CITATION FUCKING NEEDED BOB

I get it, you and your overlord have really hurt feelings over the fact that 8 MILLION more people wanted Biden in charge. That's not STEALING, that's WINNING. It isn't something Trump has ever actually done legitimately, so I can understand how he wouldn't recognize what that looks like.

There was no "steal" on the part of Biden or the Dems, no matter how loudly Trump whines about it. Donald and his goonsquad are attempting an actual, honest to goodness violent overthrow of the duly elected government of the US. That IS NOT ok. It isn't funny, it isn't cute. It isn't "protesting" anything to break into the US Capitol. It isn't bringing on liberal tears, it's tearing down the structures that have allowed this society to flourish. It's setting fire to the Constitution and pissing on the ashes.

If there's fraud, show the evidence. Don't bitch that they tried but judges said no standing - a lack of standing means there was no injured party. If there had been actual evidence of actual fraud, then there would be injured parties they could bring into court who would have standing. No one has standing though, because there's no evidence, because it was a good clean election and Trump fucking lost. Stop supporting the literal insurrection, and welcome to a few years of the grown-ups who listen to experts trying to steer the ship to safety before the chucklefucks inevitably seize the wheel again.

[citation needed]

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?

Nope. Watched them closely.
Hitting a car flat at 60 km or mph is going to stop you in <1/10 of a second. I counted >4 seconds to stop with a flop in the video. Same kinetic energy absorbed. Δv = 30mph (around 50'/sec) Δt= .1 vs 4. Do the math. 500ft/sec/sec vs 12.5'/sec/sec...that's 50g vs 1.2g. Case closed.

Fine. God forbid you listen to someone with extraordinary personal experience in this matter and a grasp of physics.
You go for the dead stop next time you're in a wreck, I'll turn my wheel.

There are variables in car wrecks. You want to compare best case scenario sudden stops with absolute worst case rolls. Feel free to think that way. It's not reasonable. I'm done.

Then look at the dummy data if immutable physics laws aren't enough for you, but no citation is needed to conclude that exponentially higher G forces cause higher level injuries, even if the angle isn't the worst possible for a specific spinal injury.

I've given you my personal vast experience, physics, and common sense. You give me apple to oranges, and exaggerate the juiciness of the apples while only mentioning dehydrated oranges. I'm done. Believe what you want, but I hope you don't have to test your theory.

You might want to watch all those videos again.

Hitting a parked car at 60km/h and not rolling would be a clearly better outcome. The parked car is not a solid wall, it cannot bring you to a "dead stop".

Hitting a barrier and rolling is clearly worse than hitting the same barrier and sliding along it, "bouncing" off it, spinning etc even if you're clipped by another car. Again even with the sharp swerve into the barrier it would never have been a "dead stop"

Hitting the car in front which has suddenly braked would be far better than a high speed roll even if the car behind proceeds to rear end you. The closest to your "dead stop" scenario and still far better than a high speed roll.

I'm arguing with you because you often backup what you're saying with demonstrable facts, in this case you're not. You're ignoring variables, using differing experience to draw conclusions and dismissing the severity of something based on your controlled personal experience of it.

"Citation? Physics. acceleration = Δv/Δt. Larger injuries come from higher g forces."

Has nothing to do with studies in vehicular CSI. I asked for a citation relating to maximum force/time being a primary factor in vehicular CSI not a physics equation and a stunningly simplified opinion. Again this is the shit I'm arguing with you about.

I'm thinking you just want to argue.

Citation? Physics. acceleration = Δv/Δt. Larger injuries come from higher g forces.

I explained how there's lower maximum energy involved when some crash energy is absorbed rolling the car.
Now you argue you might roll into another direct impact...true in either case but in one you've already had one, in another you had a glancing blow and flop.
Nowhere did I say it's safe, only safer than hitting a wall and stopping cold.
All other things being equal, a partial roll like shown here is safer than the trucks hard stop...according to the IIHS recorded data (see @blackoreb 's post above)

We have already established your experience differs from this in that there was no impact causing the roll.

citation for maximum/force time being a primary factor in vehicular CSI .

You're also making the assumption that the roll doesn't send you roof first into oncoming traffic, telephone pole, tree, parked car, building or whatever.

We saw a rollover on here recently that was the result of a pit maneuver where the driver died. Guess that wasn't an easy flop for him.

Citation needed*

Your spine is designed to move forward and backwards, not violently but still the mechanics allow for it. When it starts doing the same sideways, particularly in the neck as shown in this video is when you slip discs, fracture verts, pinch the cord, etc.

Listen to Citations Needed history of him...It's pretty good...

https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-72-john-stossel-libertarian-billionaires-inside-man

ORDER NO. 3915-2017
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:

(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

+++++(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and
individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

+++++(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

+++++(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

(d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.

Date 5/17/17 General Rod J. Rosenstein


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

https://www.justice.gov/sco

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



Related:
S.582 - Office of Special Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2017
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/582




GET SOMETHING THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD
GET SOMETHING THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD
GET SOMETHING THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD


++ROD J. ROSENSTEIN
WORKED UNDER JEFF SESSIONS AND WAS APPOINTED BY DONALD JOHN TRUMP


++THE MAJORITY REPUBLICAN SENATE IN 2017
APPROVED THE APPOINTMENT OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL


++THE MAJORITY REPUBLICAN CONGRESS IN 2017
APPROVED THE APPOINTMENT OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL


+++JEFF SESSIONS
LITERALLY THE FIRST SENATOR TO PUBLICLY SUPPORT TRUMP'S ELECTION PRIMARY BID

HE IS ALSO A LIFE LONG REPUBLICAN AND THE ONE WHO PUT ROSENSTEIN IN CHARGE


========================================================


ROBERT MULLER
+LIFE-LONG-REPUBLICAN
+++LIFE-LONG-REPUBLICAN
+++++LIFE-LONG-REPUBLICAN
+++++++LIFE-LONG-REPUBLICAN
+++++++++LIFE-LONG-REPUBLICAN
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/07/30/fbi-nominee-lauded-for-tenacity/e2012e09-379e-479f-8bd3-8c2aef36152a/

"Mueller, 56, is a registered Republican, yet a striking number of people describe him as apolitical." - July 30, 2001


========================================================


ROBERT MULLER IS PUT IN CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION

HE FINDS (AMONG MANY OTHER PIECES OF EVIDENCE)

JANUARY 2016
+++++++++++++
Trump Signs the Letter of Intent on behalf of the Trump Organization - “intended to facilitate further discussions” in order to “attempt to enter into a mutually acceptable agreement” related to the Trump-branded project in Moscow.


MARCH 2016
+++++++++++++
Papadopoulos told the group that he had learned through his contacts in London that Putin wanted to meet with candidate Trumpand that these connections could help arrange that meeting.

PAPADOPOLOUS CONTINUES CONVERSATIONS OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL WEEKS AND MAKES TRIPS TO RUSSIA WHICH BEGINS TO RAISE FLAGS WITHIN THE CAMPAIGN

Manafort forwarded the message to another Campaign official, without including Papadopoulos, and stated: “Let[’]s discuss. We need someone to communicate that [Trump] is not doing these trips. It should be someone low level in the Campaign so as not to send any signal.”

APRIL 2016
+++++++++++++
Papadopoulos admitted telling at least one individual outside of the Campaign—specifically,the then-Greek foreign minister—about Russia’s obtaining Clinton-related emails.

Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.

========================================================



THERE ARE AT LEAST 50 OTHER CONTACTS COORDINATING ASSISTANCE FROM THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE CAMPAIGN TO ELECT DONALD TRUMP

THE ENTIRE REPORT IS PEPPERED WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CHARGES

HERE IS A LIST OF PEOPLE WHO WERE CHARGED BECAUSE OF THE INVESTIGATION

U.S. v. Roger Jason Stone, Jr. (1:19-cr-18, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Michael Cohen (1:18-cr-850, Southern District of New York)
U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr. (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Viktor Borisovich Netyksho, et al (1:18-cr-215, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Konstantin Kilimnik (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Richard W. Gates III (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr., and Richard W. Gates III (1:18-cr-83, Eastern District of Virginia)
U.S. v. Alex van der Zwaan (1:18-cr-31, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Internet Research Agency, et al (1:18-cr-32, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Richard Pinedo, et al (1:18-cr-24, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Michael T. Flynn (1:17-cr-232, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. George Papadopoulos (1:17-cr-182, District of Columbia)



========================================================

DO I NEED TO REPEAT THAT?

========================================================
THERE ARE AT LEAST 50 OTHER CONTACTS COORDINATING ASSISTANCE FROM THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE CAMPAIGN TO ELECT DONALD TRUMP

HERE IS A LIST OF PEOPLE WHO WERE CHARGED BECAUSE OF THE INVESTIGATION
U.S. v. Roger Jason Stone, Jr. (1:19-cr-18, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Michael Cohen (1:18-cr-850, Southern District of New York)
U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr. (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Viktor Borisovich Netyksho, et al (1:18-cr-215, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Konstantin Kilimnik (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Richard W. Gates III (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr., and Richard W. Gates III (1:18-cr-83, Eastern District of Virginia)
U.S. v. Alex van der Zwaan (1:18-cr-31, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Internet Research Agency, et al (1:18-cr-32, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Richard Pinedo, et al (1:18-cr-24, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Michael T. Flynn (1:17-cr-232, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. George Papadopoulos (1:17-cr-182, District of Columbia)


========================================================



STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOUR BULLSHIT LIES
STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOUR BULLSHIT LIES
STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOUR BULLSHIT LIES
STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOUR BULLSHIT LIES
STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOUR BULLSHIT LIES


THE DEMOCRATS DIDN'T START THE INVESTIGATION INTO DONALD TRUMP


THE INVESTIGATION THAT WAS STARTED BY THE REPUBLICANS IN POWER IN 2017 TURNED UP A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE AND LANDED DOZENS OF PEOPLE IN JAIL ALL WHILE ACTING AS HUMAN SHIELDS FOR DONALD TRUMP


SEE FOR YOURSELF
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

FOR EVIDENCE OF SPECIFICALLY WHICH LAWS WERE BROKEN AND SPECIFICALLY HOW THEY WERE BROKEN AND BY WHOM, LOOK AT THE

APPLICATION SECTION

PAGE 181 (note page 189-190 are all redacted bc ongoing matter)

OF THE MULLER REPORT, COMPLETE WITH EXTENSIVE CITATIONS.

Wow, cromulent is also in the dictionary.

cromulent
adjective

Appearing legitimate but actually being spurious : These citations are indeed cromulent

Excuse me while I look up some recipes for steamed hams.

*doublepromote

And if you like Intercepted, listen to Citations Needed. It's every bit as good.

[citation needed]

I don't see a source citation from him on that, though this wired article seems to get to the same ideas: https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/

And with a citation at the end of the video. OoOoOoOoooooOooo my nipples explode with delight! *flies off in a hovercraft*