No, perhaps you should re-read, the bible has NO historical authority. Like a broken clock it can, rarely, be right, but I can't reasonably accept anything from it without outside corroboration

Oh really? So why is that archaelogically, it has proven to be 100 percent historically accurate?

“No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.” Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publications Society of America, 1969

There have been over 25,000 discoveries which prove its historical accuracy alone. Seems like far from being right accidently, it's always on time.

Sooo...You are claiming that these books have not been under the same copy/editorship for millennia ? My point does not require a by-line match, only that the folks copying (and editing) the canonical versions are in control of both, and have incentive to make them seem more impressive. Are you claiming this was not the case?

Of course I'm claiming its not the case. It also doesn't make any sense. You don't think the jews at the time would notice that people were editing in prophecies later? They were fanatical about these kind of details..so unless you're claiming it was a gigantic conspiracy your view seems illogical. The jews were very careful about copying..the earliest manusciprs we have and the oldest ones have very few discrepencies.

Wow, nice straw split. The portion of the testimony that claims the divinity of jesus is cut from whole cloth, that is what you were talking about, that is a forgery. You wish to interpret it as a testimony of divinity, when the historical record strongly supports the contentions that these parts were not in the original text, and are not attributable to Josephus => forgery.

The vid you post takes the safety position that since the original appears to be about jesus that it is proof of his historicity. The original text, as far as we can reconstruct it, as well as all the other non-fake historical documents don't actually claim that jesus was real or divine, they only convey the story as stated by christians.

I can also state the christian story, as a matter of historical record, without validating it or accepting it myself, the fact that christians existed is not proof that jesus did.

lol..so, when a historian talks about someone in history, its not evidence..what kind of evidence do you want? Photographs?

"Josephus includes information about individuals, groups, customs and geographical places. Some of these, such as the city of Seron, are not referenced in the surviving texts of any other ancient authority. His writings provide a significant, extra-Biblical account of the post-Exilic period of the Maccabees, the Hasmonean dynasty, and the rise of Herod the Great. He makes references to the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and a disputed reference to Jesus (for more see Josephus on Jesus). He is an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism and the context of early Christianity.

A careful reading of Josephus' writings allowed Ehud Netzer, an archaeologist from Hebrew University, to discover the location of Herod's Tomb, after a search of 35 years — above aqueducts and pools, at a flattened, desert site, halfway up the hill to the Herodium, 12 kilometers south of Jerusalem — exactly where it should have been, according to Josephus's writings."

Read that? His writings were so accurate that we were able to find a mans tomb 2000 years later. Turn off your schitzophrenia for a moment. You're claiming Jesus isn't a historical figure, even though this historian, whom you say is accurate for Cyrus, verifies that He is. I'm not talking about whether He is divine, just that He existed. You can't have it both ways. He's a historian who obviously checked his sources..he's isn't telling stories, he is relating facts. You just want to throw the ones you don't happen to agree with.

I see what you did there, let me see if I can recreate your "logic":
1)I claim the testimony has been forged
2)Therefore I must accept Josephus as completely unreliable
3)Therefor the bible is the only source of the story
4)Therefor the claimed historicity of the events depends on the bible
5)Therefor for the Cyrus claim to hold the bible must be divinely inspired

Step 2 does not follow, most of Josephus is considered sound. The fact that your predecessors felt the need to lie in his name does not invalidate all his writings, only those which we have reason to believe have been altered. As it turns out, your boys tended to do a pretty unconvincing job in their historical revisionism.

Again, forget about the divinity claims which were interperlations. He records the existence of the historical person of Jesus. So, if its good enough for Cyrus, its good enough for Jesus. You can't have it both ways. Your pathogical unbelief is amusing, but unwarrented. So your only sources are one that claims Jesus is real, and another that claims God frees the slaves. Again, not helping your case in any respect.

>> ^shinyblurry:
So, the bible is only good for the claims you wish to prove.
No, perhaps you should re-read, the bible has NO historical authority. Like a broken clock it can, rarely, be right, but I can't reasonably accept anything from it without outside corroboration.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Again, you show your lack of research..the prophecy and the fufillment of the prophecy are in seperate books written 1 or 2 hundred years apart.

Sooo...You are claiming that these books have not been under the same copy/editorship for millennia ? My point does not require a by-line match, only that the folks copying (and editing) the canonical versions are in control of both, and have incentive to make them seem more impressive. Are you claiming this was not the case?
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's not "widely considered forged". Again you don't know what you're talking about.
Educate yourself:
Wow, nice straw split. The portion of the testimony that claims the divinity of jesus is cut from whole cloth, that is what you were talking about, that is a forgery. You wish to interpret it as a testimony of divinity, when the historical record strongly supports the contentions that these parts were not in the original text, and are not attributable to Josephus => forgery.

The vid you post takes the safety position that since the original appears to be about jesus that it is proof of his historicity. The original text, as far as we can reconstruct it, as well as all the other non-fake historical documents don't actually claim that jesus was real or divine, they only convey the story as stated by christians.

I can also state the christian story, as a matter of historical record, without validating it or accepting it myself, the fact that christians existed is not proof that jesus did.
>> ^shinyblurry:

but the only sources concerning freeing the jews are from the bible and Josephus. You can't have it both ways..you can't claim the bible for evidence when the entire evidence you're claiming was about what Cyrus was doing for God, let alone it was the fulfillment of prophecy from the book of Jeremiah.
You can't say Josephus is discredited yet claim it for evidence about the jews either. If the bible is evidence, then the credit goes to God for freeing the slaves.
If you say Josephus is accurate, you have to admit Jesus is a historical figure.


I see what you did there, let me see if I can recreate your "logic":

1)I claim the testimony has been forged
2)Therefore I must accept Josephus as completely unreliable
3)Therefor the bible is the only source of the story
4)Therefor the claimed historicity of the events depends on the bible
5)Therefor for the Cyrus claim to hold the bible must be divinely inspired

Step 2 does not follow, most of Josephus is considered sound. The fact that your predecessors felt the need to lie in his name does not invalidate all his writings, only those which we have reason to believe have been altered. As it turns out, your boys tended to do a pretty unconvincing job in their historical revisionism.

Example:
[FORGERY]
>> ^shinyblurry:

I deny the Holy Spirit.
[/FORGERY]

Does that forgery make all your actual words fundamentally suspect?

>> ^shinyblurry:

Doesn't seem like many people agree with you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Jesus_as_myth

Some religious theologians think that the myth argument is unsound? Color me surprised. Argumentum ad populum is still a fallacy.

>> ^dgandhi:

>> ^shinyblurry:
Did you know that Cyrus freeing of the slaves confirms the bible is true?

[sarcasm]
[PROPHESY] I'm going to eat pickles while writing this post [/PROPHESY]
Clearly, since text can not be edited, all text which precedes a statement must, of necessity, predate it. Therefore if a claim is made in a text, and then said to be fulfilled in the same text, the author must be a true profit.
[/sarcasm]
>> ^shinyblurry:
Titus Flavius Josephus. The same historian who confirms that Jesus was a historical figure and affirms His life death and resurrection.

Josephus's testimony is widely considered forged, and few, excepting christian ideologues, claim that it has not been at least altered. The older Arabic translation does not contain a profession of faith, just an account of the claims of the followers, and saying that christians exist, is not the same as saying that they have their facts straight.
Josephus, of course, is not the only source on Cyrus, he ruled a fucking empire, he was not some two bit sheep herd. Yet you avoid the issue, you made a claim, Cyrus refutes it.
>> ^shinyblurry:
This agrees with modern historians, almost none of which make the ridiculous claim that Jesus never existed.

Some do make this "ridiculous" claim, and those who are left still have not provided the slightest shred of evidence that someone of that name did anything like what is stated in the gospels.
There is no historical reason to believe that such a person did exist, and the gospels are so glaringly contradictory that the authors clearly cared nothing about historical accuracy. Absent any historical authority in the gospels, or the forgeries, there is just as much chance that some guy named meatloaf was tearing around Galilee on his motorcycle at or around 30CE, but I don't believe it.
P.S. I ate pickles

+1 for the pickles...

I had Antelope.

Clearly, since text can not be edited, all text which precedes a statement must, of necessity, predate it. Therefore if a claim is made in a text, and then said to be fulfilled in the same text, the author must be a true profit.

hilarious. So, the bible is only good for the claims you wish to prove. Again, you show your lack of research..the prophecy and the fufillment of the prophecy are in seperate books written 1 or 2 hundred years apart. I'm stating to get the idea that you don't actually know anything and I'm arguing with a search engine.

Josephus's testimony is widely considered forged, and few, excepting christian ideologues, claim that it has not been at least altered. The older Arabic translation does not contain a profession of faith, just an account of the claims of the followers, and saying that christians exist, is not the same as saying that they have their facts straight.

Josephus, of course, is not the only source on Cyrus, he ruled a fucking empire, he was not some two bit sheep herd. Yet you avoid the issue, you made a claim, Cyrus refutes it.

It's not "widely considered forged". Again you don't know what you're talking about.

Educate yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6cQgqbXYN0

I'm avoiding nothing; yes, there are other sources for Cyrus, but the only sources concerning freeing the jews are from the bible and Josephus. You can't have it both ways..you can't claim the bible for evidence when the entire evidence you're claiming was about what Cyrus was doing for God, let alone it was the fulfillment of prophecy from the book of Jeremiah. You can't say Josephus is discredited yet claim it for evidence about the jews either. If the bible is evidence, then the credit goes to God for freeing the slaves.

If you say Josephus is accurate, you have to admit Jesus is a historical figure. Either way, your evidence is firmly in my territory. I'll happily admit that you have one example in the whole of human history of slaves being freed if you'll admit that Jesus was a historical figure.

There is no historical reason to believe that such a person did exist,
and the gospels are so glaringly contradictory that the authors
clearly cared nothing about historical accuracy. Absent any historical
authority in the gospels, or the forgeries, there is just as much
chance that some guy named meatloaf was tearing around Galilee on his
motorcycle at or around 30CE, but I don't believe it.

Doesn't seem like many people agree with you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Jesus_as_myth

>> ^shinyblurry:
Did you know that Cyrus freeing of the slaves confirms the bible is true?


[sarcasm]
[PROPHESY] I'm going to eat pickles while writing this post [/PROPHESY]

Clearly, since text can not be edited, all text which precedes a statement must, of necessity, predate it. Therefore if a claim is made in a text, and then said to be fulfilled in the same text, the author must be a true profit.
[/sarcasm]

>> ^shinyblurry:
Titus Flavius Josephus. The same historian who confirms that Jesus was a historical figure and affirms His life death and resurrection.


Josephus's testimony is widely considered forged, and few, excepting christian ideologues, claim that it has not been at least altered. The older Arabic translation does not contain a profession of faith, just an account of the claims of the followers, and saying that christians exist, is not the same as saying that they have their facts straight.

Josephus, of course, is not the only source on Cyrus, he ruled a fucking empire, he was not some two bit sheep herd. Yet you avoid the issue, you made a claim, Cyrus refutes it.

>> ^shinyblurry:

This agrees with modern historians, almost none of which make the ridiculous claim that Jesus never existed.


Some do make this "ridiculous" claim, and those who are left still have not provided the slightest shred of evidence that someone of that name did anything like what is stated in the gospels.

There is no historical reason to believe that such a person did exist, and the gospels are so glaringly contradictory that the authors clearly cared nothing about historical accuracy. Absent any historical authority in the gospels, or the forgeries, there is just as much chance that some guy named meatloaf was tearing around Galilee on his motorcycle at or around 30CE, but I don't believe it.

P.S. I ate pickles

Didn't anyone notice that his "official birth video" showed him being born in Africa? Hey QM and WP, where's the conspiracy theories and claims of forgery on the long form? You now have "proof" he is an African.
Also to answer QM, I guess you're technically correct, he's made sure at least ONE of America's enemies won't be kept awake at night, or at any other time.
And again QM you are asked, exactly how did Trump 'earn his narcissism'? Is it by inheriting a fortune and losing a large part of it, bankrupting businesses the world over (including at least one casino), being a ridiculous never ending blowhard, or is it by making the retardicans look like the insane crybabies they have become and showing clearly the racist, blatantly un-American and unpatriotic ideals they now stand for (for instance, attempting to publicly delegitimize their current president by any means)?

The "inverted photo" of the naked woman is a forgery.

Someone wrote, and I agree, that he probably should have said that "Obama couldn't sell forgeries to CBS." That one would have worked.

>> ^Jesus_Freak:
"Well, we're here, so how we got here is irrelevant."

That's what I mean about lazy.. you just don't want to get it. It's like looking at a river valley and saying.. "it's a good thing these hills come together to form a perfect vessel for this mountain snow melt." It is that simple. The river runs there because it is the lowest point. The valley is formed because the river runs there and makes the valley deeper.

That's exactly why humans use oxygen. It's why some people from northern climates are really pale and people from really sunny places have lots of pigment. God didn't make some people black and some people white. They all "started out in his image". Or is that microevolution.

The garden of eden and Noah's flood are simply oral traditions from nomadic tribes that got assimilated into modern culture. Your Bible has been arbitrarily modified for thousands of years. It's been a political device capriciously modified and edited as the ruling powers saw fit.

I do take exception to how off-handedly dismiss the Bible, though. The Bible has been validated through historical accuracy of events depicted, is a unique document in all of human history, and is validated through the fulfillment of prophecy over time.

Studies have verified that the transcripts have held up without material alteration according to the earliest known records.
The type of forgery necessary to corrupt the Bible we know today is a feat I doubt would be possible even in this day and age. You'd have to destroy every prior copy and convincingly alter remnant copies, all the while leaving no historical footprint to tell the tale.
I posed a scientific question to see how entrenched you all were about the notion that God could not exist. I'm still not impressed with the answers.


You obviously don't know much history about your religion. You can't honestly believe that what we call the Bible was just a filtered set of gospels. And then even certain aspects of those were shaped, such that original Christian sects allowed women to hold honored positions, and even preach. All references to such things were removed by non-holy means.

How can you say there is no alteration? Really old greek, latin.. always interpreted. Heck, wasn't there usually margin notes up until the King James which has it's own history. Aren't there like four or five "King James" Versions.. The wording is different in them all.

You really can't be serious. "Studies have shown"... ok.. "It's been proven that".

---------------
You are not impressed because it's your job to think for yourself. It's not anyone else job to make you believe something. Making someone believe is childish. You have to want to discover new information, think for yourself, be open to new ideas. You refuse to look and even try to see the other side.

If you had tangible, observable, logical evidence in your ideas, people would listen. But you don't have anything to bring to the table. You only have a belief and faith. There is not competing idea, just this never ending game religion plays where they find an area of human understanding that is lacking, and say God did it. Thousands of years ago it was rain, lightning and crop yields... Now it is before the big bang, and primordial ooze. Since it is hard to "prove" or demonstrate millions of years of time and natural forces, religion jumps in there and say, "you have to teach both sides".

They don't have another side or theory or evidence or progress. Intelligent Design should be bringing scientific discovery and break throughs and new inventions. Especially since they have God and prayer and holy water and host wafers. Shit, I forgot about all the prophecies. Certainly that would be a HUGE advantage!

Can you not even concede that Christianity declared the world flat and sun went around the Earth. These were equivalent to the modern Creationist meddling with a competing theory. But instead of proof or science... Religion just demands equal treatment, just because. Just because they have faith they must be right. How many years of scientific progress was stiffle or murdered over the Sun going around the Earth based on measurements and THEORIES. Do you really think the theory of planetary orbit is any different from the theory of natural selection?

Wow. I'm accused of making lazy arguments, when some of the best you guys can throw at me is that we have 100% odds of living on the planet we live on under the conditions that currently exist. That's not lazy?

"Well, we're here, so how we got here is irrelevant."

I take no offense to you cutting directly to an attack on my Bible. The premise of my argument did the same thing with science, so that's fair play.

I do take exception to how off-handedly dismiss the Bible, though. The Bible has been validated through historical accuracy of events depicted, is a unique document in all of human history, and is validated through the fulfillment of prophecy over time.

The lazy argument probably on the tip of your tongue is that the Bible has been altered a bazillion times to make it look like it got the story right. You've got quite a steep slope to climb to make that argument. The Bible includes 40 authors, 3 languages, 3 continents, and a authorship span of 1500 years. Studies have verified that the transcripts have held up without material alteration according to the earliest known records.

The type of forgery necessary to corrupt the Bible we know today is a feat I doubt would be possible even in this day and age. You'd have to destroy every prior copy and convincingly alter remnant copies, all the while leaving no historical footprint to tell the tale.

I posed a scientific question to see how entrenched you all were about the notion that God could not exist. I'm still not impressed with the answers.

If you want to get into a theological debate on whether my Bible is rubbish...I ask a similar question. Why would Jesus' disciples subject themselves to being cultural outcasts and ultimately suffer fates of excile and execution if they didn't truly believe in the message? Wouldn't at least one of them, seeing their reflection in the executioner's sword, yell out "Just kidding!" unless they passionately knew theirs was the most important message of all time?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But I think the point of this fake Kenyan BC was show that it isn't hard to create a fake document.


Actually, this shows precisely the opposite. It shows that it's very hard to create a plausible forged document. Look at how many mistakes there are in this forgery, and that's before it's even been thoroughly investigated. I'm sure the age of the paper and ink wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
HOWEVER - I don't think that the online 'PROOF OF OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP!!!!' videos and pictures and other crap have any real value any more than I think this fake Kenyan document does.


By "online 'PROOF OF OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP!!!!'" do you mean the birth announcements and the certificate of live birth? Because these are not solely 'online' proofs, as well they have been investigated by many people and have passed the 'smell test'. In fact there is a huge qualitative difference between this forgery and the "PROOF OF OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP". One is clearly a fake and the other is backed up by a great deal of research and much evidence.

>> ^Crosswords:
I'm convinced the people who are still convinced Obama isn't a natural citizen are equivalent to Flat Earthers.


When the “Earth is Flat and Only 6000 Years Old” crowd blathers on, what they demonstrate is how badly they don’t understand basic science. The Birfers however show they have a real hard time with telling the truth. Every bit of their “evidence” has shown to be a lie. The birth certificate provided is not a forgery as they maintain, no African relatives made a claim that Obama was born in Kenya, his college has not released documents showing he got a scholarship for foreigners, there never was a travel ban for Americans going to Pakistan at the time Obama visited that country. Obama has not spent million of dollars defending his case. The reason why every time they go to court their cases are tossed out is the same reason why the Creationists cant get published in a legit scientific journal. They have no proof.

BTW - Anyone that has ever placed an obituary, birth or wedding announcement in a paper knows that you simply cant call up the local paper and give them the announcement. The papers have to verify it with the vital statistic people.
The Birfers are nothing more than sore losers. They see that the rest of America is rejecting them, their leaders and their values, and its driving them crazy. So crazy in fact that they will believe any lie that is told to them, as long as it satisfies their self induced victim mentality.

Skeeve, while that may be proper procedure technically, who does that in practice? If she wasn't satisfied that my picture was valid, why not ask for ID(which she didn't)? Signing the card doesn't make a forgery any more valid if I am using a fake card.

No, I think if she was really concerned with preventing theft/fraud, she would have asked for ID. I would have been more than happy to provide ID. But to have me only sign my card just to buy a $1.35 bottle of water says she is just being an asshole. I am a casualty in her campaign to convert the millions of people who prefer not to sign their cards.

Psycho, the reason I didn't erase the signature immediately is because have to frequent this station alot, and while I have forgotten this woman's face, I'm quite sure she would remember such an insult, and piss in my gas tank on some future date.

(and i do see the irony of berating people who blow up petty things, while blowing up a petty incident)

You're right that it's a subjective question. I was trying my best to stay dispassionate about that particular instance because, well, I think both videos suck balls. A fucking cat pawing at a printer? Obviously, at least 90 people disagree with me, so I'm probably out of my realm of expertise.

I like your analogy about paintings with mustaches. But we're not hanging originals here at all. We're handing out prints. Yeah, the prints have all been signed by a forger, or even worse by a forger that thinks he has a better sense of style than the original artist. If the forgery hides the original artistic achievement, we should offer copies of the original. But if doesn't, there's only so much we can print up.

I agree - this one is right on the edge. The fact that the 'original' sift had the added effects, though, I think influences the decision. Had it been the other way around, I think the added sound effects would have been quickly deemed to not add anything, and Lucky's post would have been easily declared a dupe. So why should it work differently in reverse?

In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:
The addition of sound effects absolutely makes it different!

If there is a clip of Star Wars where Porkins explodes, it might get sifted. Then if somebody makes a version where a farting noise is added just before he explodes, would that not be different enough to warrant a separate sift? It's just one sound effect, but it changes the meaning of the clip.

The question is, how different does a video have to be in order to be considered not a dupe? And should that decision be made by one person? That seems to me to be contrary to the spirit of the sift.

I don't want to make a big deal out of this, but (forgive me the hyperbole) it seems like a work of art is being refused because this museum already has a copy of the painting where somebody scribbled a mustache on it.


In reply to this comment by jonny:
I should probably let Lucky answer for himself, but here goes anyway.

A different audio track on a video must provide some significant change in the content, not simply a more pleasurable viewing experience in the opinion of some. So, for instance, if someone posts a video of cats being herded with the native sound, and someone else posts the same vid with 'yakety sax', then that might be considered different and not a dupe. In this case though, the only difference is the presence or lack of a few sound effects. Your opinion that those sound effects suck isn't really relevant. The fact that gwiz's video did not have them does not make his post "different" or "original". It might make that particular copy of it better, but that's not the point of duplicates.

In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:
I really don't understand your point here. Those crappy sound effects dramatically change the tone of the video, from a cute cat vid to a goofy over-the-top sound effects vid. Perhaps you were watching with the sound low?

If there wasn't a significant difference, I don't think my preference for the original version would be so strong.


In reply to this comment by lucky760:
FAQ: Minor changes in content, like a few additional insignificant seconds of video or alternate background music, will still be considered dupes. The only exception to this is if the change in audio makes a significant difference to the video content.

The audio can in no legitimate way be validly considered as making a "significant difference to the video content." Claiming that it does when the only difference is a couple of minor sound affects is surprising and disingenuous.

*return

^How about:
--
1. If you would not sell your mother to a pimp then you have some socialist tendencies, the question as you phrase it is meaningless. Keyes' claim of "Radical Communist" would be something like a plan to nationalize all the factories in the US. The President has not taken this position in word or practice => he is not a practicing radical communist .
2. Is not a point in contention, nor was it the president's doing. He also makes his statements in the English language, which is not contentious, and irrelevant to the absurdity of his other claims
3. "Barack Obama: Opposed born-alive treatment law because it was already law." -http://www.ontheissues.org/2008_Pres_3.htm
So Keyes is either lying, or negligently misinformed => no basing his assessment on reality
4. Obama claimed he was born in Hawaii. And Provided legal documents to support the claim, which the state of Hawaii claims to be valid. If you question this please provide some documented physical evidence that something other than the official documented story took place.
5. This is only relevant if evidence can be found to shown that his birth certificate is a forgery.
6. Obama is supporting a plan which buys and renegotiates mortgages (it's on the whitehouse website), which is not the same thing as buying people out of them as Keyes claims, again he is lying or negligently misinformed.
7. Since all currency is concocted out of thin air, and all economies are constructed, out of whole cloth, by governments, non-involvement of government means no economy beyond barter. Since non-intervention would mean no economy as we know it, intervention is needed, even just to assert that a dollar has value, and that ownership has meaning. The question is not if intervention but how much, and whether less is better than more, and just for reference, consider that we've been trying less for a while now, and it looks not so good.
8. Printing money out of thin air is the entire basis of our economic system, it always causes inflation, even when banks do it, which is where our current problem comes from. There is no, non-ideological (non faith based), reason to presume that the government doing it will be worse than banks doing it, though it may very well not be any better either. Pretending that ANY money is not just pulled out of the air is either propaganda, or ignorance, given his position as a professional public figure I would forgive Keyes neither.