The disgusting out-of-control child abuse is not the only problem with Catholicism. Their worst problem is the entire cult, every fantasy, is bullshit. Their Magic Jeebus Man did not magically become a zombie. And of course the Magic Man is not real. All the other ridiculous stuff, it's all bullshit.
Why are Catholics still Catholics? It's a stupidity problem. All religious cults exist because people are just plain fucking stupid.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
New York Times - The Truth About Cardinal McCarrick
The Catholic Church needs an inquest into what the pederast cardinal's colleagues knew, and when.
By Ross Douthat
Opinion Columnist
July 25, 2018
One of the best things that the bishops of the American Catholic Church did during the great wave of sex abuse revelations 16 years ago — and yes, there’s a low bar for “best” — was to establish a National Review Board, staffed by prominent layman, with the authority to commission an independent report on what exactly had happened in the church.
The result was a careful analysis by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice that detailed the patterns of priestly sex abuse in American Catholicism between 1950 and 2002: How many, how often, what kind of abuse, what strategy of predation, how many victims, which sex, what age, how the priest’s superiors responded (or didn’t), how often the courts were involved, what scale of settlements were paid, and so on through a wealth of grim statistical detail.
Then attached to that data was a larger discussion from the Review Board’s members, which managed to be reasonably evenhanded about subjects (priestly celibacy and homosexuality, above all) that lend themselves to culture-war hysteria both inside and outside the church. Thanks to the members’ labors, any journalist or historian interested in assessing the problem of priestly sex abuse dispassionately, and anyone seeking the truth about a lurid and polarizing story, can turn to a sober and detailed accounting — one that that the church itself commissioned.
Now, unfortunately, it needs to happen again. But what needs to be commissioned this time, by Pope Francis himself if the American bishops can’t or won’t, isn’t a synthetic overview of a systemic problem. Rather, the church needs an inquest, a special prosecutor — you can even call it an inquisition if you want — into the very specific question of who knew what and when about the crimes of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, and why exactly they were silent.
Here are the allegations against McCarrick as we have them right now. In 1971, as a young priest, the future cardinal sexually assaulted a 16-year-old altar boy — the crime that almost 50 years later finally led to his public exposure as a pederast. Around the same time, he groomed and molested a teenage boy who had been the first child he ever baptized, whose family considered him a close friend — groping and masturbating him, taking him to a San Francisco restaurant and plying him with booze before he fondled him, taking him to a fishing camp with other boys and sleeping with him naked.
What happened to that young man happened to numerous seminarians and young priests as Father McCarrick became Bishop and then Archbishop McCarrick. The first written accusation (that we know of) was filed by one of his priests in 1994, addressed to McCarrick’s successor as the Bishop of Metuchen; the priest who complained was transferred to another diocese while his abuser’s rise continued.
By the end of that decade, McCarrick’s sexual misbehavior (if perhaps not its full scope) was known by enough people that a group of American laypeople went to Rome to petition against his appointment as archbishop of Washington, D.C., and at least one New York priest, Father Boniface Ramsey, sent a letter to the Vatican offering a similar warning.
These petitions were in vain; McCarrick became Washington’s archbishop and then a cardinal. At this point the sex abuse scandal broke in Boston, and elsewhere — and the Washington archbishop became the avuncular, reassuring media point person for his fellow bishops, issuing statements of concern and condemnation that if he really feared the punishments of hell would have turned to ashes in his mouth.
Then in 2005 and again in 2007, two New Jersey dioceses settled privately with two men alleging abuse or harassment at McCarrick’s hands. This presumably expanded substantially the number of people who knew about his crimes. Yet nothing was said publicly by the church about these settlements; McCarrick retired with his reputation intact, and was even permitted to live at a seminary. Father Ramsey continued to direct petitions to his superiors, including both the late Cardinal Egan of New York (a figure of dubious reputation around sex abuse) and the cardinal archbishop of Boston, Sean O’Malley (whose record and reputation are much stronger), to no visible effect.
In 2013, when Pope Benedict XVI resigned, McCarrick was too old to vote in the conclave but was active in the politicking. When Pope Francis was elected, he became an eminence grise, whose lobbying helped elevate several of the new pope’s choices for high office in the American church — including the new cardinal archbishop of Newark, Joseph Tobin, and the head of the Vatican dicastery for family life, Kevin Farrell, both of whom considered McCarrick a mentor.
In other words, two decades after McCarrick should have been removed from his offices, defrocked and handed over to the civil authorities, he was instead wielding remarkable influence in the church … right up until the moment when a lifetime’s worth of crimes were finally dragged into the light.
I think this long and sickening narrative should clarify why the McCarrick case, though “only” about one abuser, merits an expansive and public accounting of the facts. Over the course of multiple decades, across a period in which not just crimes but cover-ups devastated the moral credibility of the church’s hierarchy, many important figures in Rome and the United States must have known that a man who embodied the official response to the scandal was as guilty as any of the priests whose conduct he pretended to deplore.
Someone, or indeed many someones, needs to be held accountable for this disaster. And that accountability requires more than self-exculpating statements from the cardinals involved. It requires judgment — which requires more certain knowledge — which requires investigation — which probably requires an investigator with a mandate from the pope himself.
True, both secular and Catholic journalists can continue digging up incriminating material on who exactly knew what and when, who turned a blind eye and who (perhaps) was blackmailed by their own sins or guilty associations. But many journalists knew the truth about McCarrick years ago, and now as then they can do only so much if the necessary witnesses still feel that the institutional church will not protect them, if they fear their superiors will punish them for telling all the truth.
Moreover, notwithstanding the cardinal’s distinctive prominence and sins, the sex abuse scandal is probably of less interest to investigative reporters than it was in the early 2000s. There are several reasons for this — fatigue from the church’s scandals and so many non-Catholic sex abuse stories since, the fact that Pope Francis is more popular with the press than his predecessors and thus a less inviting target, a discomfort with stories that might involve the outing of prominent clerics, the oxygen-devouring impact of the Trump presidency.
But a crucial reason, and one whose ironies the leaders of the church should meditate upon, is that because of secularization and polarization and the bonfire they have made of their own moral authority, the Catholic bishops are now somewhat protected from media scrutiny by virtue of their increasing unimportance.
There are a few American bishops still with media platforms, a few with intellectual chops. But many of the notional leaders of the church are important only within the bureaucracies they manage and as invisible to the average churchgoer as a Target regional vice president would be to the average weekend shopper at the superstore. The lukewarm in their flock simply ignore them; the zealous build new institutions specifically designed to evade their oversight. Their political interventions go unheeded by Catholic Democrats and Catholic Republicans alike. In far too many cases an office that once bestrode entire cities now belongs to invisible company men, embarrassed phantoms materializing via videotape for the annual appeal.
Thus the great irony of the McCarrick moment — that the kind of crimes once covered up because of the power and influence of bishops might now be swept under quickly because of the episcopacy’s obscurity and irrelevance.
The question that the church’s leaders need to ask themselves, in America but especially in Rome, is whether they are happy with this settlement — happy to be ignored so long as they can also evade accountability for what’s still rotten in the church, happy to serve out their time as stewards of a declining institution rather than demanding the heads of the men whose culpable ignorance made the decline much steeper than it should have been.
If they are happy enough with the world as it is, then we will have more empty statements of concern, more promises of a new process for accusations against bishops, more professions of innocence and ignorance. If they are not, if they can imagine a church with its moral authority restored, then we will have an independent investigation, an invitation for testimony and in the end the church’s own imprimatur on the hard and heavy truth.
There is always a choice. I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Therefore choose life.
Wednesday, July 25, 2018
A business in Seymour, Indiana has been very successful but these days they have numerous problems thanks to Trump's trade wars. Trump is a stupid fucking asshole.
New York Times - A Message From a C.E.O.: Tariffs Are Going to Hurt American Workers
By Tom Linebarger
Mr. Linebarger is the chief executive of Cummins.
July 25, 2018
In 1976, Cummins began operations at our engine plant in Seymour, a small town of about 20,000 people in southern Indiana. The Seymour Engine Plant now produces engines for equipment like locomotives, large boats and power generators that back up critical infrastructure like data centers and landmarks like Wrigley Field. Nearly 80 percent of the products that Cummins makes in Seymour are exported; in other words, the existence of this plant is a direct result of our company’s ability to access global markets.
Cummins employs about 1,000 people in Seymour, and we have invested more than $300 million into the plant in the past seven years, including a technical center that employs hundreds of engineers. In the past year, we have added nearly 50 employees. While other small towns are struggling, Seymour is thriving.
However, increased supply-chain costs because of the recent tariffs will raise the price of the products from Seymour. We may also face retaliatory tariffs, which could result in lost sales and restrict or reverse our growth.
International trade has been the single most important contributor to growth and hiring at Cummins for nearly two decades. Half of our business is outside the United States, and more than 20 percent of the 25,000 Cummins jobs in America are directly tied to international business. And when we are growing, it often means our suppliers are also growing.
Let’s be clear: a tariff is a tax, plain and simple. For Cummins, the impact of tariffs on steel and aluminum, tariffs applied to products we bring to the United States, as well as retaliatory tariffs imposed on products we export to other countries will be difficult to mitigate even with the benefits of tax reform. And this does not take into account the latest and additional proposed tariffs, nor does it include the indirect costs that, inevitably, will be passed through to us and other companies like us by suppliers.
Our supply chain, which has been developed and optimized over decades, cannot be reorganized in short order. We rely on more than 2,500 American companies for components and materials, but for certain components — such as cylinder blocks, connecting rods and electronic controls — there are very few suppliers anywhere. Our products are specialized — we make engines for large tractor-trailer trucks, garbage trucks, trains, construction and mining equipment, among other things — and our markets are much smaller than the American auto market, so we sometimes look beyond our backyard for suppliers.
One model of engine, for example, was developed in the United States but is manufactured in China for the Chinese market. A small number of those engines — approximately 5,000 — are exported from our plant in China to the United States, so they are considered subject to tariffs under the administration’s recent actions.
So this product — developed by American engineers and sold by an American company — faces a 25 percent tariff here at home and must compete against products from European and other Asian engine manufacturers that are not subject to the tariffs. This will make it very difficult for Cummins to compete, putting our ability to sell these engines in the United States in peril.
Given its size and standing in the world, China should modernize its trading practices and improve intellectual property protection, among other issues, and improve access for American and other foreign companies. To make this possible, the United States and its allies need a long-term strategy to apply joint pressure over a sustained period. We should work openly and transparently with the Chinese government and American businesses. Unilateral and escalating tariffs are not the answer.
These tariffs put us in a worse position now than when we started these negotiations, and we are concerned there is no end in sight. Because of this uncertainty, companies like ours are standing still, unclear on how and where to invest. Even an imperfect trade deal — one that gets us a bit closer to a level playing field — is better than no trade deal, and no trade deal is better than implementing tariffs.
Businesses face a real dilemma. Can they absorb the tariffs? Or do they pass the increased costs to consumers?
We see no upside in the implementation of tariffs. They are a tax, and the risky proposition of entering a trade war could slow down the economy. Even putting up short-term barriers with trading partners in China and Europe can cause long-term losses in market share, resulting in lost jobs in the United States. The mere threat of tariffs results in significant costs for Cummins that cannot be recovered.
As the leader of Cummins, I am charged with providing opportunities for shareholders, customers, employees and our communities and working with policymakers to create a healthy climate for business. What’s at stake is not just the company’s profits, but jobs in Seymour and other communities where we work, such as Rocky Mount, N.C., and Jamestown, N.Y. This is what concerns me most. American workers and their families will be the real casualties of a trade war.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
This is one of the best comments:
"We may also face retaliatory tariffs, which could result in lost sales and restrict or reverse our growth." Mr. Linebarger should have led with this statement, since we learn that Cummins relies on export markets. Exports, in fact, account for at least 25% of U.S. production. If all of its buyers slapped a high tariff on Cummins' goods, the company would probably fold. By the way, about 25% of U.S. consumer purchases are imported goods. Apparently Monsieur Trump lives in a mental world of 70 years ago, when trade accounted (both exports and imports) accounted for less than 10% of the economy. Ah, I know, he wants to get back to those days and Make America Great Again! The idiocy is beyond belief.
By Tom Linebarger
Mr. Linebarger is the chief executive of Cummins.
July 25, 2018
In 1976, Cummins began operations at our engine plant in Seymour, a small town of about 20,000 people in southern Indiana. The Seymour Engine Plant now produces engines for equipment like locomotives, large boats and power generators that back up critical infrastructure like data centers and landmarks like Wrigley Field. Nearly 80 percent of the products that Cummins makes in Seymour are exported; in other words, the existence of this plant is a direct result of our company’s ability to access global markets.
Cummins employs about 1,000 people in Seymour, and we have invested more than $300 million into the plant in the past seven years, including a technical center that employs hundreds of engineers. In the past year, we have added nearly 50 employees. While other small towns are struggling, Seymour is thriving.
However, increased supply-chain costs because of the recent tariffs will raise the price of the products from Seymour. We may also face retaliatory tariffs, which could result in lost sales and restrict or reverse our growth.
International trade has been the single most important contributor to growth and hiring at Cummins for nearly two decades. Half of our business is outside the United States, and more than 20 percent of the 25,000 Cummins jobs in America are directly tied to international business. And when we are growing, it often means our suppliers are also growing.
Let’s be clear: a tariff is a tax, plain and simple. For Cummins, the impact of tariffs on steel and aluminum, tariffs applied to products we bring to the United States, as well as retaliatory tariffs imposed on products we export to other countries will be difficult to mitigate even with the benefits of tax reform. And this does not take into account the latest and additional proposed tariffs, nor does it include the indirect costs that, inevitably, will be passed through to us and other companies like us by suppliers.
Our supply chain, which has been developed and optimized over decades, cannot be reorganized in short order. We rely on more than 2,500 American companies for components and materials, but for certain components — such as cylinder blocks, connecting rods and electronic controls — there are very few suppliers anywhere. Our products are specialized — we make engines for large tractor-trailer trucks, garbage trucks, trains, construction and mining equipment, among other things — and our markets are much smaller than the American auto market, so we sometimes look beyond our backyard for suppliers.
One model of engine, for example, was developed in the United States but is manufactured in China for the Chinese market. A small number of those engines — approximately 5,000 — are exported from our plant in China to the United States, so they are considered subject to tariffs under the administration’s recent actions.
So this product — developed by American engineers and sold by an American company — faces a 25 percent tariff here at home and must compete against products from European and other Asian engine manufacturers that are not subject to the tariffs. This will make it very difficult for Cummins to compete, putting our ability to sell these engines in the United States in peril.
Given its size and standing in the world, China should modernize its trading practices and improve intellectual property protection, among other issues, and improve access for American and other foreign companies. To make this possible, the United States and its allies need a long-term strategy to apply joint pressure over a sustained period. We should work openly and transparently with the Chinese government and American businesses. Unilateral and escalating tariffs are not the answer.
These tariffs put us in a worse position now than when we started these negotiations, and we are concerned there is no end in sight. Because of this uncertainty, companies like ours are standing still, unclear on how and where to invest. Even an imperfect trade deal — one that gets us a bit closer to a level playing field — is better than no trade deal, and no trade deal is better than implementing tariffs.
Businesses face a real dilemma. Can they absorb the tariffs? Or do they pass the increased costs to consumers?
We see no upside in the implementation of tariffs. They are a tax, and the risky proposition of entering a trade war could slow down the economy. Even putting up short-term barriers with trading partners in China and Europe can cause long-term losses in market share, resulting in lost jobs in the United States. The mere threat of tariffs results in significant costs for Cummins that cannot be recovered.
As the leader of Cummins, I am charged with providing opportunities for shareholders, customers, employees and our communities and working with policymakers to create a healthy climate for business. What’s at stake is not just the company’s profits, but jobs in Seymour and other communities where we work, such as Rocky Mount, N.C., and Jamestown, N.Y. This is what concerns me most. American workers and their families will be the real casualties of a trade war.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
This is one of the best comments:
"We may also face retaliatory tariffs, which could result in lost sales and restrict or reverse our growth." Mr. Linebarger should have led with this statement, since we learn that Cummins relies on export markets. Exports, in fact, account for at least 25% of U.S. production. If all of its buyers slapped a high tariff on Cummins' goods, the company would probably fold. By the way, about 25% of U.S. consumer purchases are imported goods. Apparently Monsieur Trump lives in a mental world of 70 years ago, when trade accounted (both exports and imports) accounted for less than 10% of the economy. Ah, I know, he wants to get back to those days and Make America Great Again! The idiocy is beyond belief.
 |
| An engine at Cummins’s plant in Seymour, Ind. Eighty percent of the products there rely on global trade. |
President Fucktard Trump and his moronic love for trade wars. What a stupid fucking asshole.
Trump, did you read this? Oh wait, you don't like to read.
"Fallout from U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs hit General Motors Co.’s second-quarter earnings, and the nation’s largest auto maker on Wednesday lowered its profit outlook for 2018, saying it expects commodity price pressures to continue."
"Fallout from U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs hit General Motors Co.’s second-quarter earnings, and the nation’s largest auto maker on Wednesday lowered its profit outlook for 2018, saying it expects commodity price pressures to continue."
I found some extreme stupid which is easy to find in Idiot America. It's about a bible-thumping asshole who defends the Noah's Ark genocide myth. According to the myth the bible god murdered thousands of babies. That's OK because god did it.
I used to think it was impossible for anyone to believe in the Noah's Ark genocide myth. I was wrong. Millions of American fucktards are certain it was real.
This is what the bible-thumping asshole wrote:
"Noah's ark was made of wood. Wood degrades quickly, especially after having been subjected to water and barely surviving massive storm surges and the sudden eruption of underground springs. Are you really willing to risk your eternal soul on the basis that wood degrades and left you no 'scientific proof' that it once helped humanity survive a near extinction event?"
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
What I wrote for the asshole:
"Are you really willing to risk your eternal soul"
You fucking terrorist. Is this how you sell your moronic cult? Nothing is eternal. There is no soul. Grow up FFS.
I noticed you're a bible thumper. You think it's "god's word". The extreme stupid, it burns.
According to your disgusting myth the bible god murdered thousands of babies. Is that OK if god did it? You people are disgusting, not to mention insane.
You're probably an evolution denier. Science and reality makes you cry.
One more thing: There was no magical flood. The entire fantasy is bullshit. You people are batshit crazy.
This is what the bible-thumping asshole wrote:
"Noah's ark was made of wood. Wood degrades quickly, especially after having been subjected to water and barely surviving massive storm surges and the sudden eruption of underground springs. Are you really willing to risk your eternal soul on the basis that wood degrades and left you no 'scientific proof' that it once helped humanity survive a near extinction event?"
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
What I wrote for the asshole:
"Are you really willing to risk your eternal soul"
You fucking terrorist. Is this how you sell your moronic cult? Nothing is eternal. There is no soul. Grow up FFS.
I noticed you're a bible thumper. You think it's "god's word". The extreme stupid, it burns.
According to your disgusting myth the bible god murdered thousands of babies. Is that OK if god did it? You people are disgusting, not to mention insane.
You're probably an evolution denier. Science and reality makes you cry.
One more thing: There was no magical flood. The entire fantasy is bullshit. You people are batshit crazy.
A New York Times editorial: "So Now Trump Wants to Protect Farmers From Trump’s Trade War?"
"Trump Wants to Protect Farmers From Trump’s Trade War"
The title of this article explains everything. It's obvious Trump is not qualified to be president. Unfortunately he got the job (thanks Mrs. Clinton) and now we are stuck with him for another 2 years or another 6 years.
Republicans who agree free trade is a good thing hate Trump. Scientists hate him. A biologist has repeatedly called Trump a moron. Environmentalists hate Trump for obvious reasons.
The only people who still like him are science deniers and Christian extremists.
Trump will always be an idiot. There is no cure for his disease.
The title of this article explains everything. It's obvious Trump is not qualified to be president. Unfortunately he got the job (thanks Mrs. Clinton) and now we are stuck with him for another 2 years or another 6 years.
Republicans who agree free trade is a good thing hate Trump. Scientists hate him. A biologist has repeatedly called Trump a moron. Environmentalists hate Trump for obvious reasons.
The only people who still like him are science deniers and Christian extremists.
Trump will always be an idiot. There is no cure for his disease.
Tuesday, July 24, 2018
President Fucktard Trump and his moronic trade wars.
Every day Trump is in the news for fucking things up.
New York Times - "The Trump administration on Tuesday will announce up to $12 billion in emergency relief for farmers hurt by the president’s trade war."
I suggest it would make more sense to end the trade war.
America has to somehow get rid of this idiot. The stupidity is out of control and getting worse.
New York Times - "The Trump administration on Tuesday will announce up to $12 billion in emergency relief for farmers hurt by the president’s trade war."
I suggest it would make more sense to end the trade war.
America has to somehow get rid of this idiot. The stupidity is out of control and getting worse.
I asked Google: Why do morons deny human caused global warming?
Wikipedia, as usual, has a very long article about these know-nothing anti-science fucktards.
The reason I asked this question is because I found hundreds of Republicans (aka uneducated morons) complaining about the obvious fact people are destroying this planet. The stupidity I saw was overwhelming. There is no cure. Stupid fucking assholes will always be stupid.
I noticed the Republican morons think scientific facts are political ideas. For example they call scientific facts they don't like "leftist dogma ". I can't imagine the stupidity required to say these things.
Probably most of these fucktards are also evolution deniers, aka Christian scum. Christians are wrong about everything. For example they think the entire universe was magically created just for them to do what they want with it. I never met a Christian who wasn't a stupid fucking asshole.
Wikipedia - Climate change denial
Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is part of the global warming controversy. It involves denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions. Some deniers endorse the term, while others prefer the term climate change skepticism. Several scientists have noted that "skepticism" is a an inaccurate description for those who deny anthropogenic global warming. In effect, the two terms form a continuous, overlapping range of views, and generally have the same characteristics: both reject, to a greater or lesser extent, the scientific consensus on climate change. Climate change denial can also be implicit, when individuals or social groups accept the science but fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action. Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism and pseudoscience.
The campaign to undermine public trust in climate science has been described as a "denial machine" organized by industrial, political and ideological interests, and supported by conservative media and skeptical bloggers to manufacture uncertainty about global warming. In the public debate, phrases such as climate skepticism have frequently been used with the same meaning as climate denialism. The labels are contested: those actively challenging climate science commonly describe themselves as "skeptics", but many do not comply with common standards of scientific skepticism and, regardless of evidence, persistently deny the validity of human caused global warming.
Although scientific opinion on climate change is that human activity is extremely likely to be the primary driver of climate change, the politics of global warming have been affected by climate change denial, hindering efforts to prevent climate change and adapt to the warming climate. Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.
Of the world's countries, the climate change denial industry is most powerful in the United States. From 2015 to 2017 (after having already served from 2003 to 2007), the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works was chaired by oil lobbyist and climate change denier Jim Inhofe, who had previously called climate change "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated against the American people" and claimed to have debunked the alleged hoax in February 2015 when he brought a snowball with him in the Senate chamber and tossed it across the floor. He was succeeded in 2017 by John Barrasso, who similarly said: "The climate is constantly changing. The role human activity plays is not known." Organised campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science is associated with conservative economic policies and backed by industrial interests opposed to the regulation of CO2 emissions. Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and conservativethink tanks, often in the United States. More than 90% of papers sceptical on climate change originate from right-wing think tanks. The total annual income of these climate change counter-movement-organizations is roughly $900 million. Between 2002 and 2010, nearly $120 million (£77 million) was anonymously donated via the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund to more than 100 organisations seeking to undermine the public perception of the science on climate change. In 2013 the Center for Media and Democracy reported that the State Policy Network (SPN), an umbrella group of 64 U.S. think tanks, had been lobbying on behalf of major corporations and conservative donors to oppose climate change regulation.
Since the late 1970s, oil companies have published research broadly in line with the standard views on global warming. Despite this, oil companies organized a climate change denial campaign to disseminate public disinformation for several decades, a strategy that has been compared to the organized denial of the hazards of tobacco smoking by the tobacco industry.
The reason I asked this question is because I found hundreds of Republicans (aka uneducated morons) complaining about the obvious fact people are destroying this planet. The stupidity I saw was overwhelming. There is no cure. Stupid fucking assholes will always be stupid.
I noticed the Republican morons think scientific facts are political ideas. For example they call scientific facts they don't like "leftist dogma ". I can't imagine the stupidity required to say these things.
Probably most of these fucktards are also evolution deniers, aka Christian scum. Christians are wrong about everything. For example they think the entire universe was magically created just for them to do what they want with it. I never met a Christian who wasn't a stupid fucking asshole.
Wikipedia - Climate change denial
Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is part of the global warming controversy. It involves denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions. Some deniers endorse the term, while others prefer the term climate change skepticism. Several scientists have noted that "skepticism" is a an inaccurate description for those who deny anthropogenic global warming. In effect, the two terms form a continuous, overlapping range of views, and generally have the same characteristics: both reject, to a greater or lesser extent, the scientific consensus on climate change. Climate change denial can also be implicit, when individuals or social groups accept the science but fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action. Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism and pseudoscience.
The campaign to undermine public trust in climate science has been described as a "denial machine" organized by industrial, political and ideological interests, and supported by conservative media and skeptical bloggers to manufacture uncertainty about global warming. In the public debate, phrases such as climate skepticism have frequently been used with the same meaning as climate denialism. The labels are contested: those actively challenging climate science commonly describe themselves as "skeptics", but many do not comply with common standards of scientific skepticism and, regardless of evidence, persistently deny the validity of human caused global warming.
Although scientific opinion on climate change is that human activity is extremely likely to be the primary driver of climate change, the politics of global warming have been affected by climate change denial, hindering efforts to prevent climate change and adapt to the warming climate. Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.
Of the world's countries, the climate change denial industry is most powerful in the United States. From 2015 to 2017 (after having already served from 2003 to 2007), the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works was chaired by oil lobbyist and climate change denier Jim Inhofe, who had previously called climate change "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated against the American people" and claimed to have debunked the alleged hoax in February 2015 when he brought a snowball with him in the Senate chamber and tossed it across the floor. He was succeeded in 2017 by John Barrasso, who similarly said: "The climate is constantly changing. The role human activity plays is not known." Organised campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science is associated with conservative economic policies and backed by industrial interests opposed to the regulation of CO2 emissions. Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and conservativethink tanks, often in the United States. More than 90% of papers sceptical on climate change originate from right-wing think tanks. The total annual income of these climate change counter-movement-organizations is roughly $900 million. Between 2002 and 2010, nearly $120 million (£77 million) was anonymously donated via the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund to more than 100 organisations seeking to undermine the public perception of the science on climate change. In 2013 the Center for Media and Democracy reported that the State Policy Network (SPN), an umbrella group of 64 U.S. think tanks, had been lobbying on behalf of major corporations and conservative donors to oppose climate change regulation.
Since the late 1970s, oil companies have published research broadly in line with the standard views on global warming. Despite this, oil companies organized a climate change denial campaign to disseminate public disinformation for several decades, a strategy that has been compared to the organized denial of the hazards of tobacco smoking by the tobacco industry.
Monday, July 23, 2018
The millions of know-nothing science deniers of Idiot America.
I threw out my subscription to the anti-science Wall Street Journal but they still let me see everything for free. They are probably going to do this for 3 months. Fine with me. I will never waste another penny on those idiots.
Today I visited the place and I was surprised to see a pro-science article about human caused global warming. I wrote a comment there, a copy & paste job from the National Academy of Sciences. I just went there again to see the moronic anti-science comments. It was worse than I thought possible.
Here is my comment, one comment from one of the morons, and my reply.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
An Open Letter Regarding Climate Change From Concerned Members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences
Human-caused climate change is not a belief, a hoax, or a conspiracy. It is a physical reality. Fossil fuels powered the Industrial Revolution. But the burning of oil, coal, and gas also caused most of the historical increase in atmospheric levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. This increase in greenhouse gases is changing Earth’s climate.
Our fingerprints on the climate system are visible everywhere. They are seen in warming of the oceans, the land surface, and the lower atmosphere. They are identifiable in sea level rise, altered rainfall patterns, retreat of Arctic sea ice, ocean acidification, and many other aspects of the climate system. Human-caused climate change is not something far removed from our day-to-day experience, affecting only the remote Arctic. It is present here and now, in our own country, in our own states, and in our own communities.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
This is one of the fucktards who think scientific facts are political ideas:
"This statement is replete with conclusions that are not supported by the empirical evidence. This is a good summary of current leftist dogma on climate change."
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
What I wrote for the stupid fucking asshole (aka Republican):
"This is a good summary of current leftist dogma on climate change."
"On September 20, 2016, 378 members of the National Academy of Sciences, including 30 Nobel laureates, published an open letter to draw attention to the serious risks of climate change."
Sir, please tell those 30 Nobel laureates why they are wrong. Here is the link: Welcome to ResponsibleScientists.org
You know-nothing science deniers are pathetic.
Today I visited the place and I was surprised to see a pro-science article about human caused global warming. I wrote a comment there, a copy & paste job from the National Academy of Sciences. I just went there again to see the moronic anti-science comments. It was worse than I thought possible.
Here is my comment, one comment from one of the morons, and my reply.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
An Open Letter Regarding Climate Change From Concerned Members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences
Human-caused climate change is not a belief, a hoax, or a conspiracy. It is a physical reality. Fossil fuels powered the Industrial Revolution. But the burning of oil, coal, and gas also caused most of the historical increase in atmospheric levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. This increase in greenhouse gases is changing Earth’s climate.
Our fingerprints on the climate system are visible everywhere. They are seen in warming of the oceans, the land surface, and the lower atmosphere. They are identifiable in sea level rise, altered rainfall patterns, retreat of Arctic sea ice, ocean acidification, and many other aspects of the climate system. Human-caused climate change is not something far removed from our day-to-day experience, affecting only the remote Arctic. It is present here and now, in our own country, in our own states, and in our own communities.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
This is one of the fucktards who think scientific facts are political ideas:
"This statement is replete with conclusions that are not supported by the empirical evidence. This is a good summary of current leftist dogma on climate change."
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
What I wrote for the stupid fucking asshole (aka Republican):
"This is a good summary of current leftist dogma on climate change."
"On September 20, 2016, 378 members of the National Academy of Sciences, including 30 Nobel laureates, published an open letter to draw attention to the serious risks of climate change."
Sir, please tell those 30 Nobel laureates why they are wrong. Here is the link: Welcome to ResponsibleScientists.org
You know-nothing science deniers are pathetic.
A book that explains some of the evidence for evolution while sucking up to the know-nothing bible-thumping assholes who have thrown out two centuries of scientific progress.
God's Word or Human Reason?: An Inside Perspective on Creationism
While much space was wasted writing about idiotic religious fantasies which are obviously wrong, not to mention childish and ridiculous, there is a lot of good science in this book. I recommend it.
One thing missing from the book: The human race is one of the great ape species. The Magic Jeebus Man was an ape. Christians worship a dead ape.
This fact, we are apes, is probably the most important fact of science because people should know what they are. It's ridiculous to write a book about evolution and say nothing about this obvious fact.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
"Geneticists have come up with a variety of ways of calculating the percentages, which give different impressions about how similar chimpanzees and humans are. The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, for example, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA have also been deleted, duplicated over and over, or inserted from one part of the genome into another. When these differences are counted, there is an additional 4 to 5% distinction between the human and chimpanzee genomes."
"No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one. The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached. The human evolutionary tree is embedded within the great apes."
The Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
What someone else wrote: "All humans are a member of the family Hominoidea whether they want to acknowledge it or not, making them apes and close cousins to bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans."
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
A quote from page 264:
The next time you visit a zoo, go see the great apes. Recall the histories told by our bodies, by the earth, and by our DNA. These beings are not mere beasts, separated from humanity by an absolute gulf. They are our distant kin, our living link to all other life.
Now consider what those histories suggest about the future. Look at the past diversity of hominids, and how all that variety has been winnowed down to a single species: Homo sapiens. We have caused many extinctions in the past. We continue to do so on an ever greater scale. Will we do the same to the apes? Will we lose this precious link? Or can we employ our mental powers, acquired through millions of years of evolution, to turn the tide?
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
There is one thing I noticed about the stupid fucking assholes who deny scientific facts, they don't care about the environment and they don't care about species threatened with extinction. They think their Magic Man magically created the entire universe just for them and they can do what they want with it.
I never met a Christian who wasn't a stupid fucking asshole.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
I found this at Amazon:
God gave humans the ability to reason, but the Bible commands that we have faith in Him. According to Answers in Genesis, the largest and most influential creationist organization in the United States, the conclusions of human reason must be rejected if they contradict our understanding of the Bible. What are the implications of this worldview, and is it the best one for a Christian to live by?
In God's Word or Human Reason?, five former young-Earth creationists explore the topics of science and Biblical exegesis with the goal of showing that the scientific method does more to glorify God than to denigrate Him. Instead of providing a broad-level overview of the evidence for evolution and an old Earth, this book takes a new approach that considers the detailed expanse of creationist technical literature. The six main chapters provide an in depth examination of these arguments in a few key areas, including stratigraphy, radiometric dating, the origins of birds and of humans, and the meaning of the book of Genesis.
Although all five authors once were young-Earth creationists, today they represent a diversity of beliefs: two atheists, two Christians, and one deist. Each has included a personal account of their experiences growing up or participating in the creationist community, as well as the factors that played into their eventually leaving. As an interfaith project, God's Word or Human Reason? represents the common ground that people of many religious affiliations can find in their appreciation of reason as a means to understand the world.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Editorial Reviews
Review
"God's Word or Human Reason? might be one of the most important popular science books yet written. Highly readable and fantastically well designed and illustrated, it contains detailed, informed responses to a huge number of creationist claims and arguments, a substantial amount of its content not previously being covered outside of the technical literature. The book contains a unique blend of both personal experience and extensive scientific discussion. The latter will definitely make it of interest and value to those already persuaded by, or interested in, a view of Earth history consistent with 'mainstream science'. But what makes the book especially significant is that it comes from the perspective of former young-Earth creationists who explain why and what it was that caused them to change their views. As such, God's Word or Human Reason? should be required reading for those with a faith-based view of the world." Darren Naish, author of Dinosaurs, How they Lived and Evolved and All Yesterdays
"The chapter on dinosaurs and the evolution of birds is engaging, clear, and beautifully illustrated. It should make anyone stop and think about the richness of the evolutionary process as explained here." Pat Shipman, author of Taking Wing and The Invaders
"Evolution is one of the most singularly powerful ideas that has ever occurred to our species. Through science, history, and philosophy, this book provides powerful evidence of humanity's ability to understand and explain the reality of evolutionary change while simultaneously undercutting the pernicious myths of modern creationism. Cogently-argued and beautifully-illustrated, this book belongs on the shelf of anyone who has grappled with the big questions of how we know what we know about nature." Brian Switek, author of My Beloved Brontosaurus and Written in Stone
"Too many people who don't accept the reality of evolution do so with a major misunderstanding. They think that evolutionary theory is rooted in belief rather than data. This book gathers the evidence of the truth of descent with modification in clearly explained case studies, to help set the record straight." Thomas Holtz, vertebrate paleontologist, University of Maryland
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
This was my customer review of the book:
Every creationist and everyone else should buy and read this excellent book about the overwhelming evidence for evolution. May 12, 2018
Format: Hardcover|Verified Purchase
The science in this book is excellent including for example what they wrote about ERVs:
"Common ancestry of humans and apes can be inferred from the other lines of evidences described in this chapter, but the way that shared ERVs reinforce this pattern is perhaps the strongest single indication of it, a truly powerful and decisive smoking gun."
What makes this book about the evidence for evolution unique is the authors have done everything they can to politely explain to the evolution deniers why evolution is true. It seems like half the book is about creationist ideas and the other half explains why the creationist ideas are wrong, while being extremely nice to the creationists.
I recommend this book for creationists (who unfortunately are not likely to buy it) and for everyone else who thinks evolution is the most interesting branch of science.
I suggest this book and "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne are the two best books about evolution for people who are not biologists.
While much space was wasted writing about idiotic religious fantasies which are obviously wrong, not to mention childish and ridiculous, there is a lot of good science in this book. I recommend it.
One thing missing from the book: The human race is one of the great ape species. The Magic Jeebus Man was an ape. Christians worship a dead ape.
This fact, we are apes, is probably the most important fact of science because people should know what they are. It's ridiculous to write a book about evolution and say nothing about this obvious fact.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
"Geneticists have come up with a variety of ways of calculating the percentages, which give different impressions about how similar chimpanzees and humans are. The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, for example, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA have also been deleted, duplicated over and over, or inserted from one part of the genome into another. When these differences are counted, there is an additional 4 to 5% distinction between the human and chimpanzee genomes."
"No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one. The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached. The human evolutionary tree is embedded within the great apes."
The Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
What someone else wrote: "All humans are a member of the family Hominoidea whether they want to acknowledge it or not, making them apes and close cousins to bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans."
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
A quote from page 264:
The next time you visit a zoo, go see the great apes. Recall the histories told by our bodies, by the earth, and by our DNA. These beings are not mere beasts, separated from humanity by an absolute gulf. They are our distant kin, our living link to all other life.
Now consider what those histories suggest about the future. Look at the past diversity of hominids, and how all that variety has been winnowed down to a single species: Homo sapiens. We have caused many extinctions in the past. We continue to do so on an ever greater scale. Will we do the same to the apes? Will we lose this precious link? Or can we employ our mental powers, acquired through millions of years of evolution, to turn the tide?
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
There is one thing I noticed about the stupid fucking assholes who deny scientific facts, they don't care about the environment and they don't care about species threatened with extinction. They think their Magic Man magically created the entire universe just for them and they can do what they want with it.
I never met a Christian who wasn't a stupid fucking asshole.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
I found this at Amazon:
God gave humans the ability to reason, but the Bible commands that we have faith in Him. According to Answers in Genesis, the largest and most influential creationist organization in the United States, the conclusions of human reason must be rejected if they contradict our understanding of the Bible. What are the implications of this worldview, and is it the best one for a Christian to live by?
In God's Word or Human Reason?, five former young-Earth creationists explore the topics of science and Biblical exegesis with the goal of showing that the scientific method does more to glorify God than to denigrate Him. Instead of providing a broad-level overview of the evidence for evolution and an old Earth, this book takes a new approach that considers the detailed expanse of creationist technical literature. The six main chapters provide an in depth examination of these arguments in a few key areas, including stratigraphy, radiometric dating, the origins of birds and of humans, and the meaning of the book of Genesis.
Although all five authors once were young-Earth creationists, today they represent a diversity of beliefs: two atheists, two Christians, and one deist. Each has included a personal account of their experiences growing up or participating in the creationist community, as well as the factors that played into their eventually leaving. As an interfaith project, God's Word or Human Reason? represents the common ground that people of many religious affiliations can find in their appreciation of reason as a means to understand the world.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Editorial Reviews
Review
"God's Word or Human Reason? might be one of the most important popular science books yet written. Highly readable and fantastically well designed and illustrated, it contains detailed, informed responses to a huge number of creationist claims and arguments, a substantial amount of its content not previously being covered outside of the technical literature. The book contains a unique blend of both personal experience and extensive scientific discussion. The latter will definitely make it of interest and value to those already persuaded by, or interested in, a view of Earth history consistent with 'mainstream science'. But what makes the book especially significant is that it comes from the perspective of former young-Earth creationists who explain why and what it was that caused them to change their views. As such, God's Word or Human Reason? should be required reading for those with a faith-based view of the world." Darren Naish, author of Dinosaurs, How they Lived and Evolved and All Yesterdays
"The chapter on dinosaurs and the evolution of birds is engaging, clear, and beautifully illustrated. It should make anyone stop and think about the richness of the evolutionary process as explained here." Pat Shipman, author of Taking Wing and The Invaders
"Evolution is one of the most singularly powerful ideas that has ever occurred to our species. Through science, history, and philosophy, this book provides powerful evidence of humanity's ability to understand and explain the reality of evolutionary change while simultaneously undercutting the pernicious myths of modern creationism. Cogently-argued and beautifully-illustrated, this book belongs on the shelf of anyone who has grappled with the big questions of how we know what we know about nature." Brian Switek, author of My Beloved Brontosaurus and Written in Stone
"Too many people who don't accept the reality of evolution do so with a major misunderstanding. They think that evolutionary theory is rooted in belief rather than data. This book gathers the evidence of the truth of descent with modification in clearly explained case studies, to help set the record straight." Thomas Holtz, vertebrate paleontologist, University of Maryland
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
This was my customer review of the book:
Every creationist and everyone else should buy and read this excellent book about the overwhelming evidence for evolution. May 12, 2018
Format: Hardcover|Verified Purchase
The science in this book is excellent including for example what they wrote about ERVs:
"Common ancestry of humans and apes can be inferred from the other lines of evidences described in this chapter, but the way that shared ERVs reinforce this pattern is perhaps the strongest single indication of it, a truly powerful and decisive smoking gun."
What makes this book about the evidence for evolution unique is the authors have done everything they can to politely explain to the evolution deniers why evolution is true. It seems like half the book is about creationist ideas and the other half explains why the creationist ideas are wrong, while being extremely nice to the creationists.
I recommend this book for creationists (who unfortunately are not likely to buy it) and for everyone else who thinks evolution is the most interesting branch of science.
I suggest this book and "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne are the two best books about evolution for people who are not biologists.
I never met a Christian who wasn't a stupid fucking asshole.
The never ending Christian war against teaching evolution. The extreme stupid, it burns.
This news article is from last year but nothing has changed since then. Americans are still morons and with the anti-science Trump administration the problem is getting worse.
US states consider laws allowing Creationism to be taught by science teachers
Politicians in Texas are considering a bill that would give legal protection to teachers who present Creationism as a scientific theory.
It is one of eight US states where similar laws have been proposed since the start of the year. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Oklahoma and South Dakota are the others.
The Texan bill would allow science teachers to present ideas “that may cause controversy” on issues such as evolution and global warming.
The proposals are the latest in a long-running debate over whether religious beliefs should be allowed in the classroom.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••
"Politicians in Texas are considering a bill that would give legal protection to teachers who present Creationism as a scientific theory."
Imagine the stupidity required to say magical creationism is science.
Imagine being a student and the biology teacher is a biology denier.
Idiot America will always be infested with idiots.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Wikipedia has an article about the history of Christian stupidity in Idiot America:
Creation and evolution in public education in the United States
This news article is from last year but nothing has changed since then. Americans are still morons and with the anti-science Trump administration the problem is getting worse.
US states consider laws allowing Creationism to be taught by science teachers
Politicians in Texas are considering a bill that would give legal protection to teachers who present Creationism as a scientific theory.
It is one of eight US states where similar laws have been proposed since the start of the year. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Oklahoma and South Dakota are the others.
The Texan bill would allow science teachers to present ideas “that may cause controversy” on issues such as evolution and global warming.
The proposals are the latest in a long-running debate over whether religious beliefs should be allowed in the classroom.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••
"Politicians in Texas are considering a bill that would give legal protection to teachers who present Creationism as a scientific theory."
Imagine the stupidity required to say magical creationism is science.
Imagine being a student and the biology teacher is a biology denier.
Idiot America will always be infested with idiots.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Wikipedia has an article about the history of Christian stupidity in Idiot America:
Creation and evolution in public education in the United States
Sunday, July 22, 2018
When I have too much time on my hands I explore my blog which is 8 years old. I discover things I forgot about.
Fantastic stuff I have saved on my computer.
Black Heirloom Tomato
Christian creationists are stupid fucking assholes.
President Fucktard Trump
Muslim scum
This is the longest post I ever wrote. It goes on forever. It's about numerous stuff including this:
In yesterday's December 28, 2011 New York Times I read about cowardly Jewish assholes in Israel who harassed and threatened little girls who were (in their stupid opinion) not dressed modestly enough for school.
In the same newspaper I read about Christian assholes in America who used a public school to preach bullshit about Jeebus, an obvious violation of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.
In the same newspaper I read about another suicide bombing thanks to a Muslim asshole who thought he was going to a magical heaven for his cowardly atrocity. All this bullshit in one day.
Religious stupidity is completely out of control and it's all for nothing. There couldn't possibly be a god with unlimited magical powers. The idea is too ridiculous, too childish, too insane, and too impossible to take seriously.
Black Heirloom Tomato
Christian creationists are stupid fucking assholes.
President Fucktard Trump
Muslim scum
This is the longest post I ever wrote. It goes on forever. It's about numerous stuff including this:
In yesterday's December 28, 2011 New York Times I read about cowardly Jewish assholes in Israel who harassed and threatened little girls who were (in their stupid opinion) not dressed modestly enough for school.
In the same newspaper I read about Christian assholes in America who used a public school to preach bullshit about Jeebus, an obvious violation of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.
In the same newspaper I read about another suicide bombing thanks to a Muslim asshole who thought he was going to a magical heaven for his cowardly atrocity. All this bullshit in one day.
Religious stupidity is completely out of control and it's all for nothing. There couldn't possibly be a god with unlimited magical powers. The idea is too ridiculous, too childish, too insane, and too impossible to take seriously.
Who are we?
In a universe of countless billions of galaxies and countless trillions of solar systems, why do the god-soaked think the Earth is a big fucking deal? Why did the Magic Jeebus Man choose this insignificant planet in the middle of nowhere to do his magical resurrection thing?
"Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people." -- Carl Sagan
"Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people." -- Carl Sagan
"Trump is a purely temporary phenomenon that will disappear in 2020, or even sooner." -- George Soros
I added this to my list of favorite quotes:
"He also characterized Trump as a 'purely temporary phenomenon that will disappear in 2020, or even sooner,' and predicted a Democratic landslide in the 2018 midterm elections."
-- George Soros
Today's Sunday New York Times (July 22, 2018) has a very long and interesting article about the billionaire George Soros. If you don't have a New York Times subscription you can still read 5 articles a month for free. Here is the link:
George Soros Bet Big on Liberal Democracy. Now He Fears He Is Losing.
His enemies paint him as all-powerful, but the billionaire philanthropist believes that his political legacy has never been in greater jeopardy.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
I recently threw out the disgusting anti-science Wall Street Journal and replaced it with the New York Times. It was a good idea. I also threw out the disgusting anti-science Republican Party. I am now a conservative Democrat. There are not many conservative Democrats but we exist.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
If the Democrats nominate a liberal extremist in 2020, for example Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren or Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, then President Fucktard Trump will be president for 8 years instead of 4 years.
To prevent this disaster they need to nominate someone who is pro-business and for free trade.
Who else wants the job? I looked it up.
"If Democrats want pragmatism over anything else, they would struggle to do better than Montana Governor Steve Bullock. A two-term governor of red Montana, he won reelection by four percentage points in 2016 even as Trump was carrying his state by 21. Bullock's main problem is that he's probably too moderate at a time when the party seems anxious for liberalism."
If the voters think nominating a moderate Democrat is a problem then Trump will win.
Will the Democrats fuck up? Probably yes. I hope I'm wrong.
"He also characterized Trump as a 'purely temporary phenomenon that will disappear in 2020, or even sooner,' and predicted a Democratic landslide in the 2018 midterm elections."
-- George Soros
Today's Sunday New York Times (July 22, 2018) has a very long and interesting article about the billionaire George Soros. If you don't have a New York Times subscription you can still read 5 articles a month for free. Here is the link:
George Soros Bet Big on Liberal Democracy. Now He Fears He Is Losing.
His enemies paint him as all-powerful, but the billionaire philanthropist believes that his political legacy has never been in greater jeopardy.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
I recently threw out the disgusting anti-science Wall Street Journal and replaced it with the New York Times. It was a good idea. I also threw out the disgusting anti-science Republican Party. I am now a conservative Democrat. There are not many conservative Democrats but we exist.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
If the Democrats nominate a liberal extremist in 2020, for example Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren or Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, then President Fucktard Trump will be president for 8 years instead of 4 years.
To prevent this disaster they need to nominate someone who is pro-business and for free trade.
Who else wants the job? I looked it up.
"If Democrats want pragmatism over anything else, they would struggle to do better than Montana Governor Steve Bullock. A two-term governor of red Montana, he won reelection by four percentage points in 2016 even as Trump was carrying his state by 21. Bullock's main problem is that he's probably too moderate at a time when the party seems anxious for liberalism."
If the voters think nominating a moderate Democrat is a problem then Trump will win.
Will the Democrats fuck up? Probably yes. I hope I'm wrong.
Somebody else wrote this. Internet name "Fiveofswords". Well done. It's about how evolution works and the uneducated morons who want to throw it out.
It's remarkable that evolution was widely accepted before DNA, which was predicted, was actually discovered.
Now that we know about DNA there simply is nothing to speak about anymore.
It's accepted that organisms pass their DNA to offspring. Its accepted that DNA does not always replicate perfectly. Its accepted (almost a tautology) that organisms more capable of surviving are also more likely to survive.
These three facts, when taken together, must logically result in the truth of evolution. If a person cannot comprehend that, then the only explanation is that they are either ignorant of those facts, or they are an imbecile....in fact they would ironically be somewhat inferior to the average chimpanzee in their capacity for abstract reasoning.
Any sort of subterfuge is pointless...the theoretical lack of perfect knowledge is irrelevant, the 'freedom' to have stupid ideas without facing prison time is irrelevant. The only personal choice here is whether you want to be a child or an adult...can you handle reality or not.
Now that we know about DNA there simply is nothing to speak about anymore.
It's accepted that organisms pass their DNA to offspring. Its accepted that DNA does not always replicate perfectly. Its accepted (almost a tautology) that organisms more capable of surviving are also more likely to survive.
These three facts, when taken together, must logically result in the truth of evolution. If a person cannot comprehend that, then the only explanation is that they are either ignorant of those facts, or they are an imbecile....in fact they would ironically be somewhat inferior to the average chimpanzee in their capacity for abstract reasoning.
Any sort of subterfuge is pointless...the theoretical lack of perfect knowledge is irrelevant, the 'freedom' to have stupid ideas without facing prison time is irrelevant. The only personal choice here is whether you want to be a child or an adult...can you handle reality or not.
1964
Wikipedia - The Sound of Silence
Hello darkness, my old friend I've come to talk with you again Because a vision softly creeping Left its seeds while I was sleeping And the vision that was planted in my brain Still remains Within the sound of silence In restless dreams I walked alone Narrow streets of cobblestone 'Neath the halo of a street lamp I turned my collar to the cold and damp When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of a neon light That split the night And touched the sound of silence And in the naked light I saw Ten thousand people maybe more People talking without speaking People hearing without listening People writing songs that voices never shared No one dared Disturb the sound of silence "Fools," said I, "you do not know Silence like a cancer grows Hear my words that I might teach you Take my arms that I might reach you" But my words like silent raindrops fell And echoed in the wells of silence And the people bowed and prayed To the neon god they made And the sign flashed out its warning In the words that it was forming And the sign said "The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls And tenement halls And whispered in the sound of silence"
Saturday, July 21, 2018
Charles Darwin killed the idiotic Magic Man fantasy in 1859 when he published On the Origin of Species.
Charles Darwin killed the idiotic Magic Man fantasy in 1859 when he published On the Origin of Species. Most people didn't get the memo.
A question I asked. There was one excellent answer.
If God was not necessary for something as complex as the development of new species, then why would God be necessary for anything else?
Charles Darwin's Origin of Species made God unnecessary. Evolution is a fact that disproves God. Development of a new species happens naturally and is not as complex as you think it is. It's actually quiet simple. Christians make the mistake of assuming life is too complex to evolve. This idea is false and shows a infantile understanding of biology. Life is actually simple. Gradual changes over time accumulate into major changes.
So since God is unnecessary for life, the next step is to question the existence of God. What is God's purpose if science explains what we used to need a God for? God was created because we couldn't understand the natural world. But now that we understand most of the natural world, God has become obsolete.
A question I asked. There was one excellent answer.
If God was not necessary for something as complex as the development of new species, then why would God be necessary for anything else?
Charles Darwin's Origin of Species made God unnecessary. Evolution is a fact that disproves God. Development of a new species happens naturally and is not as complex as you think it is. It's actually quiet simple. Christians make the mistake of assuming life is too complex to evolve. This idea is false and shows a infantile understanding of biology. Life is actually simple. Gradual changes over time accumulate into major changes.
So since God is unnecessary for life, the next step is to question the existence of God. What is God's purpose if science explains what we used to need a God for? God was created because we couldn't understand the natural world. But now that we understand most of the natural world, God has become obsolete.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)