No real argument, but it's laughable. Hmm...the candidate is Donald Trump. Lara Trump would have "some type of bias" for the Republican candidate... This is somehow an impropriety? Seems to me, right and proper.

I don't believe any act of Congress can bind the authority of a future Congress (unless it is a Constitutional amendment). Every appropriations bill must be passed by Congress and signed by the President. A veto throws it back to Congress for override (if they can manage it). Legislation can be revoked by a future Congress. This is the threat hanging over all entitlements.

He must be referring to Gonzalo Lira, who was about as anti-woke and anti-Ukraine as you can find (which is why he was killed). American "journalists" would be happy to unperson him and throw him in the memory hole.

There is no point in making an argument about carbon-14. I acknowledged its variability at the outset. You are merely confirming my view.

We don't know anything from early Genesis, independently of the Bible, and that book of the Bible was given to a man (Moses) educated in the world view of the Egyptians for communication to the Hebrews. Using the words and concepts at his command he did so. God was not delivering a textbook on geology and astrophysics; He was summarizing creation in terms intelligible to the Hebrews of the day. Today we read God's Word (Creation) directly from scientific instruments, but not without errors of understanding. It is, as they say, a "work in progress."

The flood would not have changed the energy states of atomic nuclei, which is the basis of radioactive dating. There is evidence that the present Mediterranean Sea was formerly a gigantic geologic depression, with the oceans being held in check by the rock dam at the current Pillars of Hercules. At some point in human habitation, the rock dam failed and the sea gushed into the Mediterranean basin, constituting a flood of the known world.

There is also the fact that by knowing the distances to the far stars, we view a history that is thousands, maybe millions of years old.

I believe there are ways in which our present understanding can be reconciled with the Biblical account, but we should not imagine that a human account is going to be more truthful or more accurate than the actual substance of God's Word.

Build an hourglass, fill it and turn it over. People will assume that the glass started when one side was full, but when did radioactive decay start and when was that with respect to the creation of the Earth? As for an hourglass, who can say that the strength of gravity doesn't change over time? Carbon dating is notoriously unsuitable for deep geologic dating. The production of C-14 hinges on the strength of cosmic radiation, which is an unknown over time.

How do we know what the length of a year was in Bible reckoning? How do we know that generations weren't skipped? I have no problem with Biblical correspondences with plausible historical events. I have no problem with the book of Genesis, as long as we understand that "day" most easily means a period of labor...after which one rests. I have read my Velikovsky, many years ago and give him credence.

And I have no problem accepting the fact that the Chicxulub impact was 66 million years ago, leaving behind plenty of evidence. It is one thing to speculate that radioactive decay may be variable with circumstances, but you can't just dismiss it by saying that atoms are lying. And I don't believe that God made His Creation as a deception, so there is no need to battle over the Bible and scientific truth, when a lot hinges on what we assume when we read the Bible.

It will become a dead letter IF a Trump win in the fall is coincident with taking both the House and the Senate. No act of Congress can bind a future Congress. The law can be amended or nullified.

Same ear, different lighting and angle of view. Distinctive feature at the top beginning of the ear shell.

Every time a Democrat intones "threat to our democracy," I mentally apply the translation: "democracy" = "rule by Democrats." Absolute clarification. Their concern is sincere.

Temperamentally, I agree with the annoyance. But the reality is that in a time of sophisticated economic and operations analysis buttressed by overhead reconnaissance, this is not the kind of secret that can be maintained as a secret.

Which is worse? Our public doesn't know but the opponents do? Do do we let the public know?

Agreed. I surmise he is holding the biolabs information close to the vest for later exploitation. They have already revealed a lot, since the very beginning, resulting in Victoria Nuland going from "it's all a conspiracy story" to under-oath testimony before Congress in one week's time.

The biolabs are crimes against humanity, not just war crimes. The U.S. is culpable and guilty of violating a treaty it signed.

It always happens without my glasses. I misread the header as "...finding a voodoo clip of Nancy Pelosi..." I mean, it was plausible...

The traditional translation was "Borderlands." Some western European countries have provinces with a similar implication in their names, e.g., Denmark, where the appendage "-mark" (equivalent to "march" in English) signified a borderland.

Oh, I have no basic complaint with Tucker per se. I was just annoyed that he couldn't grasp the political reality of "negotiations," under the history that Putin was at pains to detail and highlight (i.e., that they have been tried, tried again, and failed through bad faith, mendacity, and malice). I am rather thinking that Putin is positioning this interview as an opening round in the American public consciousness.

Russians are deep and comprehensive thinkers. Ever read Dostoyevsky? Or Solzhenitsyn?

Here are my thoughts:

• I did not think it was boring at all. It required patience, and patience is no longer accounted a virtue in modern society. Putin very masterfully and eloquently painted a Big Picture into which our modern times fit as an organic outcome of history. I have made long and involved presentations, and for Putin to do this seemingly off the cuff, without the crutches of visual aids, is a feat I respect. The talent of the simultaneous interpreter was also outstanding. So, from the standpoint of production values, I haven't seen its like.

• In this view, his exposition was targeted toward the thoughtful person who truly was curious about the origins of the conflict. Foundational propaganda in the technical sense: getting out the word on fundamental issues.

• From this Big Picture, it becomes more evident and persuasive that the "war" started in 2014, not 2022.

• And it becomes clearer that the Russian concern was not primarily about borders and territory, but only insofar as it pertained to the protection of fellow Russians, in person, faith, culture, and livelihood.

• Contrary to popular misrepresentation, the withdrawal of forces from Kiev was not the ballyhooed Russian "failure," but a tremendous gesture of goodwill and trust---undone by U.S. & NATO perfidy.

• As I was absorbing all this, I became annoyed at Carlson's obtuse unwillingness to understand Putin's point about how to proceed. He kept on asking Putin whether he (Putin) could or would approach the Biden administration for a negotiation to end the conflict. Putin would have been well within his rights to reply, "Mr. Carlson, have you even been listening? We have repeatedly negotiated---only to have such negotiations repudiated TIME AFTER TIME. The U.S. wanted this war, so we obliged them. If and when they want it no longer, they can say so. We do not waste time in repeating futility."

• Putin's reference to the economic and technical linkage between Russia and Ukraine could have been elaborated. In my own field, I mourn the destruction of the Antonov company (world's largest cargo aircraft) and the Yuzhnoye Design Bureau (space launchers), first rate worldwide.

• One might think from Carlson's reaction that Putin's discussion of deNazification was too brief, but that is a reflection of the moral tolerance and equivocation that has corrupted the West . To Putin---and I say this to his great credit---there was not even a question to consider. "What nation can be allowed to propagate Nazism?" It was like preparing for an argument over exterminating typhoid. What argument? What discussion?

• I enjoyed listening to Putin. He was firm on his feet, capable of putting everything into perspective, and appealing to moral truths.

Not to get into the wordplay, but you are touching on a point I try to make repeatedly: radical skepticism is the rejection of epistemology. If all history (or a huge part) is a lie, then any other account of history can also be a lie. Another way of putting it might be " 'Question everything' is fine so far as it goes, but if you cannot accept answers, it is a denial of everything."

But have fun with this. Interesting to watch.

Yes...and it is federally unconstitutional for any state government entity other than the Legislature to revise or otherwise impose requirements on what the Legislature has determined (such as by Governors, or state Election Boards, which happened significantly in 2020).

It is now very murky. GA is not friendly to following threads of conversation.

Being severed at a 45-degree angle is exactly what is to be expected from a compressive shear failure. You can work it out yourself, if you understand shear and the strength of materials. No "cutting" necessary; only structural overload.

The compression of air from downfalling upper stories will blow out windows easily.

You guys are easy to dupe, when you don't know the subject matter.

I can't be responsible for anyone else's irony. I only came on board on one point; I did not start the train.

The quotation seems to imply that their court thinks that state constitutions must ratify the provisions of the federal constitution. This mistaken idea is probably an outcome of the fact that many state constitutions reiterate the 2nd Amendment in their own constitutional language, sometimes providing better protection. This brings to mind the unconstitutional meddling of state governments in the regulation of national elections, thinking that state electoral prescriptions supervene over the language of the federal constitution.

But this seems mainly the product of an entitled status, and Hawaii has been Democrat for a long time. And the "originals" (dare I call them "natives"?) have a grudge against the mainland U.S. as being a plague of exploiters, carpet-baggers, and squatters. It may not have been prudent national policy to annex an island nation (monarchy) far from the U.S. heartland. (An arrangement such as with Puerto Rico might have been better, but the exigencies of World War II probably obliterated that possibility.)

Yep. But the sore point is that internet hosts claim to be platforms, when they are mostly publishers. Not a problem in this case.

Then we have nothing to discuss. The thread began with a distinction between platforms and publishers and their respective rights and responsibilities.

My only thought is for all the SA whites to declare themselves as ethnic Russians and appeal to Putin for refugee protection.

I think the original comment was highlighting the irony of being a land of "free speech," yet the government being in a position to cancel such speech, not at the broadcaster's desire.