him to post these unedited from the first take - why not just think about what you want to say for a few seconds and try again?