949havoc

A Veterans' Day deep thought by JoeBiden:

"You're not just the backbone of America; you're the spine."

"As long as goods and materials are getting where they need to go on time, there's usually no need to worry about the supply chains," Biden said.

Sorry, that statement, alone, is misguided, so SloJoe should include himself among the Americans who fit the description; "...but frankly, not a lot of people have a clear understanding, whether they have a Ph.D. or they didn't go to school, about how a supply chain works," Biden said in the same commentary that produced the above quote.

Is it world class strategy to ignore a process that appears to function efficiently? No. The concept is called process improvement, and it means a continuous effort to assess a process to work out it bugs and get pieces of the process more efficient that they were before. It is not a static environment. And no single change will fix all. That's one reason why comprehensive bills, such as the two going through Congress now, will not succeed as is hoped by the Biden admin. The comprehensive thinking plagued Obamacare, and even plagued Biden's own 1992 crime bill, as Clinton, himself, later admitted.

I thank Biden for telling us how stupid we are. Same to ya, Joe.

Saule Omarova, JoeBiden's pick to head the Treasury Dept's Office of the Controller of the Currency, has said, more than once, ""a lot of...small players in those industries" fossil fuel industries, that is, "are going to probably go bankrupt in short order... At least we want them to go bankrupt if we want to tackle climate change, right?"

Arrogant because climate does not change exclusively due to anthropogenic effect. The climate was changing long before the advent of man  on Earth, and will continue to change with man on earth.

Arrogant to suggest that only the contribution of man's presence is taking climate beyond a recoverable condition.

Arrogant because climate changes, period, with or without man.

Arrogant because there does not exist one singular climate, if it could be controlled, that is ideal for the entire planet.

Arrogant because the Earth does not operate to any schedule, certainly none ever developed by man.

Arrogant because Earth's various system con tributing to climate do not recognize indulgences like carbon credits.

And, arrogant because at present, the total contribution of "renewable energy," which happens to include fossil fuels,  because they are constantly being replenished, and will continue to be replenished as long as life on Earth exists, or, "green energy," which does not include fossil fuels [let them make up their minds], amounts to roughly 22% of all energy resources used on Earth, whereas fossil fuels account for about 66% of all energy consumed on Earth. Further, although the percentage of green energy increases annually, it is in small singular digits, and we have, according to green new deal proponents, 7 years to get it right. The math, let alone the science, or the economics, just do not add.

Bankrupt that sector of the energy industry precipitously, as Omarova suggests, and we will no longer be worried about climate change as an existential threat.

Yesterday, at the 2021 UN Climate Change Conference, held in Glasgow. Obama seemed to channel JoeBiden:  "Since we're in the Emerald Isles here, let me quote the bard, William Shakespeare," Obama said. "‘What wound,’ he writes, ‘did ever heal but by degrees.’"

Oops.

"We're" not in Ireland, "we're" in Scotland.

Shakespeare is England's bard. The bard of Ireland is Robert Burns. There was once a Robert the Bruce, King of Scots, in the early 14th century, but he was neither a bard, nor concerned about climate change. Shakespeare did write the quote, said by Othello in the play of the same name, but the "degrees" spoken of had naught to do with temperature.

Yep, sounds just like Biden.  

Barack, you don't have to do this. One in your party is enough.

A week following the election last Tuesday, I’ve reflected on the surprising results, particularly in VA, where McAuliffe snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by being, frankly, stupid. Several statements led him down the road to defeat, but one stands proud as a woke nutjob: That parents should not have a say in their children’s education. Many people believe this. Apparently, not enough to win in a statewide election in a blue state. Not yet. The trend is definitely turning sour against parents because such a statement, even four years ago, would have been laughed off a campaign stage.
 
I am not going to claim that the Covid pandemic was a conspiracy because, frankly, it doesn’t matter. Trying to take advantage of the issue by Democrats, however, was laughable in the extreme. Can’t really blame Democrats for the general shutdown last summer, and maybe a brief closure did help control the spread of the disease, but I heard few complaints from Democrats. It worked to their favor, or so they thought, because the shutdown was not just business; it was education, too. And because schools shutdown, at least one parent needed to stay home even if their particular work situation continued to remain open, just to be with their kids. I’ve known for a long time that school boards across the country were not chomping at the bit to maintain an open communication with parents once a more radical curriculum took hold, but with a parent home to witness what was being taught first hand, the inevitable occurred: Parents learned just how radical the curriculum was, and they have obviously rebelled in large numbers.
 
Democrats shot themselves in the head on this one. With Double-down McAuliffe speaking his empty-headed mind, what semblance of a victory he had flew up his nose. Well, the last week of his campaign, he was dancing around on stage like a giddy-smile cokehead. It was hilarious, and revealing. 

Democrats may want to re-think their education strategy because this one educated too much. Good thing. The last thing we need is a bunch of little Communists at our dinner tables.

Since no one else will: Congratulations to the Atlanta Braves, and a blunt, desewrevd farewell to Stacey Abrams. You will recall that in the midst of a successful season, even at the midpoint of the season's All Star game, Abrams, virtually single-handedly, forced the MLB, strictly for political reasons, over new election laws in GA, to move the All Star game, a game that also featured a tribute to Hank Aaron, but not in his home park, to Denver. Just desserts that the Braves brought home the World Series title. As for Abrams, and the MLB for caving to her demands [and who is Stacey Abrams, anyway, but a failure?] she belongs on the scrap heap of failed political enterprises.

I'm not at all a Braves fan, but a job well done deserves recognition.

You will have to guess my topic. For the last few years, the incident of this topic has been around 800,000 repeats, but is suddenly up again to its historic average of 1M per year, and we're only 5/6 of the year complete. What is it?

Hint:  http://www.usalivestats.com

While it is not clear by H.Res 109 [the non-binding resolution that planted a stake in the ground by the House] in 2019 that there is a firm deadline of 10 years, nor what, exactly is to be accomplished by that clock, it is a commonly known deadline, none-the-less. What is expected to be done, one might ask A. Occasional Cortex?

Where are we now, 3 years into that 10 years?

The state of energy consumption in the U.S. can be summed as follows: the equivalent of 14.6 billion BOE [equivalent of barrels of oil consumed] have been consumed to date this year, 2021. With 60 days left to the year [5/6 of the year] it is extrapolated that the final tally will be pprox. 17.6B boe.

Of the 5.4B actual barrels of oil consumed this Y.T.D the total contribution of renewable sources of energy amounts to a whopping 22%. At that level of contribution, if that 22% is doubled annually, it will still require 4.5 of those 7 years to achieve net zero. Clearly, given the recent past's growth, we will not make 10 years and have anything close to net zero.

Renewables [hydro, biofuels, wind, geothermal, solar] increasing are not increasing annual use by 22% per annum. Consider that from, 1970 to now, 50 years, the total use of renewables has doubled, at a rate of 2% per year. The numbers just do not stack fast enough. That's not to say it shouldn't be done; I'm all for projecting greater use of renewables as time goes on. I'm saying setting the goal of net zero so quickly was careless and irresponsible. By the way, I have been running on a 39-panel array of solar panels since 2016. What have you done? And I'm far from a GND proponent, but for other reasons having nothing to do with renewable energy, which is a lousy description if one thinks about it, since petroleum is renewable, too, and has been renewing for billions of years, and will continue renewing until every life on Earth is extinguished.

This post has everything to do with the outrageous consequence of attitude expressed by the Loudoun County School Board cover up of a sexual assault in order to advance a transgender bathroom policy.  They buried a rape case, pure and simple. So, a male kid wearing a dress must, according to the Board, must be expressing as a girl, so all is good? NO!!!!!!!!! Girls can still rape girls, and boys, boys. Happens, boys and girls. And lets not fuck up the conversation with the nonsense of gender identity just because Psychologs today have declared that such identity is a free choice. Gee, I thought no one had free choice according to some here who think their brain chemistry is beholden to electrons in the universe messing with their brain chemistry. THEIR brain, maybe, but mine is clear enough to recognize that in the hubbub of gender identity, the new recognized gender alphabet6 soup just happens to ignore the 95% plus of us who are M or F. But, no, I don't have choice. Then neithert do you Progs have choice to abort, either, so can the pro-choice bit.  Make up your fucking minds. At least mine is consistent. I accept choice except choosing to bury a rape, repeated in another school by the same perp, just to support gender choice.

In last Thursday's CNN Town Hall featuring Your Incompetentness, he is shown in social media in split screen with Bevis and his cornholio alter-ego, with arms down to the elbows, then bent forward with fists clenched. What is Biden doing?

1. Actually channeling Beavis.

2. In training to box Trump behind the woodshed.

3. Gripping a painting that isn't by his son, Punter.

4. Driving his peddle-pusher car in the driveway.

5. His orgasmic response to having his hairy legs rubbed by children.

6. Gripping his imagined podium so he does not fall on his face.

7. He was told by the earpiece ever present in his ear, "PoundMeToo."

8. Jill told him backstage before going on, "Just be yourself, Honey."

9. He whispered to the host, Anderson Cooper, "Guess in which hand I'm controlling the Border."

10. He's answering the question given to him, "What plans does the Biden Admin have to relieve the current squeeze due to rising gasoline and grocery prices?" in pantomime. He's applying reverse psychology. Or, maybe he just doesn't understand the question and will, if they don't break for a commercial, throw a tantrum.

I've been away in back, high country in the Rockies for a week; me and nature, where, in the cold nights, I spent hours in thinking, watching the splendor overhead you just cannot see in any city of modern convenience. Part of that splendor was a fully waxing moon. It got me thinking about the phenomenon of the blue moon.

Contrary to very popular belief, on both sides, the 1973 Roe v. WadeSupreme Court decision will not be overturned in a single court case, even with a clear conservative majority on the Court as it has at present. Personally, I am skeptical of politics on the Court. The evidence of this attitude is apparent when one considers that, in spite of the apparent “political” leaning of the Court, it arrives at unanimous decisions a full 59% of the time over its history since 1789, when established. No other split decision of the Court has this plurality. 

Further, note that when Roewas decided, the 7-2 split decision included four Justices appointed by Republican Presidents. So much for partisanship on the Court. It is a popular, but unwarranted myth. 

Roeis a much more complicated decision to overturn. Of nearly 1,900 cases taken by the Court in its history, there have been but 200+ decisions later overturned.  There are too many variables, all of which would require a perfect storm of a single case to come before the Court in order for this generation’s Court to overturn Roe.That is not very likely to happen. 

I perceive three major points, all three of which must be completely revised in current law, not just Roe,which did not establish any law; rather, it merely agreed with several state laws, while requiring other states to amend their law on the subject.
Those three points are:

1.     The fetus is a human being and a person.
2.     The fetal/amniotic/umbilical/placental tissues share unique DNA separate and distinct from the mother.
3.     Privacy of a woman’s body does not extend to the fetus as described by the privacy discussion in the Roedecision.

Fetus is human: Once upon a time, even as late as the Roedecision, this was little more than assumption. And, while some still argue the point that a fetus is not human until birth, thus defining, they think, what it is not,they do not alternatively define by explanation what it is.
However, science has stepped in to demonstrate that by every definition of “human,” except one, the fetus exhibits every single characteristic of humanity; by DNA, by form/fit/function, and by biologic systems.

Currently, by one statute, however, a “person,” by definition, does not necessarily accept a pre-natal condition, although 1 US Code §8 does come very close to it. This will be the easiest, and likely the first point to be altered, and it may not occur in a Roe-related case.
The sub-set question becomes, if the fetus is human, does it share equal personhood rights even if unborn? Here, again, 1 US Code §8 comes up to, but does not cross that threshold. 

However, there is another statute, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which amended 18 US Code §1841 to recognize that any violence committed on a pregnant woman that also resulted in the death of the fetus would carry a dual charge of murder, which is, exclusively, the malicious cause of death with aforethought to a human being, a person.  Therefore, this statute recognizes the personhood of the unborn fetus.

Fetal… tissue is separate from mother.This point, as well, was nebulous until the human genome was completely mapped by the close of the twentieth century, twenty-plus years following the Roedecision.  By that time, DNA identification was becoming commonplace, and it was demonstrated by empiric evidence that fetal/amniotic/umbilical/placental tissues shared common DNA that was separate and distinct from the mother.
It was secondarily determined that not even blood was shared between mother and fetus, but that, rather, in the cellular attachment of the placenta to the inner uterine wall, there is a blood barrier similar to that in the lungs such that nutrients pass through the barrier, but blood does not. In the lungs, the barrier allows exchange of oxygen for carbon dioxide without internal loss of blood.

The separation feature is critical to a reversal of the Roedecision, which stipulates that a mother/fetal bond is physiologically and genetically cohesive and identical.

To tip that scale, the third point will require discussion: 

Privacy of a woman’s body. The privacy issue is nebulous, at best, even though the Roedecision cites amendments 1, 4, 5, 9, and 14 as descriptive of individual privacy even though only one, the 14th, contains any description of “privacy” at all, and in that context, the amendment verbiage relates only to one’s personal protection against unwarranted government search and seizure. One might argue that since, in many cases, the government is funding the abortion procedure, at least in some cases, that is exactly what abortion is. The other cited amendments do not even contain the words, “privacy,” or “private,” but, nor does the 14A. The discussion of the application of “privacy” is interpretive, only.

But, even physiologically, it is a leap from current demand of understanding the science to consider that the fetus is not a part of the woman’s body. Once truly understood by the simplicity of the true science, it becomes much clearer that the Roedecision got it wrong.

As noted above, fetal… tissue DNA does not match the mother’s DNA. On that basis, alone, the fetal… tissue is not part of the woman’s body. Neither is food, one might argue. Organic food does not share her DNA, either, but it clearly becomes part of the woman’s body. More correctly, it is broken down digestively to its simple components, and is then either absorbed by her body, or evacuated, or, in the case of pregnancy, shared with the fetus until it comes to full-term.
It becomes apparent that the separation of mother and fetal tissue is elegant. It is intended that food be absorbed by the body as its first objective. Not so with fetal… tissue. The fetal objective is to become a separate, distinct, and wholly self-driven individual [or more in the case of multiple simultaneous births]. It is carried in the woman’s body, surrounded by it, much like a ping-pong ball is held in the closed fist, but, by birth, the fetal… tissue, all of it, is expelled from the mother’s body.

This point will likely be the last to change its paradigm, but it is certain to do so when the science, and the apparently conflicting legal statutes, are more generally understood and accepted as fact. The difficulty is that, during the nine months of gestation, the fetal… tissue certainly seems like part and parcel of the woman’s body.  The two previous points are going to have to change their paradigms before this third point is ever modified. Even then, to surrender a privacy that has been a part of society by Court precedent for two generations, and certainly interpreted as such for far longer, is a difficult legal demand, even for a scientifically-absorbed Supreme Court.

A couple of years ago, present and former Justices of the Court rendered commentary on the Roe v. Wade decision, including then Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who determined that the Roedecision certainly warranted a re-examination by the Court, at least, and potential overturning for a variety of reasons, including some of the points reviewed here.

...and that is why I don't eat corn flakes.

Really?

And this is because this is the best explanation for my refusal of corn flakes?

Could it be that I simply determined that milk makes them excessively soggy? Some like that; I do not.

Oh, the fact that I do not is also the universe messing with my brain chemistry? Why mine and not yours?

Well, it's obvious, isn't it? I've pissed off the universe. Little old me. As if I was any threat to it. Over corn flakes.

Uh-huh. Sure. That and a dime...

Some of you; you know who you are, inject Trump into a string having naught to do with him. Hint: He is no longer the President. He is no longer your boogey man. But, you're so woke, you still think the subject is relevant, which is one reason why I accuse being woke, as being completely unconscious. You just cannot move on. Why?

An agency of the Census Bureau that has been doing Household Pulse Surveys has found that in thre past year, Home Schooling has tripled in volume. Of course, much of that increase has been due to Covid, but the agency is sensing some indications that, while originally predicting that the rate wold fall again when students in greater volumes return to the classroom, that prediction is revising; not due to a new rise in Covid, but due to curriculum. Parents are, in greater numbers, speaking out over their discontent with curricula such as CRT. The movement, itself, has indicated that it is a theory camped on a theory https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05, which does not bode well for its stability of argument.

What is the education industry's response? That parents are domestic terrorists. Apparently, advancing the theory of systemic racism, since the education industry is a government agency complex, is self-fulfilling. Sure. So is home schooling. The PTA, after all, which predates CRT, begins with parents.

"I’m not supposed to take any questions but go ahead," Biden told Bloomberg News reporter Jennifer Jacobs.

"I’m not gonna answer on Afghanistan now," Biden interjected before walking away from the podium.

"Ladies and gentlemen, they gave me a list here. The first person I was instructed to call on was Kelly O'Donnell from NBC," Biden said during a press conference in August. 

Biden said he would be "in trouble" if he continued to take questions from reporters during a rare back-and-forth with the press in April.

He's in trouble, all right. On the heels of a latest Quinnipiac poll [10/6] giving Biden a 38% approval rating, he attempts to spin a dismal September jobs report of adding a staggering 150K jobs when 500k were expected. The word he gave was "progress." Yeah, typical progressive progress that does rearview mirror driving. 

Rearview? How dare I? Easy, just citing Biden: "Build Back Better, isn't it? Am I wrong?"  What's so bad about building forward? Well, that's what you get when your follow a fellow Dem President whom you served as Veep, whose mantra was "Leading from behind." See, rearview, and backward all the way. Progressivism at its finest? Don't know, I'm not woke, thank God.

How? Why, it's simple as saying "progressive:" Simply call your parents of school children "domestic terrorists."

Yeah, Mr. Joe, that will certainly attract those people with children who also happen to be voters, In both parties. Tell them they are Bin Laden cousins.

Yep, I see them beating down their doors to get out the vote for SloJoe again. For for the hairy guy to get out of town.

Most public bathrooms have stalls equipped with doors. Doors are a funny thing. Closed, they're a wall. Open, they're nothing. If a door's proper function is as a wall, there;' a certain etiquette. If a wall, it has meaning; and intended separation: one is within walls, or one is outside of walls. Walls define inclusivity. Outside, etiquette says, you're not included. Is that clear enough to sentient people? To polite people?

Agree or disagree with Kyrsten Sinema, there's a certain toilet subtlety that escapes some people; kind of like trusting that flatulence is all that will escape. In public, that may be a little embarrassing, and there's a certain etiquette about that, as well, because, well, everybody does it, don't they?  The invasion on Kyrsten Sinema was effected by someone who understands none of the above. and we're supposed to think they have relevance? Sorry. All I hear is a toilet flush on that etiquette.

So, Zuckerberg at least admits that his industry has a problem, but he throws up his hands and asks Congress to fix it. Has he learned nothing but how to manipulate a face? Ask Congress to fix anything, the only guarantee is that it will take more than a generation just to start the serious conversation among themselves.

This is clearly a condition of "physician, heal thyself." As in, self- regulate. It is, after all, his industry, and not necessarily that of Congress. He really wants amateurs to regulate his industry? He's allegedly a smart guyt; figurer it out, and stiop worrying what it will cost to do it. It's necessary. That's what it costs. That's why Trump deregulated so much. We expect too much regulation from Congress. We need less.

Biden's incompetence is continuing on its course of reductio ad absurdum. It appears he has personal problems handling any banking transactions of $600, or more. It is difficult, I'll admit, for some. Apparently for Joe, at least. For a three-year-olds, too. Granted, some grade school kids may have issues with it, but most figure it out. They realize that the difference between $10 and $600 is just a matter of scale, but the math remains the same technique. Not so, Joe. Well, that's him. Let him have IRS oversight, then, but the cost of hiring all those added IRS agents to babysit the rest of us may become a little beyond Joe Biden's "paid for" status. By a lot.

Now, I will attract all the Prog defense team for Joe. Come on ahead. This is plain nonsense, but you're good at that. so bring it.

This is the story from Matthew 19 of the rich young man that many misinterpret as a command to all to give all they have to the poor.

Here is havoc: I say this is misinterpretation because not all who are rich are saddled by greed, and certainly few others have sufficient to have cause to be greedy. And so, the common interpretation that all should follow this advice have misunderstood the advice of the Savior, and this is why taking one verse out of context to sell an interpretation is not what it is.

Here it is. Read the rich man's response to earlier advice. "Keep the commandments," Jesus tells him. "Which?" the man replies. What, there are commandments that need not be kept? So is this man honest with himself, let alone with Jesus, when he says he has kept the commandments from his youth? I might ask him: "Which?" for he evidently is lacking the keeping.

What is his response when he is told to "sell all thou hast?" He sorrows and walks away. Why? Because "he had great possessions." But he has already implied he keeps the commandments. The greatest? To love God? The second greatest? To love his neighbor? The first, maybe, maybe not, and probably not so much. The second? Apparently not. Where is his treasure? You know; that which is where his heart is? Where is his heart? It is sorrowful, for he is asked to give his treasure, which implies that he is hoarding it; he does not use any of it to benefit others.

Would a rich person who is generous and charitable to others need to walk away sorrowful because his treasure is kept in his pocket? No. His treasure is already secured in heaven because he is generous and charitable, and is doing good to others already. Why deprive that person of his wealth that affords him his generosity? The Lord does not need to tell that person to sell all, because his treasure is not his wealth. His treasure is is love of God, and his neighbor.

Disclaimer: I am currently engaged in a debate with Benjamin regarding  free will vs determinism. As this is outside that debate, and not even in the debate section, I do not want anyone to think I am posting this as an argument in that debate. I have concluded my arguments, though not all defenses, and do not post this as either. It's something that just occurred to me. I do not want anyone to think I am attempting to influence potential voters, so, beware to potential voters.

My subject regards human nature, and that it is, curiously, and demonstrably by experimentation, the habit of people of just about any culture who are without a map, or recognizable landmarks, when attempting to walk a straight line for a considerable distance, actually tend to walk in circles. https://outdoormeta.com/avoid-going-circles-lost-in-wild/

In fact, it seems such circles can have a limited size as small as a 20-meter circumference. Why?

Well, the why is not the subject of this post. But it is a natural phenomenon we humans appear to share. What has that to do with determinism? Simply this: Determinism would have our thoughts and actions predetermined, even when those thoughts and actions have specific purpose, such as walking in a straight line.  However, the condition of such an attempt, as noted above, fails. Seems to me, if determinism were at work, why would it have us defy the object of our attempt; to walk a straight line?

No, no need to fear.  Remember Joe Biden's campaign promise: "I will beat Joe Biden."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzs7vhHVC0M

The pre-response to the testimony of Generals Milley and McKenzie by Biden that no one advised Joe Biden of keeping troops in Afghanistan, if not sufficiently rebutted by the testimony today from the Generals, was sufficiently shelved by Austin, SoD. Austin sided with the generals. Who is Biden's defense. Jen? Credible Jen? Some President you guys elected. His out: "...that I can recall." The old memory teaser defense. In his case, it may actually be true. But, aren't capable presidents supposed to remember important stuff like whether you're going to leave a small force behind when vacating a country we've been at war in for 20 years?

Anyone have an apology? This guy is racking them up like alleged Tump lies. Forgetfulness on  Biden does not wear like an allegation.

Is freedom's right to the privacy of our body limited just to women and for specifically the right to an abortion, and, otherwise, the State has that freedom to dictate, such as relative to Covid vaccines? Joe Biden has, as of 9/9, issued his mandate that distances us from this elusive right to our privacy.

Which is it, a restricted right, which is otherwise known as a privilege, and not a right, or does it maintain its universal application, and Biden has committed another unconstitutional act? It's either, or; there's no middle ground.

Progs, you are warned to be consistent, here. Usually, you're not, so I will not be surprised by detractors.

"The notion of God and his existence has undergone many changes throughout the history of empiricist philosophy. While the great medieval philosopher Aquinas “felt that the most important concern of the philosopher was with the primary substance or God,” some modern philosophers 'went so far as to say that any reference to things that transcend the senses is cognitively meaningless...'"  https://www.jeffgeerling.com/articles/philosophy/god-and-empiricism

Empiricism is defined as the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. Stimulated by the rise of experimental science, it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, expounded in particular by John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume. Locke and Hume, in particular, combated the above notion presented by Aquinas that God was an essential concern of philosophy. Said Hume: "Commit it to flames."

Somehow, Hume seems to believe that we are limited to just five senses to experience reality. Why should that be, considering that other animals of our kingdom experience other senses than these five, which most others also share? I believer faith is [at least] a sixth sense humans can engage and by which experience, and knowledge, is gained. I maintain God is discovered by use of faith, which I maintain is a greater, more powerful concept that mere belief. We can believe anything we choose, correct, or not. But the true effort of faith is realized only in discovery of truth; we cannot have faith in something that is not true; that is the limit of belief.

You may argue that I cannot prove God. By the limited five senses, you  seem to be correct. But I maintain we are not so limited. Prove I am wrong. Argue for your limitations; they're yours, but not mine. I choose to allow greater expansion on senses.

It is often said of people and policies that don't quite gel that the left hand knows not what the right hand does.

Mayorkas declaring that the Haitians under the International Bridge in Del Rio, TX, when they were there, and not dispersed around the country, were not tested for Covid, let alone vaccinated. Doesn't that just typify the incompetence of the Biden administration - it's more than just Biden.

What am I to think of Biden's vaccine mandate if, on the one hand, US citizens must do a thing, and illegal immigrants - nay, occupiers of our sovereignty - on the other hand, need not even be tested, let alone vaccinated. Didn't know all one had to do to have right of exception was to enter the country illegally. Wanna bet we don't have the same right if we choose to occupy some other country?

Mueller found 30+ different people to indict during his extended investigation into Trump incompetencies over 1,460 days, but nary a Trump among them. And these are considered more serious offenses than all the failures Biden has accumulated in a mere 250 days, as rendered in https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6818-biden-falls-victim-to-fake-media?page=1&post_number=2  in my post #2; an incomplete list.

So, you guys achieved auto-orgasmic counting of lies.   Somebody's smokin' the same stuff that Biden was selling as a lifeguard encouraging kids to rub his hairy legs.

Good for for you. I'm counting incompetences. 

According to https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/taxes/joe-biden-could-owe-up-to-dollar500000-in-back-taxes-to-the-irs/ar-AAOLafj

Joe Biden my owe $500k in 'S' corp taxes. Joe complains all the time that the rich must pay their fair share, but it appears his 2020 released tax return is lacking compliance with his own mantra. Exempt? Or just contemptible?

What is the rich fair share, by the way? They're in the highest tax bracket, and they already contribute more in taxes, by volume, than any other group, so, what isn't fair about their current contributions? That it's still not enough to fund the government? Should the federal government operate on a smaller budget? Do we really need to duplicate every state agency at a federal level, since most activity in government is mandated at state level? By the Constitution?

Cough it up, joe, The rest of us do, cash on the barrel; your frequent phlegm notwithstanding.

Joe Biden took the day off today and went to a boxing match with AOC. When the boxers started round 1, dancing around each other a few turns, they started connecting with fists, parried, and each connected with a couple of furious punches to each other's head..

"Isn't that assault," Biden asked.

"Sure is," AOC replied.

Horses, and now boxing is now banned. In a week, ice cream sundaes will be targeted, and spoons will be banned. The II Amendment is sure to follow.

In my profile, I've stated, as a Christian, that my approach is havoc, because it is so contrary to what most Christians believe.

1. Godhead: I believe in three distinct, separate, two physical and one spirit beings; that God, the Father, his Son, Jesus Christ, Redeemer of mankind, and the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, comprise the Godhead.

2. I believe we were created first as spirits by God, the Father, that Jesus was one of his spirit children, and Satan, another spirit child. That pre-mortal spirit life preceded our mortal birth. When we die, our spirit and physical body separate, and they are then reunited in resurrection, which will result in a united, perfect sprit and physical body, which immortal state will continue in to eternity.

3. I believe Christ's atonement is infinite in nature, because it covers all mankind, whether or not all have heard of Jesus Christ in this mortal lifetime, and I believe it was suffered by Christ for not only all our sins, but also our suffering of pain, physical, mental, spiritual, our disappointments, sorrows, and losses. All will be restored at resurrection. I believe it was suffered by Christ even for Satan and his minions, event hough they will ever refuse to accept it, and thus are damned forever.

4. I believe in one mortal life, not a repetition, such as reincarnation, because of Christ's atonement, we need but one tour of mortality. Although commanded to be perfect [Matt. 5: 48], we all fall short for now, but repentance is the big qualifier, coupled with forgiveness. By constant use of these principles, we cam purify ourselves and qualify to ultimately become perfect. Therefore, no additional mortal lives are necessary to live. To think such merely belittles the power of the atonement. 

5. I believe repentance is not merely confession of sin, using a confessional like a revolving door. That's not repentance; that's expectation of the impossibility to be on a path of continuous improvement. Repentance is a change of heart such as to overcome sin; all sins, ultimately.

6. I believe that, ultimately, man can become as God is now, while God, himself, continues to advance, and we, following in kind. Men can become gods, and create worlds of their own, thus generationally continuing expansion of the human species throughout the universe, forever and ever, worlds without end.

7. I do not believe God, our Father [of our spirits] and Jesus, our Brother, created the entire universe, but only part of it. There are other gods, like God the Father, who have created other worlds, and inhabited them with people like us. I believe the physical appearance of "humans" is a much wider variation than we see among ourselves on Earth, thus, people like the blue Na'vi in "Avatar" are possible, as well as the typical "Roswell" alien.

The quarterback has thrown an inordinate number of incomplete passes. The receivers are not that competent, either, but., clearly, the QB can't hit the broad side of a barn, anyway. This guy has wanted to be the starter for 34 years. For most, that's a career, and then some. Granted, he served as back-up for 8 years, but, unfortunately, the starter didn't run much of a clean ship, himself, preferring to take the glory (?), leaving scraps for his back-up. Not to mention that our bumbling QB already spent 15 years prior to his first shot at being starting QB as as fullback. He was good at blocking, but, mostly in the way of other players. Blocking your own team isn't exactly a distinguishing talent. Seems his only real talent in sports is as a hairy lifeguard, telling stories to children poolside.

So, whoever is coaching this team, and we don't have player coaches, had better start thinking long and hard about how they maneuvered this particular consequence, because, although the QB is talking a good story, into nine months of whiff-ball, the scoreboard still reads zero for the home team. Coincidentally, that is the number the QB happens to wear.

Is this a joke, or what? Funny how the stadium is mostly empty on gameday, and it isn't Covid over-caution. Wasn't like that for the other guy.

One of the reasons I highly distrust anything on YouTube - I do use it to listen to music, but I don't use it as a news source - is this story presented by some whacko media outlet. You look for it if you're interested. I'm not going to cite it. It doesn't deserve the notoriety. Just use the topic string as a search string - you'll find it.

My issue is not so much how absurd the original story is; even though I oppose Hillary every way from Sunday. Such nonsense is just that. Give the poor woman a break. She's a loser. Fine. Many are, many aren't.

My issue is how Politifact, for example, responded. No, I'm not going to cite that one, either. You find it. Google is a known entity, isn't it, but is it reliable??

Politifact reached the same conclusion I did: highly improbable. However, it was their justification that has exemplified the dying dinosaur journalism is. According to Politifact, Hillary has been active on Twitter since April. I looked. "She" is. 

Is a tweet from someone really evidence of their existence? Really? God help us, we believe cyberspace more than concrete reality. It isn't journalism, alone, that is in its death throes. The human capacity of rational thought is an endangered species.

That, and why are so many people who espouse one or the other, or both or neither so bent out of shape when others present dissenting views to their own? What is it? Why is it that some of us cannot bear the competition of ideas, and find their only salvation in censorship, as if that will eliminate the variant idea? One need not censor. In fact, the only result of censorship is failure to maintain a conversation, particularly because a matter of disagreement on one point is not a qualifier to dismiss someone on all points. That's called war, and that accomplishes no good for anybody.

It appears by the Voting policy that two voting systems exist: a four-point and a winner selection. 

The four-point system seems flawed because three of the four voting factors [sources, legibility, and conduct] are optional, whereas argument is considered mandatory. So what makes four-point a different voting system than winner selection if 75% of the vote is optional, and yet a secondary flaw: points are still awarded even if a voter opts out of voting on the 3 optionals. And how does a mod know whether the voter intended to opt out of the optionals, or simply did not justify their vote? Yes, both debaters are given the points, so it appears to equal out, but why do they deserve any points at all if the voter opts out of voting?

Either add a column to the voting summary page for the voter to opt out of any of the three optionals, so no points are awarded, or eliminate the optional feature and mandate a justified vote on all four factors. The current system makes no sense at all.

Otherwise, what makes the current four-point any different than winner selection?

Blinkin, Biden's Sec of State, says now that "We gave Americans every opportunity to get out" of Afghanistan. Does he forget that just two weeks ago - Aug 16 - DOS told Americans in Afghanistan wanting to get out to "shelter in place," the same words used a year and a half ago to advise the best, then, advice to protect against Covid?

Biden, allegedly the President, promised just four days ago, to evacuate all Americans from Afghanistan.

Leadership is not a power trip. Leadership is not a privilege. Leadership is an accountability. It is an obligation to do as promised.

Joe Biden, and his team, are a total failure.

You may now wear your mask for another reason: To muffle your blind opinion that this is a capable presidency.

oops.

I am no longer in school at any level.

I have children who are no longer in school at any level.

I paid for my higher education personally, with a little help from parents & scholarship, which I earned by effort, it was not entitled. I paid my student loan debt before it was due, but at least I paid it all. I paid for most of my children's higher education, less their contribution and scholarships, also earned by effort.

I am already still paying for education K-12 and state colleges through property tax, levied at approx 62% of those taxes.  My duty to society is paid and being paid.

So, why do millennials feel they are entitled to their education debt forgiveness? Leeches. Lazies. The rest of us will pay for your free education. You get what you pay for. Go ahead, justify yourselves.

Twelve marines were killed today in Kabul. After reading his statement response - written for him by whom? - and his moment of silence, Biden declared he was instructed to take media questions drawn from a list of journalists compiled by his instructors. Instructed by whom? Maybe the Taliban, since they seem to be calling the shotes the last few days. What, the President is incapable of taking his own advice on which journalists to call on? Better he walk away without answering questions, but that begs a question: who is instructing him to do that?

So, let's hear from apologist Democrats.

Joe Biden is waving a flag. It's completely white, and has nothing whatsoever to do with white supremacy; nothing to do with CRT, or BLM, or 1619 Project, or any of that. Not even that of American military might. That, at least, remains stained red, white and blue. No. Joe Biden's flag is the white flag of surrender. Joe Biden has effectively surrendered to the Taliban, leaving who knows how many American citizens abandoned. Some of them probably even voted for the figurehead of foreign policy failure of the past 50 years. Wave your flag, Joe. 

As a 2-day member, I've drawn some conclusion about debates on this site, based on stats noted on the main page.

1. The typical debate has 3 rounds.

2. The typical debate attracts 18 comments from members

3. The typical debate attracts 3 votes

Just curious about the marketing of this site, by members, since that is my profession.

I conclude that while some members devote 3 rounds each to debate a subject, the rest are more interested in peanut gallery commentary by a 5x margin over voting, indicating a significant preference to kritik over critiquing. Okay, eyes wide open, then.

White House Communications Director, Kate Bedingfield, says Biden "never shies away from taking questions."

White House Press Secretary,  Jen Psaki, says, "Biden taking impromptu reporter questions is not something we recommend." https://www.foxnews.com/media/white-house-communications-director-claims-biden-questions

Biden says, "i'm a hairy guy."

Biden can, apparently, tell the truth, but he's failed at convincing his staff.