web analytics

The Facts of Life

By Patrick Van Roy On February 24th, 2020

Guest Post by Paul 

I’ve just been following a thread here over at Slugger : fact-checking-and-fast-news

Regarding the phenomena of false claims, deliberate misinformation & unsubstantiated claims etc.

When making a point on ATW and using third party links to support it I have a rule that I try to check it three times from three separate, reputable sources to attempt to verify its credibility.

The big culprit in spreading false information is social media and the anonymous, glorified blog ‘news aggregate’ sites with a political agenda that have sprung up around the internet but of course the British tabloid gutter press and the Oval Office ‘alternative facts’ guys hav a fair hand in it too.

Here on ATW I’ve noticed a pattern where quite often claims are made without any reference to verification whatsoever and where batshit Youtube videos and the comments on them are used as supposed ‘evidence’ to push a point and where these claims are questioned the sources used to disprove them are dismissed as having a political agenda, (as if the original point made wasn’t politically driven), I’ve also noticed that a claim will be made, will be dismissed and then will be claimed again weeks / months later.

It also has to be said that from objective, empirical observation this comes overwhelmingly from the right side of the ATW house.

It’s said that the first casualty of war is truth and for me this is the real culture war that we’re consistently being told to be on guard against. When it seems that opinions are built on foundations of sand and misinformation is deliberately planted in order to muddy the waters of discourse hoe do we discrete fact from deliberate erroneous fiction?

172 Responses to “The Facts of Life”

  1. A very general theme. Propaganda and lying have of course been around since Satan told Adam he could eat the fruit without consequences.

    The peculiar thing here is that it’s difficult to see exactly why people lie. Yes, maybe they are just following the old Goebbels dictum and seem to be ready to wait for their opponents to start believing, with all the patience of the Jews waiting for the Messiah. But after a decades of convincing nobody, you’d imagine they’d at least try to change tack a bit.

    More likely is that lying is just a form of online masturbation. They know it’s getting them nowhere but they can’t resist indulging themselves. The joy of creating a dream world of lies, where everything behaves according to their deepest wishes, especially against the cold reality of facts, seems to be the biggest motivation. Like old war veterans who keep fighting lost battles in their minds that always end with them winning.

    Our friends here simply love the look of those sentences on a page and that alone makes them happy for a while.
    Lying also seems to have got a grip on them and become a second nature, just like it is for their guru. The lie has become their reality.
    Recall (continuing the biblical mood this dreary morning) the words of the wise man:
    “He has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

  2. Nice piece….. totally wrong though.

    The Left side of the people on this site believe the Russians influenced the last Presidential Election, That Obama did NOT try to Frame Trump, and that Cow Farts can change the Climate….

    All wrong, and all positions of the Left here on this site.

    Let me know I’ll list more falsehoods that you all support and swear by……

  3. here is a great example of the delusion of the Left in general, not just on this site.

    https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/02/24/whats-really-driving-the-homelessness-crisis/

  4. But Patrick you just prove Paul’s message. If you came on here and pointed out albeit uncomfortably for you, falsehoods promoted by the Right/Republicans that would demonstrate a willingness to see fake claims wherever they come from, but instead you stay in your comfort zone claiming it’s all the Left/Democrats who are liars, and in so doing you copy the behaviour of 99% of people on political blog sites.

  5. Paul – It would make for an interesting study. A lot of the right world fabrication comes from where they get their stories. They generally are repeating lies as opposed to inventing them. Plus, they aren’t reading to learn, they are reading to find the stories that most affirm their beliefs.

  6. But to be fair Mahons that is done on the left too. Many reports of for example, racist/homophobic/right wing motivated attacks are believed instantly and sacredly by many on the left that with time and investigation turn out also to be fake or more complicated. Most people who are politically motivated and identify with one side of the spectrum look to the internet for support and comfort , not genuine independent education.

  7. This isn’t just a right wing thing it’s a human thing.

    The left have their delusions too (eg on GMO, many aspects of economics, globalisation, the NHS, etc). They do the same thing of dismissing facts based on the source, depending on the values etc. It’s just that the values they look for and the sources they trust are different. And it’s particularly acute on the left lately.

    Sometimes dismissing a claim based on the source is ok, on the basis that life is too short to fact check everything. So you have to use some heuristic to whittle down what you pay attention to. It’s also ok because the truth will out. If it’s true, it will eventually show up from sources you do trust. It will just take longer.

    Everyone has these cognitive blind spots in some form. They are easy to recognise in others and hardest to recognise in oneself. I’m quite certain that I believe many things that are false, I just don’t know what they are yet.

    The question is what method do you use to defend against these biases, if any. If you don’t then your intuitions are going to make you get it wrong constantly.

  8. The NYts, WaPo, CNN, and MSNBC for 3 years pushed a fake Russian Collusion conspiracy that most of you still believe even after a 30 million dollar investigation by 29 Democrat Lawyers found NOTHING and CLEARED HIM.

    There’s both your source of falsehoods and proof of where the idiocy lays.

  9. As always, thank you for hosting this Pat.

    Interesting point on the psychology of this above Noel. Those who propagate such fallacies must know that Google is available to all on the internet and that their falsehoods are easily disproven and won’t convince or influence anyone as to their point. The anti EU myths were a particular one for this.

    It can only mean that momentary self gratification is the reason for them.

    Nice piece….. totally wrong though

    Thank you Pat, it’s not wrong at all though and the Daily Signal link that you post to above is one of the examples of those glorified anonymous blog sites with a political agenda that have sprung up around the internet while this is one of the sources which exposes them:

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-signal/

    The Left side of the people on this site believe the Russians influenced the last Presidential Election, That Obama did NOT try to Frame Trump, and that Cow Farts can change the Climate….

    All wrong, and all positions of the Left here on this site.

    And these of course are opinion given as set in concrete fact when in actual effect the facts are:

    Mueller found that Russia had “interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion” and “violated U.S. criminal law”

    https://www.npr.org/2019/04/18/714667960/redacted-mueller-report-is-released

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/there-was-never-deep-state-conspiracy-get-trump/603361/

    ‘Obama’ didn’t try to frame Trump

    https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/may/24/blog-posting/fake-news-says-obama-paid-informant-trump-russia-p/

    The vast majority of scientists endorse the theories and effects of global warming.

  10. Exhibit A.

  11. Another point Paul is that no amount of debunking will prevent it. Look at this very thread.
    Frank, it may be a human thing but it is especially dominant in right wing musings.

  12. It also has to be said that from objective, empirical observation this comes overwhelmingly from the right side of the ATW house

    Frank, I don’t dispute that this happens across the board. I’m commenting on a small localised sample mutual to us all. In wider terms I’ve no idea how the figures would break down in a study but suspect that the main claim I make would be borne out, albeit to a lesser degree.

    Sometimes dismissing a claim based on the source is ok, on the basis that life is too short to fact check everything. So you have to use some heuristic to whittle down what you pay attention to. It’s also ok because the truth will out. If it’s true, it will eventually show up from sources you do trust. It will just take longer

    It takes all of ten seconds to check a claim and you don’t have to check everything, just the claims you’re engaging on.

    Everyone has these cognitive blind spots in some form. They are easy to recognise in others and hardest to recognise in oneself. I’m quite certain that I believe many things that are false, I just don’t know what they are yet

    Absolutely, I’m the first to admit that I’m biased on particular issues but what I try to do is check various sources, hence my comment above of having the habit of attempting to check points from three different reputable sources, in order to form a considered opinion.

    I have never knowingly nor deliberately posted false or misleading information on ATW.

  13. Another point Paul is that no amount of debunking will prevent it. Look at this very thread.

    Yes Mahons. As you say above, it’s not reading to inform it’s reading to reinforce biased opinions.

  14. It’s not going to get any better though is it. The whole life force of the internet is that it is or should be accessible to all both for uploading and downloading. As long as anyone sitting in a billion anonymous bedrooms can put up whatever they like the net will be flooded with ‘ fake news’ and one person’s creditable source will be another person’s state or corporate propaganda outfit.

  15. Com – yes, it is an ongoing issue with no cure.

  16. Thank you Pat, it’s not wrong at all though and the Daily Signal link that you post to above is one of the examples of those glorified anonymous blog sites with a political agenda that have sprung up around the internet while this is one of the sources which exposes them:

    The Daily Signal is the Publication Blog of the Heritage Foundation probably the highest respected Conservative think Tank in the Country. Calling it a glorified anonymous blog only shows your lack of information.

  17. It doesn’t. Do you think I didn’t check it before I commented?

    It’s a glorified blog from a lobbying group with a political agenda.

  18. ‘Obama’ didn’t try to frame Trump

    I will mark these words and laugh at them over the next year. Asd we watched 3 years of President being accused and tried for fake crimes the CRIMINAL investigation being conducted right now is just that a CRIMINAL investigation unlike the political witch hunt that you all hang your hopes on…..

  19. It’s a glorified blog from a lobbying group with a political agenda.

    Well if that’s how you describe the Heritage Foundation you truly are clueless.

  20. Always tomorrow with you guys.

    The link above explains why your accusation is untrue.

  21. Well if that’s how you describe the Heritage Foundation you truly are clueless.

    That’s precisely what they are. They are a conservative think tank which seeks to influence government by lobbying on policy.

  22. I honestly love you all, but this site is populated with Nazi’s, Socialists, Puttin butt boys, Terror supporters, Anti-Semites and those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

    All LeftWing Mental Diseases.

  23. That is exactly what the heritage foundation is

    It’s a well respected conservative think tank

  24. First off Paul, just let me say that was an excellent post. Truthful and factual.

    I 100-percent agree with you. This point especially:

    //I’ve also noticed that a claim will be made, will be dismissed and then will be claimed again weeks / months later.//

    This happens all the time on ATW. Especially with subjects like global warming. Evidence will be provided, completely rubbish we played only for the same plane to be made a few weeks or months later. As you say mate, ‘alternative facts.’

  25. It is the heritage foundation that developed the concept of the individual mandate for health insurance

  26. NPR, The Atlantic, and Politifact….. all major leftwing mouth pieces with zero credibility.

    but please go on…. enjoying the laugh.

  27. A compelling, considered argument Pat.

    Care to list the individuals into catageories?

    They are a conservative think tank which seeks to influence government by lobbying on policy.

    They are also this Phantom? Yes?

    Thank you Dave. A pleasure to be of service.

  28. Where these claims are questioned the sources used to disprove them are dismissed as having a political agenda, (as if the original point made wasn’t politically driven)

    A self fulfilling prophecy.

  29. I don’t know if they do any lobbying, but I would not be surprised If they do

    They seek to influence, and lobbying could well be a part of that

  30. Man Made Global Warming voodoo science that has been caught lying and changing the data.

  31. Patrick

    (Paul) It’s a glorified blog from a lobbying group with a political agenda.

    Well if that’s how you describe the Heritage Foundation you truly are clueless.

    Patrick actually sums up your post above, in his reply here.
    The heritage Foundation are certainly not impartial or balanced.

    Ties to the Tobacco Industry.
    Heritage Foundation Called Out for Blocking Action on Climate Change.
    Heritage Action Pushes for Government Shutdown.

    https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heritage_Foundation

  32. In lobby and can take many forms

    If you talk to people with the power to make change, Seeking to influence them, then you’re probably lobbying

    They were definitely be talking to people, Hosting conferences etc

  33. They sure do a lot of lobbying:

    https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/bills?cycle=2019&id=D000034435

  34. Lobbying can

  35. The Heritage Foundation (abbreviated to Heritage)[1][2] is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., primarily geared towards public policy. The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies were taken from Heritage’s policy study Mandate for Leadership.[4] Since then, The Heritage Foundation has continued to have a significant influence in U.S. public policy making, and is considered to be one of the most influential conservative public policy organizations in the United States

  36. Oh and I’m a lifetime member.

  37. So you should’ve listened to what they said about the individual mandate

  38. Yeah, I checked it out too. It also lobbied Congress on 89 Bills in 2019.

    As I said,

    a conservative think tank which seeks to influence government by lobbying on policy.

  39. Unlike you clowns I don’t say that Heritage is fair and balanced. We have an Agenda it’s called the Constitution, and is totally biased towards it.

    Unlike NPR, The Atlantic, and Politifact, Politico, NYTs, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC etc which are biased but pretend to be anything but.

  40. It’s the constitution as seen through your own personal biases

  41. Unlike you clowns I don’t say that Heritage is fair and balanced

    I don’t sat the Heritage is fair and balanced. As a matter of fact, I say it’s extremely biased and right wing.

    The difference of course is that the rebuttals to you regurgitated right wing media conspiracies is that they are verifiable facts which come from recognised news sources.

    You can RFLMAO, put people into catageories for political motives and predict the sky is gonna fall…….tomorrow

    all you wish.

    It does nothing for the credibility of your points.

  42. (Patrick) Unlike you clowns I don’t say that Heritage is fair and balanced.

    (Paul) It’s a glorified blog from a lobbying group with a political agenda.

    (Patrick) Well if that’s how you describe the Heritage Foundation you truly are clueless.

  43. No it’s the Constitution based on the Writings of the men who wrote it…… not the Liberals that want to change it.

  44. Patrick Van Roy,

    Man Made Global Warming voodoo science that has been caught lying and changing the data.

    There are a couple of isolated incidents where data was changed. And this was picked up by other scientists checking the data.
    The vast majority of the data collected by different scientific institutions and organisations in hundreds of different countries, is perfectly valid and correct.
    Once again Patrick proves Paul’s point, more misinformation and lies.

  45. Dave you believe cow farts are destroying the climate….. and you don’t believe in god.

    You have absolutely no credibility on anything as you’ve proven again and again with the nonsense that you have supported on this site.

  46. and no it took a Lawsuit to expose the falsified data of your cult…. see Steyn vs Mann

  47. Pat, here’s a bit of news from your native Pen:

    http://www.breakingburgh.com/cuba-greatly-concerned-presence-russian-client-state-90-miles-away/?fbclid=IwAR3mXJE73bVz_E1vu65WAq4zAwOkRcny1Q3rGcaxJTEAmEh0PEmFp65-JUM

    But don’t worry it’s fake…….Cuba aren’t concerned at all.

  48. Every comment Patrick has posted in this thread proves the original point Paul was making in his post.

  49. Patrick Van Roy,

    Dave you believe cow farts are destroying the climate….. and you don’t
    believe in god.

    Methane produced by cows has an effect on the climate. it’s a proven fact which you are ready too stubborn or stupid to understand.

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/methane/

    Go on Patrick disprove that methane is not a greenhouse gas.
    As for my being an atheist what the hell is that got to do with anything. it has no bearing on my personality, or the credibility of what I say. What a truly ridiculous comment for you to make.

    You have absolutely no credibility on anything as you’ve proven again and again with the nonsense that you have supported on this site.

    Says the man who claimed for years that volcanoes produce more greenhouse gas per year than mankind. That only the sun and the earth’s orbit around it affect climate. That the atmosphere and the tilt of the earth have no effect on climate. The John McCain cause the deaths of hundreds of men on the USS Forrestal.
    All total nonsense with no evidence to back them up whatsoever. When it comes to talking utter rubbish, you’re the king Patrick.

  50. Colm,

    Every comment Patrick has posted in this thread proves the original point Paul was making in his post.

    Absolutely Colm, he’s like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

  51. pauls link…. how it labels itself…… A SATIRICAL BLOG SERVING WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA AND BEYOND

    your typical type of source.

  52. Dave 2 things and 2 things ONLY effect the Earths Climate.

    The Sun and the Earths orbit.

    PERIOD

  53. …… and Patrick’s hot air, which makes three things 😉

  54. and Colm the point I have proven is the psychosis that most here suffer from….

    Their sites and sources are gospel everything else is fake…. even when caught lying (global warming) and making shit up (russian collusion) all the FACTS prove them wrong but…. no it’s gospel give us all your money, shut off the worlds electricity and destroy your cars…..

    friggin maroons

  55. Your typical type of source

    For Dave?

    With his evidence Dave’s one of the more scientifically verifiable fellas around here.

  56. Patrick

    I luv ya, but you are totally nuts you do know that 😉

  57. Even when caught lying (global warming) and making shit up (russian collusion) all the FACTS prove them wrong

    Mueller found that Russia had ‘interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion’ and ‘violated U.S. criminal law’

    Are you denying that?

  58. Patrick

    I luv ya, but you are totally nuts you do know that 😉

    Just because I’m crazy doesn’t mean I’m wrong.

  59. Just because I’m crazy doesn’t mean I’m wrong

    Correct. Being wrong means you’re wrong.

  60. Mueller found that Russia had ‘interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion’ and ‘violated U.S. criminal law’

    Are you denying that?

    Yes totally 100%

    The whole investigation was fruit of the poisonous tree….. based on a frame and a fake document triggered by a corrupt cop who will be in jail by the end of the year.

    Not one conviction for interference, not one charge against Trump, even a statement in the report of how the Trump campaign resisted aid from the Russians, but still you taught it like they found something…. that’s delusional.

  61. Patrick Van Roy,

    Dave 2 things and 2 things ONLY effect the Earths Climate.

    The Sun and the Earths orbit.

    PERIOD

    Ok Patrick. If that’s true then Mercury, which is much closer to the sun, should be far hotter than Venus which is further away. but Venus is actually hotter than Mercury. Here’s the scientific explanation for why that is , and involves the atmosphere.

    Venus is hotter than Mercury because it has a much thicker atmosphere. … The heat the atmosphere traps is called the greenhouse effect. If Venus did not have an atmosphere the surface would be -128 degrees Fahrenheit much colder than 333 degrees Fahrenheit, the average temperature of Mercury.

    Perhaps you can explain using your model why Venus is hotter than Mercury?

  62. Yes totally 100%

    It’s an absolute fact that that’s what Mueller found, from Yale University:

    The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.

    First, the Office determined that Russia’s two principal interference operations in the 2016 U.S. presidential election – the social media campaign and the hacking-and-dumping operations – violated U.S. criminal law

    https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/mueller-report

    Those are absolute factually correct on Mueller findings . Your opinion on how the investigation was conducted is another matter entirely.

    Another good example of the central theme of the post.

  63. where are the convictions for interference if they proved it……

  64. So Dave you want to compare apples to oranges….. neither of those planets support life. Not to mention that our closest sister planet Mars is also going through a warming phase… I guess our cows farts reached it….

    Mars is undergoing global warming that could profoundly change the planet’s climate in a few thousand years, new data suggests. High-resolution images taken by NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor show that the permanent south polar “ice” cap shrank significantly between two successive Martian summers – a period roughly corresponding to two Earth years.

    but you keep worshiping at the alter of your fake church.

  65. Pat, I’m a guy sitting on a laptop in his living room in Pamplona. I’ve just conclusively quofactsted from the Mueller report and the facts that he found Russian interferance in the 2016 US Presidential Election.

    They were his findings. That is unequivocally beyond question.

    I don’t have the time, inclination nor resources to sift through the report and give you the reasoning as to why charges were or weren’t brought. I sugest you contact Mueller’s office for a breakdown of his reasoning.

    Meanwhile, he found that there was interferance in the 2016 US election. Your denials are wrong.

  66. Patrick Van Roy,

    So Dave you want to compare apples to oranges….. neither of those planets support life. Not to mention that our closest sister planet Mars is also going through a warming phase… I guess our cows farts reached it….

    Your usual diversionary nonsense Patrick, to avoid answering a simple question you know you can’t answer. Paul’s post nailed you perfectly. You’re a clown boy, dancing to his audience and convincing nobody of anything except that you know nothing.

  67. //So Dave you want to compare apples to oranges….. neither of those planets support life.//

    Yeah, I mean, that’s really relevant after you said yourself that only the sun and the earth’s orbit around it “affect” climate.

    I should have added that it’s not only the desire to persuade or the need to gratify yourself with distortions, but also that some people are simply too dumb to even recognise truth and lies and how they concur, or don’t concur, with reality.

    Paul, it was an interesting subject, but now you’ve helped derail it.

  68. Patrick

    but you keep worshiping at the alter of your fake church.

    My ‘fake church’ is the centuries of scientific advancement that has massively improved the health, and quality of life of the human race. As well as giving us incredible understanding of the world and the universe around us.
    Your church, is the voices in your f****** head, that tell you what is true and false, and right and wrong. Dream on you narcissist.

  69. Noel, I don’t consider countering Pat’s sophistry around facts as derailing the central theme of the post.

  70. //I don’t consider countering Pat’s sophistry around fact//

    Oh please!

  71. If you’d like to explain what you’re on about I’ll try to answer.

  72. The central theme of the post is that in a sea of contradictory fake news most people will scoop up the waves of “news” that bolster their own prejudices and insist those carefully selected splashes are the puddles of truth.

  73. As the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan said “you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.” The ATW corollary would be that you are entitled to your own INFORMED opinion.

  74. As the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan said “you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.” The ATW corollary would be that you are entitled to your own INFORMED opinion.

  75. Mahons,

    “ Another point Paul is that no amount of debunking will prevent it.”

    There is a theory that debunking misinformation actually reinforces belief in it.

    Ironically this theory has itself been debunked but is widely believed anyway 🥴

  76. I don’t believe you Frank 😉

  77. I think C. P. Scott summed it up best. Comment is free, but facts are sacred. The long time editor of the then Manchester Guardian he was not shy about his personal political beliefs. In fact for 11 years, while also being the editor of the Guardian, Scott was a Liberal Member of Parliament (and firmly on the left wing of the Liberal Party). However he felt that the primary role of a newspaper was facts and reporting of accurate news, with editorials and opinion pieces secondary. Hence comment is free, but facts are sacred.

    The Dalai Lama stated “If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims”. Simply put – we can all belief what we want to believe but if science or facts prove those beliefs wrong then the only rational and acceptable course of action is to change our beliefs.

  78. There is a theory that debunking misinformation actually reinforces belief in it.

    Ironically this theory has itself been debunked but is widely believed anyway

    Superb Frank 🙂

  79. and the Facts are that Mueller convicted no one of “russian collusion” which was the charge.

    Trump conspired with the Russians….. that is what the NYTs, WAPO, CNN, MSNBC, POLITICO and the majority of you have said for going on 4yrs. Mueller convicted no one of any collusion and even cited instances where the Trump campaign resisted it. Those are the Facts.

    Did Russia run propaganda during our Election YES. Russia ALWAYS runs propaganda during our elections as we do also in Russia and every country that has elections. It’s called espionage and every country is engaged in it. You may pretend otherwise but the world consists of multiple nations that are in a constant state of war boundaries and names may change but man is a predator and is constantly pushing it’s competitor whether that be a single person or an entire nation. grow up.

    You people ignore the fact that not one accusation has born fruit. Now you believe that’s because Trump is Lex Luthor or James Moriarty. Where I believe you were just conned by a pack of sore losers who had to cover up the crimes they committed. You bought it hook line and sinker each for your own personal biased reasons.

    This is far from over if you’re right then no one will go to jail. If I’m right one or two at the very least out of the following list will be convicted and go to jail.

    Comey, McCabe, Wray, Yates, Brennan, Clapper, Lynch

    You can’t ask for a more defined right or wrong, win or lose.

    If any one of them goes to jail for the frame I win…. if they don’t I’m wrong you’re right and I lose.

    We shall see.

  80. I’m sorry this is tottally off topic but the funnyiest thing I’ve heard in a long time and it gives Colm a reason to move to Ireland

    The village of Ringaskiddy in Co Cork has a polution problem…… the fumes from the VIAGRA plant are making everyone…. stiff

    https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/villagers-claim-fumes-viagra-factory-11640971

  81. And the Facts are that Mueller convicted no one of “russian collusion” which was the charge.

    The unquestionable fact is that Mueller found:

    The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.

    First, the Office determined that Russia’s two principal interference operations in the 2016 U.S. presidential election – the social media campaign and the hacking-and-dumping operations – violated U.S. criminal law

    It’s there above in black & white for you to see. As to his reasons for not convicting, I told you, I don’t know what they are and am in no positiond to find them for you.

    Trump conspired with the Russians….. that is what the NYTs, WAPO, CNN, MSNBC, POLITICO and the majority of you have said for going on 4yrs

    That’s another untruth. I don’t think any of the media above made such a claim.

  82. No conviction no crime…… and this….That’s another untruth. I don’t think any of the media above made such a claim.

    DeNial is not a river in Egypt……

  83. The Media is still pushing it

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-media-ramp-up-russia-collusion-claims-again/vi-BB10k1vi

  84. “No conviction no crime……”

    So no one killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman (who’s killer was successfully defended a Trump groupe)?

  85. then I ask you a simple question Seamus in the Simpson case the crime was Murder and you had two bodies…..

    What was the originating crime in the Trump case and where is the evidence ?

  86. “then I ask you a simple question Seamus in the Simpson case the crime was Murder and you had two bodies…..”

    So you are moving the goalposts now. Surely no conviction no crime? Or is “no conviction no crime” bollocks?

  87. The Media is still pushing it

    Pat, that’s MSM carrying a clip from Fox claiming that Dems are ramping up Trump collusion claims.

    What you have stated above is the very crux of what this post is about.

  88. no stating fact….

    You bring in a case where a crime was committed and try to compare it to a case where NO CRIME was EVER committed and then say both had no conviction…..

    Someone got away with the crime of murder in the OJ case.

    No one got away with any crime in the Trump case because no crime was ever charged.

  89. But again surely no conviction no crime? Or is that statement nonsense and that crimes happen all the time without convictions?

  90. The clip shows all the other stations saying it themselves including Lawrence ODonnel accusing Trump of being a Russian agent…..

    If you had played the clip instead of dismissing it because it was from FOX you wouldn’t look like an idiot now, but you didn’t watch it so you do….

  91. The clip shows all the other stations saying it themselves

    It shows clips from two stations without context or background.

    The Media is still pushing it

    No, I think that’s another untruth. I think that what’s happening above is clips of commentators commenting on the recent briefing of the Russians interfering in the 2020 election.

    No stating fact….

    The fact is that the Mueller investigation found Russian interferance in Trump’s election campaign. It’s quoted in black & white from Yale University above for you to see.

  92. Seamus congratulations for not being convicted of murder today….. oh you weren’t charged with murder but that doesn’t mean you didn’t commit one……

    That is the logic you’re trying to sell.

    Mueller’s investigation was the last gasp of those that conspired to frame Trump and cover up their crimes. They believed if they looked hard enough they’d find something. A total reversal of the american justice system, but even with a 30 million dollar 3yr fishing expedition they got nothing.

    They busted Manafort for crimes he committed while working with the democrat Podesta brothers, Cohen for Tax Fraud, and Stone and Flynn they set up.

    Not one crime or violation on Trump.

    Now those that started it by using fake russian information from an english spy bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton and two honeytraps set by Clapper and Brennan are going to go to jail.

  93. Mueller’s investigation was the last gasp of those that conspired to frame Trump and cover up their crimes.

    That’s yet another untruth.

    Now those that started it by using fake russian information from an english spy bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton

    As is that.

    You agree that Mueller found Russian interferance in the election Pat? Yes?

  94. “That is the logic you’re trying to sell.”

    It isn’t. I’m simply rebutting your stupid “no conviction no crime” argument.

    Many crimes occur without conviction. And while Mueller didn’t charge Trump (because he couldn’t charge Trump) he didn’t vindicate Trump either.

  95. Seamus, the criminal justice system doesn’t “vindicate”. Trump had the presumption of innocence unless found guilty.

  96. Seamus, the criminal justice system doesn’t “vindicate”. Trump had the presumption of innocence unless found guilty.

  97. Charles – the presumption of innocence is a jury considrration, not a presumption we must hold ourselves.

  98. if you don’t hold it yourself to presume a person is innocent until proven guilty I have to ask….. who do you think you are that you can look at someone and tell by how they look whether they are innocent or guilty ?

    Is this an ability that you have that can be applied to all people or just the few that you deem to apply it too ?

  99. It isn’t a visual ability. OJ was correctly treated as presumed innocent to his jury. Only any exceptionally stupid person or a liar would presume him innocent otherwise.

  100. How could trump in any event be truly vindicated By a jury composed of his crook buddies from his own republican party, who were openly collaborating with his defense team, and who said that they were not objective before the fake trial even started

  101. you presume OJ innocent, but proclaim Trump GUILTY just not convicted due to lack of a crime…. you’ve judged Trump on your personal bias so has Phantom and the majority here NOT through the preponderance of evidence but through the preponderance of the lack of not only evidence but lack of a crime.

    The perfect example of Hypocrisy.

  102. Yes Phantom because the Democrats in the house allowed such a fair environment that they held it in a sciff and denied his attorneys access to the hearings and denied them any cross examination the ultimate example of Righteous Justice on display for all….

  103. I think that OJ Simpson is a murderer who got away with it ,

    With the help of sleaze lawyers like Alan Dershowitz

    And an uneducated and biased and starstruck jury

  104. yeah that’s a fair summation of the OJ situation.

  105. Charles,

    The criminal justice system doesn’t vindicate. You are right. In normal circumstances. In normal circumstances the result is either an indictment or move on, with the lack of indictment being a vindication. However that could not occur in the Mueller investigation because of Justice Department guidelines that the President of the United States cannot be indicted. Thus the standard indict or nothing approach couldn’t work in this case.

    Also as Mahons points out the presumption of innocence is for juries only. Patrick has regularly attacked individuals in the FBI, the Obama administration etc… and said they are guilty of crimes. If the presumption of innocence is not simply a jury procedure then where is their presumption of innocence?

  106. However that could not occur in the Mueller investigation because of Justice Department guidelines that the President of the United States cannot be indicted. Thus the standard indict or nothing approach couldn’t work in this case.

    That is total BULLSHIT……. Mueller was Specifically asked about that and while he was doing his 30 million dollar investigation he said it did not apply…. after the investigation was over he said it wouldn’t have mattered if IF HE FOUND SOMETHING which he didn’tr then it would’ve mattered.

    Pure bullshit Seamus

  107. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which said a sitting president cannot be indicted, did not factor into Mueller’s decision not to accuse Trump of obstruction.
    “The Special Counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,'”

    but you keep living in your phantasy….. Trump bad…. Trump evil….Trump GUILTY…..

  108. He did find something though Pat. He found that:

    Russia had ‘interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion’

    and ‘violated U.S. criminal law’

    It’s there in black & white for you to see in the Yale University link above.

  109. Patrick -you have difficulty reading. I presume OJ guilty. He was entitled to a presumption of innocence at trial, like any defendant.

  110. First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.”

    Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations … this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.

    Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

  111. And you are presumed innocent in America in EVERYTHING until EVIDENCE proves otherwise in EVERY SITUATION…. not just before a jury… it applies to everything.

    and not assuming someone is innocent because you don’t like them for your personal reasons we have a word that describes that word is DISCRIMINATION…..

    Which Mahons is practicing but doesn’t realize….. That there man is GUILTY because he’s BLACK is what Mahons is advocating….. when he says a person doesn’t have to persume innocence….. and I’m sure he doesn’t realize he’s being a racist, but that is EXACTLY what he is being.

  112. And you are presumed innocent in America in EVERYTHING until EVIDENCE proves otherwise in EVERY SITUATION…. not just before a jury… it applies to everything.

    So will you withdraw your accusation that sections of the FBI, the DOJ and the Obama administration committed crimes? Where is their presumption of innocence?

  113. No, it is a legal concept. Another that you don’t understand.
    Mornings must be an exceptionally difficult time for you given your illogical statements. Get some rest.

  114. I think we do have to be careful in our daily lives declaring people guilty of something because we don’t like the cut of their jib. It’s the old “don’t look for the mote in your neighbor’s eye, and ignore the log in your own.

  115. Charles, do you think that Jared, Manafort & Trump Jr were guilty of collaboration with Russians when they met the Russian group in the hope of getting dirt on Clinton?

  116. I don’t know the situation you’re speaking about Paul. I wouldn’t put it past them though.

  117. https://time.com/4855690/donald-trump-jr-emails-russian-lawyer/

  118. Thanks for the link Paul. I read it. It seems that the three were fishing for negative info on Clinton from a Russian lawyer, but she didn’t have anything to offer. As we Catholics say, they put themselves in an occasion of sin. Were they guilty of collaboration? I don’t think so, since they obtained nothing, but I may be blinded by a “republican” definition of collaboration!

  119. No, let’s be honest, the collaboration was there, even if it didn’t bear fruit!

  120. I think such actions are illegal regardless of the outcome Charles:

    https://www.fec.gov/regulations/110-20/2019-annual-110#110-20

    Agreed Charles. The action of collaboration isn’t defined by the outcome:

    In General, this is a cooperative agreement of two or more parties to work jointly towards a common goal.

    https://thelawdictionary.org/collaboration/

  121. Paul, I looked at the FEC website, and I don’t know if the meeting was illegal, but to my mind, was dirty politics, with plausible deniability for the President built in. I don’t support such activity.

  122. Charles, the FEC link states:

    A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to:

    1.A political committee of a political party, including a national party committee, a national congressional campaign committee, or a State, district, or local party committee, including a non-Federal account of a State, district, or local party committee, or

    2.An organization of a political party whether or not the organization is a political committee under

    It further states:

    No person shall knowingly solicit, accept , or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section

    1.No person shall knowingly provide substantial assistance in the solicitation, making, acceptance , or receipt of a contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) through (d), and (g) of this section

    Legal definition of soliciting:

    https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/solicitation/

    A solicitation is considered as having taken place whether or not the person making the solicitation receives any contribution

    Would you accept that Manafort, Jared & Trump Jr acted illegally in respect of above?

  123. Yes, it seems they were soliciting a thing of value, i.e. information, even though they received none.

  124. Yes, it seems they were soliciting a thing of value, i.e. information, even though they received none.

  125. Charles in Texas, on February 25th, 2020 at 1:36 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Thanks for the link Paul. I read it. It seems that the three were fishing for negative info on Clinton from a Russian lawyer, but she didn’t have anything to offer. As we Catholics say, they put themselves in an occasion of sin. Were they guilty of collaboration? I don’t think so, since they obtained nothing, but I may be blinded by a “republican” definition of collaboration!

    Just want to add a little bit of fact into this trip down fantasy lane……

    The Russian Operative that met with Jr was a Honey Trap. The whole thing was arranged by the FBI through Glenn Simpson with Nellie Ohr as the go between for the FBI and Fusion GPS.

    Prior to and immediately following the meeting she met with Glenn Simpson to be prepped and then debriefed. The meeting bore no fruit that could be used which is why no charges were ever brought.

    Now should they have had the meeting No, should the FBI have tried to set them up with the meeting NO…. the meeting sting was part of crossfire hurricane which was used as a platform to coordinate the FBI, CIA, NSA, Fusion GPS, the DNC and the Clintons to FRAME Trump.

    People will unlike the investigations into Trump, when this CRIMINAL investigation is complete people will be charged with crimes……

    but you keep living in the phantasy fabricated by the Obama Administration to cover up Hillary’s Crimes and frame Trump……

    Also I find it interesting that the US Government is trying to extradite Assange under the Espionage act. They have said he committed espionage by receiving info from the russians and putting them out for publication…. hmmm but Hillary received Russian info on Trump an put it out for publication and we were told that she didn’t commit espionage….. how does that work ?

    This 2 sets of Laws must end or who’s president is going to be the least of America’s problems.

  126. So will you withdraw your accusation that sections of the FBI, the DOJ and the Obama administration committed crimes? Where is their presumption of innocence?

    NO because unlike you where the Obama Administration, the FBI/DOJ, and Hillary Clinton, are concerned you can’t name a Law Trump broke or point to any evidence that shows he did, but in the case of all the above……

    I can name and cite the Laws, how they were broken and show an evidence trail….. because crimes were committed where in Trumps case you have no crime.

  127. Pat, your 9.49 is a pile of fabricated, untrue nonsense.

    It’s the very crux of what the original theme of this post was about.

  128. No you’re wrong my source is a criminal investigation being conducted be Atty General Durham who has been conducting interviews and subpoenaing records from Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, Nellie Ohr, Clapper, Brennan, Comey, McCabe and everyone involved in crossfire hurricane.

    That’s my source…… what’s yours that it’s wrong ?

  129. Paul,

    “It’s the very crux of what the original theme of this post was about.”

    Well as Noel said, it’s been rather derailed. Not that anyone would expect an ATW thread to stay on topic, if there even is one, but still.

    I do find it interesting how many people on here manage to believe not just one, but multiple, ideas that completely contradict what experts in multiple fields think, as well as mountains of evidence. It truly beggars belief that some people manage to think they know more about biology, physics, climate, economics, you name it, than most people who have studied that thing all day everyday for decades. Not just one of these topics, mind you. All of them, at the same time.

    Why do they think that by reading some blog, therefore only they and a plucky band of like minded people (who could not pass a high school test on even one of these subjects, never mind all of them) know something that has not occurred to anyone else, never mind experts in that field?

    If it were just one or two things, and they were a bit less cocksure about it, you could kind of get it. A lot of these things are not intuitive. Almost all require at least some basic background vocabulary in head-wrecking stuff such as maths and statistics in order to even start to understand the question, never mind answer it. But surely deep down they must know they are full of it?

    And no, it’s not just rightworld. I will not name names to spare their blushes but we have people here brushing away actual measurements of immigration effects on the low paid. We have people here who think applying their gut intuition for 5 seconds is a great rebuttal to what real security experts and mathematicians have to say about racial profiling and airport security – though those experts have studied, built, and broken similar security systems for decades.

  130. Let’s have a look at a couple of “bat-shit” issues (‘bat-shit’ = not in agreement with Paul) which we are told to believe that ‘science’ (Dave’s and Peter’s type of science) has settled. Firstly, vaccines and here’s a report from a bat-shit medical site:

    https://healthimpactnews.com/2020/dr-lawrence-palevsky-testimony-unvaccinated-children-are-the-healthiest-children-i-have-ever-seen/

    Dr. Lawrence Palevsky is a pediatrician trained at NYU School of Medicine, and did his residency at Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York.

    He recently spoke at a forum on vaccines in Connecticut, discussing the repeal of the religious exemption for childhood vaccines.

    Dr. Palevsky spent the first nine years of his career working in emergency rooms running a neonatal intensive care unit.

    Once he began his private practice, he began to hear:

    “…not dozens, not hundreds, but thousands of stories from parents who took a very healthy child into their doctor’s office, and then found that their child lost much of their health.

    “Whether it was their speech, whether it was seizures, whether it was death, whether it was asthma, allergies, eczema – whether it was autism, whether it was learning disabilities, whether it was inflammatory bowel disease, autoimmune diseases.

    “And every one of those parents were told it had nothing to do with the vaccine.”

    Being trained in medical school to think critically, he began to investigate the science of vaccines, since that had not been taught in medical school.

    Today, he has viewed the outcomes of families who do not vaccinate their children for over 20 years. And he states:

    “They are the healthiest children I have ever seen.”

    I’m not using this excerpt above to claim that vaccines don’t work – but the fact is that Dr Lawrence Palevsky did state to Connecticut’s forum on vaccine exemptions that unvaccinated children are the healthiest that he has ever seen. So either he is wrong, or he is lying, or the science is in error. Of course, the science has a rather large money-making bias which Peter, Frank and Dave appear unaware of.

    Then there’s the related matter of ‘coronavirus’, and I have no idea what’s going on – but bat-shit sites are picking up on findings from scientific papers

    https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-02-19-covid-19-coronavirus-found-to-contain-gain-of-function-for-efficient-spreading-human-population.html

    We now have bombshell, smoking gun evidence that the CoVid-19 “Wuhan” coronavirus was specifically engineered as an offensive biological warfare weapon, designed to target to exterminate human beings.

    A new study published in the peer-reviewed journal Antiviral Research (Vol. 16, April 2020) is entitled, “The spike glycoprotein of the new coronavirus 2019-nCoV contains a furin-like cleavage site absent in CoV of the same clade.”

    It reveals that the CoVid-19 coronavirus contains unique features that allow it to function as a more efficient weapon system for human-to-human transmission, which helps explain why the virus has been impossible to contain (even under “quarantine” conditions, which have universally failed in China, Japan, Korea and elsewhere).

    and

    https://www.activistpost.com/2020/02/us-biowarfare-act-author-studies-confirm-coronavirus-weaponized.html

    In this interview, the author of the US Biowarfare Act, Professor Francis Boyle, uncovers four separate studies which he claims confirm as ‘smoking gun’ evidence the Wuhan coronavirus, now known as COVID-19, was in fact weaponized.

    Professor Boyle also discloses where he believes the true origin of the virus originated and the extent that the US government was involved.

    This doesn’t mean that the coronavirus was made in the lab – but the people who claim that it is, although by definition ‘bat-shit’, know more about these things than Paul, and Dave, and me.

    Now then – does anybody remember the Covington schoolboys and the Injun? There were many angles filmed of that incident, certainly sufficient to meet Paul’s criterion of

    When making a point on ATW and using third party links to support it I have a rule that I try to check it three times from three separate, reputable sources to attempt to verify its credibility.

    The ‘reputable’ sources said that there had been an assault by a schoolboy on the ol’ injun, but actual footage revealed otherwise. Paul refused to believe the actual bat-shit video footage, and still refuses even today. Sad

  131. Frank.
    That was a really good post mate. I have a little respect for you.
    Perhaps I’m guilty of some of those things myself. I’m only human.

  132. I have a little respect for you.
    Should be
    I have a lot of respect for you.
    Dam this voice recognition.

  133. Allan,

    “This doesn’t mean that the coronavirus was made in the lab – but the people who claim that it is, although by definition ‘bat-shit’, know more about these things than Paul, and Dave, and me.”

    They don’t though. The professor is a lawyer. He has no relevant expertise. No more than somebody drafting a treaty on nuclear disarmament suddenly gains insight into nuclear physics.

    The author of the naturalnews article is some clickbait-farm nobody who writes phrases like “the science authors of the science paper”. It’s science, you see? And he posts it on a site that will publish any old shit.

    And the paper doesn’t say what they claim it does. How do I know? 1) they would quote it if it did 2) somebody more credible would point it out and we would have heard of it 3) it would be on the news.

  134. Frank -thankfully we have your omnipotence to set us straight on everything.

  135. Paul, after reading Frank’s 10:50, do you agree with him that playing loose with the facts is not just a problem with those on the right?

    BTW Frank, good analysis!

  136. Mahons, nice try, but it’s not equivalent. I’m not the one contradicting the experts, and doesn’t take much in the way of expertise to point out when people are.

    And on one of the topics, I do have relevant expertise.

  137. Frank – but aren’t you the expert? On everything?

  138. Mahons,

    Since I said I have relevant expertise on one of the topics, basic reading comprehension should lead you to a different conclusion.

    But make shit up if you prefer.

  139. Frank – we will have to guess the topic since you’ve suggested your sparing non right world types on other topics.

  140. He is wearing his passive aggressive hat on tonight, And it fits him so marvelously!

    A blue ribbon panel of hatters from Samoa to Samarkand have given the hat the hat of the year award!

  141. Mahons, just as we will have to guess as to what point, if any, you think you just made.

    But feel free to point out where I am putting myself forward as an expert on “everything” and contradicting the actual experts in that field.

    No need to respond if you were just making it up.

  142. Where you suggest you’really sparing people blushing on other topics, clearly that must be due to your expertise in those topics, unless you were making it up.

  143. Mahons,

    “clearly that must be due to your expertise in those topics”

    No, you’re confused. For example I referred to the effects of immigration on the wages of the low paid. People, and by people I mean Seamus, have posted studies that actually measure these effects. Nobody on the other side of the argument pays a blind bit of notice to them. Like you say, no amount of debunking helps.

    Now, I have not performed these studies. I am able to read though. And it would save us all a fortune in keyboards if you could learn to do that too.

  144. Frank

    You said that all members of a society would ultimately benefit if the jobs of the lowest paid were to be assigned instead to starvation wage workers from overseas who were desperate enough to take those jobs

    That’s one of the more cruel and preposterous things that anyone has ever said on any site at any time.

    I can’t believe that he is still smarting from being called out on this

  145. Phantom,

    “You said that all members of a society would ultimately benefit if the jobs of the lowest paid were to be assigned instead to starvation wage workers”

    I’ve never said anything about “starvation wage workers”. That’s your phrase.

    If you want to “call me out” on something, you need to quote something I actually said. I’ll defend my words, not yours.

  146. Frank – I guess your expertise is in keyboards.

  147. You said that it would be a good idea to replace minimum-wage workers with those willing to work for even less than the existing minimum-wage

    That is not only wrong, it is in support of a monstrous and cruel attack On the most vulnerable working people in British or American society

    You said it, and everybody here knows you are wrong

  148. Mahons, are you drunk? Wtf is your problem?

  149. Phantom,

    “You said that it would be a good idea to replace minimum-wage workers with those willing to work for even less than the existing minimum-wage”

    I did not.

  150. Yes you did, and I think that Seamus said it too

    That it would Create so much additional wealth that it would be better to replace your existing minimum wage workers with foreign workers willing to accept less than the minimum-wage, And to put your existing minimum-wage workers on welfare

    You said it

    Please spend the rest of the night going back to that conversation So that you can recall what you said

  151. Drunk? It is Mardi Gras, but tragically no. I’m not the one making accusations of stupidity or an inability to read based on a different opinion.

  152. Phantom,

    “Yes you did, and I think that Seamus said it too”

    Seamus can speak for himself, but i don’t recall him saying that. And I speak for myself too, you do not. I’ve already told you I didn’t.

    Here’s how you refute that: you quote me saying it.

    Here’s how you do that. You type quotation marks, they look like this: ” ” …. if you’re feeling fancy you can use the blockquote. But, and this is the key point, try to follow: inside the quotes you put words that i wrote. Not words that you wrote. Not your “paraphrase”. Not your recollection. My words.

    If I actually wrote that you could even link to me saying it, and then i will look very silly won’t I?

    But we both know you won’t do any of that, because i didn’t say it.

  153. The left seems very thin skinned tonight, don’t they Frank?

  154. They have defective and selective memories

  155. Frank that was beautiful

  156. Mahons,

    “I’m not the one making accusations of stupidity or an inability to read based on a different opinion.”

    Eh? Who have I accused of stupidity (I have said on another thread that creating an easy route through security is stupid, but that is not about a person).

    Perhaps I was unkind to suggest you lack the ability to read. Perhaps you do have the ability. I hope one day you will use it.

  157. I do find it interesting how many people on here manage to believe not just one, but multiple, ideas that completely contradict what experts in multiple fields think, as well as mountains of evidence. It truly beggars belief that some people manage to think they know more about biology, physics, climate, economics, you name it, than most people who have studied that thing all day everyday for decades. Not just one of these topics, mind you. All of them, at the same time.

    It’s a gift Frank a gift from god. It’s called REASON the spark that makes us human. To look at a topic any topic and dissect it objectively without emotion pure logic by the numbers and actual facts.

    It’s how crimes are solved. It is also the basic law of real science. If you apply deductive reasoning and logic to anything you can find the truth or the closest version to the truth by analyzing every factor. 1+1 always equals two…. Global Warming…. do the computer numbers add up NO. Do those who say it’s real gain from it being real YES. Do those who say it’s Fake gain from saying it’s Fake… YES. Both sides are motivated by profit and power so what is the empirical evidence. All mathematical models have failed. The processing ability for the complexity of the variables does not yet exist .

    So Global Warming can’t be proven or disproven by anything that is being offered except opinion. What are the consequences of each side. If we follow the green plan and shut down fossil fuel use millions will die from poverty and disease as world wide employment drops and standard of living goes back to the stone age the horse and buggy age at the least.

    The other alternative we continue as we are accepting your scenario each year we damage the planet maybe irreparably, but in the last hundred years we have lifted billions out of poverty, concord famine and disease, a hundred years ago the first cars rolled off the assembly line and powered flight was a fantasy. Today on the space station orbiting the planet a 3d printer is printing human tissue and organs from donor stem cells for transplant without any risk of flaw or rejection…..

    Give us another 100yrs of power we’ll solve much more than the energy issue. Greenies would kill all that in the name of a theory they can’t prove.

    1+1 = stay the course less people will suffer. It is the Logical path.

  158. Oh there’s a lot of prickliness on this thread tonight. That’s all I have to say. I am an expert on nothing 😉

  159. Paul, after reading Frank’s 10:50, do you agree with him that playing loose with the facts is not just a problem with those on the right?

    Yes I do Charles, but I’ve never claimed otherwise. From the post itself:

    It also has to be said that from objective, empirical observation this comes overwhelmingly from the right side of the ATW house

    And then replying to Frank’s comment two days ago:

    Frank, I don’t dispute that this happens across the board . I’m commenting on a small localised sample mutual to us all. In wider terms I’ve no idea how the figures would break down in a study but suspect that the main claim I make would be borne out, albeit to a lesser degree

    As a matter of fact the example with what I state can be seen following our latest exchange. I linked to the FEC law, the legal definition of collaboration and reports re the Trump Jr & co / Russian meetings to ask your opinion of what happened. Pat in contrast attempts to rebut those facts with an unverified, unsubstantiated personal opinion.

  160. What an amazing thread. Running down it, all one sees are blinkered pro-corporate zombies congratulating themselves on their open-mindedness and stating that anything outside the blinkered-vision is ‘bat-shit’.

    Paul – do you recall the Covington threads? Here’s one of them:

    https://www.atangledweb.org/?p=77216

    – Phantom, on January 26th, 2019 at 4:45 PM Said:

    Paul, you are very obsessed about these good kids. It’s very hard to understand. Admit that you’re wrong, and …. we will Move on

    Except that you won’t admit that you’re wrong –

    As can be seen, the thread above demolishes any claims by the guest-poster to objectivity.

    Here’s some ‘bat-shit’ from a shit-site, said report causes me concern:

    https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-02-24-worst-extinction-biomass-of-flying-insects-down.html

    – According to Sorg, the total annual biomass of flying insects collected by him and several volunteers have plummeted by 76 percent since the Society first started its collection – a troubling scenario that can disastrously impact global food chains and habitats.

    “We only became aware of the seriousness of this decline in 2011, and every year since then we have seen it get worse,” Sorg said, noting that at the time, the news did not make major waves outside of ecological circles as concern about biodiversity loss focused mostly on larger species.

    Although the exact roots of the massive die-off have not yet been made clear, Sorg is adamant that humans are to be blamed. “The cause is anthropogenic, there’s no doubt about it,” Sorg said, pointing to continued pesticide use, unchecked industrialization and habitat destruction. –

    And each of these are related to population growth, yet native Europeans aren’t reproducing for such an effect, so it must be fast-breeding invaders.

  161. Paul – do you recall the Covington threads?

    Yes I do and I don’t think I ever stated that the old man was assaulted by a schoolboy. I believe I siad that his path was blocked by a bad mannered. loutish youth.

    Now, back into your box with you. I’ve indulged enough you attempting to pull the thread off onto a subject that’s been already extensively commented on although feel free to howl at the moon.

  162. All the evidence indicates that those Kentucky school kids did nothing wrong.

    I admitted my initial error in the most public way, after all this time you still cling to error out of stubbornness and prejudice

  163. “Who have I accused of stupidity?”
    Followed by “perhaps I was unkind to suggest you couldn’t read”

    Algonquin Round Table.

  164. This sounds like the Democratic candidates debate, only worse

    Some of the biggest mouths f orget the things that they themselves have said in the recent or not so recent past

    Exceptionally interesting

  165. Phantom, much like me apparently agreeing that they assaulted an old man I only commented on the behaviour of the kids being loutish and bad mannered and nothing I’ve seen in the last year or so has done anything to change that. Perhaps I just have a higher standard as to how the youth should behave around older people?

    It may come as a shock to you but what you admit or don’t admit doesn’t really figure in how I form my opinions and if you want to join the aberrant from Aberdeen in howling at the moon at a subject that’s already been commented on hundreds of times be my guest just don’t expect me to go around and around the same mulberry bush again and again. I will however happily comment on your allegations of prejudice above.

    No doubt you’re implying that I’m prejudiced because they’re Americans or white or young or middle class or youths or blah blah blah when in fact I commented on nothing but they’re behaviour. Who knows? Maybe that’s a result of bad cultures in their homes, social circles etc?

  166. Had you guys no pancakes to eat?

    //but aren’t you the expert? On everything?//

    In fairness, Frank’s first comment – that he believes things that are false and that he knows he’s got the facts wrong on some things – must be one of the most humble comments any of us has ever seen on a political blog.

  167. There are many things that Frank says that I disagree with but at least he’ll provide evidence to support his point while he’s articulating it.

    I find Frank’s comments both informed and informative and even though I can’t demonstrate specific circumstances I’ve always thought from the general tone of his comments that he’s open and, ahem, frank about any incorrections.

  168. There is zero evidence that those kids Assaulted anyone, or that they were loutish

    They were Confused by what was happening around them, Including when the activist asshole got into the face of the one boy

    All of your opinions come from a corrosive prejudice here

    There is zero evidence to back up anything that you say including all the film footage

  169. *sigh*

    If you want to join the aberrant from Aberdeen in howling at the moon at a subject that’s already been commented on hundreds of times be my guest just don’t expect me to go around and around the same mulberry bush again and again.

  170. Paul – I wish I knew how to read, then I could agree with you about Frank’s writings (wink)

  171. That’s a matter between Frank & yourself Mahons. As I said, whilst not agreeing with everything he writes I find his comments both informed and informative.

  172. Mahons,

    ““Who have I accused of stupidity?”
    Followed by “perhaps I was unkind to suggest you couldn’t read”

    Yes and no suggestion of stupidity there (also, it was a feeble attempt at a joke, but hey ho). You may recall that I wondered if you were drunk. Or perhaps posting nonsense was your way of raising the alarm without making your kidnappers aware. Maybe you had sustained serious head injuries. Other explanations are also available, some less charitable.

    I’ve posted enough controversial views here that I actually hold and you are more than welcome to flame me for those that is what you are after. But I don’t think it is a big ask that you should limit yourself to those, and not put your words in my mouth. Same goes for Phantom.

    Noel & Paul… cheers 🙂