King Charles called me, but it didn't sound like him. I remain suspicious.
It’s all relative. The earth is very big compared to us. Some things are easy to verify.
I'm a fan of thinking carefully, and I do think about it––quite a lot, actually. Thinking carefully is the very reason I approach some subjects with caution. I see a lot of things that just aren't right, but I'm not ready to do a Maoist purge of my accumulated scientific knowledge. Science wasn't always in the state it's in right now with money and ideology controlling the narrative. There are some things we actually do know, even if we might not know them perfectly.
For me thinking carefully began with the realization that I don't need anyone's approval to validate what I believe. I realized that if I needed someone else's agreement to feel secure about what I believed, either I didn't really believe it, or I was being lazy to substitute the approval of others for the work it takes to come to conclusions that satisfy me.
The biggest clue was when I got angry at someone who wouldn't see things my way. That would have been appropriate if the disagreement centered on whether that person could invade my house and take my things, but it was about something that wasn't worth the defensive energy. I began to wonder why I was angry, and then it dawned on me––I needed his approval to feel good about what I thought, and I knew that wasn't right.
On the flip side, I learned the benefit of being patient with people who are still working things out, treating them like I would like to be treated. The benefit is that it lifts everyone. It helps no one to look back at someone walking the same road and chastise them for being behind. People who are going to catch up are going to get there eventually, and if some want to park on the verge, that's their choice.
It's getting more and more obvious that many things in the world are not as they were made to seem. I have my suspicions, too, but I'm okay with being wrong about some things if they turn out differently from what I expect. I've been wrong before, and admitting that isn't so bad.
Well, there you go. Q has spoken.
Sorry, still not enough for me. I have great respect for Q. He (or they) might know something, but I still need more, and when there is the right kind of more, I'll concede the existence of aliens with a solid affirmation. But I won't concede on my point that the vastness of space does not constitute absolute proof of anything but the fact that the universe is very big, even if it's worth considering in the context of the question of whether there is alien life.
I get what you're saying, but statistics depend heavily on a data set. What data are being used to say that the vastness of space proves statistically that aliens must exist? Might there be assumptions hiding in the details? The statistical probability of millions of planets orbiting in a "Goldilocks zone" does not prove there is life on any of them. It only suggests that there are a lot of planets that might be hospitable to life. A strong probability is still not proof. We have yet to capture an intelligent signal from space. Whether the aliens are local or far away, electromagnetic signals spread out, and it is highly unlikely that the government goons would be the only ones who would ever see them. (Yes, I realize I am making an assumption myself by confining alien communications to electromagnetic signals to make this argument.)
Having said that, there is a much more problematic assumption hiding in the base of this argument, and you cannot argue for a statistical probability of alien life without it. That is the assumption that complex life is a product of evolution as it is defined in the official scientific doctrine of the 20th century, which is based upon the statistically improbable assumption that life begins on any planet by chance, assembling itself spontaneously from lifeless matter. "Improbable" is an understatement. "Impossible" is actually closer to the truth. "If given enough time" is not a valid argument to support the miracles evolutionists believe in. The realities of chemical reactions alone means there will never be enough time in the universe to account for it because time itself is the enemy of the kind of reactions that would be required, and there are many that would have to happen at the exact same time to form exactly the right structures, which must instantly become stable against the adverse conditions in which they were created. (BTW, if someone says they have created life in a lab, they are lying. All anyone has ever done is to assemble something stable from life that already existed––yes, scientists sometimes lie, as the scandemic has abundantly proven.)
Let me say again that I am not trying to invalidate anyone's belief in aliens, and no one who advocates the idea of alien life has my disrespect. Personally, I would love for that to be true (as long as they're nice and not coming here with a cookbook). I'm only trying to highlight the way people often try to prove their beliefs with false logic, and it really does matter because it predicts how easily a person can be fooled. When I think back on all the times I believed something that turned out to be false, an assumption was usually to blame. This was true whether I was being manipulated by someone presenting an assumption as a fact or I was trusting an assumption I made myself. Of course, this doesn't mean everything one believes based on an assumption is necessarily false. Often it means that only the assumption is false, and that there might be a better way to argue the point.
That picture! Is it so hard to make a mask that fits?
I've come to the conclusion that you can tell who's in the Evil Club by how much they want to send people to die in Ukraine. I wonder how this manly-looking person spends free time? Might black robes be involved? Are children compelled to attend the parties?
People need to learn again how to think logically, which begins with learning the difference between verifiable facts and assumptions. For instance, “the vastness of space” cannot be taken for a proof that aliens must exist. That would be an assumption. You cannot build a solid argument based on an assumption.
I’m not being persnickety to bring this up, and this is not me trying to debunk the existence of aliens. I don’t know if aliens exist, but I do know that assumptions will never prove that they do.
Paying attention to logic is important if we are going to be good at discovering truth. Of course, thinking logically is now “racist” according to flaming idiots who say breathtakingly stupid things for money, and the reason they are trying to devalue logic is obvious: Logical thinking gives you a greater chance of catching liars in a lie that will not bear the light very well if they are forced to explain.
Look at the feet. Toes pointed outward.
Great video. It's interesting to see people in these old videos talking about printing money. That's just a quaint sideline anymore. The scammers have become so much more efficient. Now they just change the numbers in a file on a computer and make even more money off imaginary debt. But how was it ever just to have to pay back debt what only exists because some banker says it does? Well, they do it though agreements at every level, and that's how they trap us. "You agreed to pay it back. See? There's your signature."
The monsters running this banking scheme have strangled every nation on earth with compound interest, living on the world like a giant parasite, growing fat and gross on the blood of their wars and caring nothing for the misery they create from raping entire nations of their wealth. They are the darkest and most evil criminal a criminal syndicate that ever existed, the modern Mystery Babylon that rides on the governments of the world, steering them wherever they please. Well, not anymore. Its day of judgment has come.
They think they will reset the system as they have had to do regularly to keep their scam going, usually covering it with a heinous war, but this time it is being torn out of their hands, and God is the one who is doing it. This is Biblical in the most literal sense, and we get to witness it. Amazing times.
The whole thing is completely insane. When did provoking Russia become NATO's only purpose? Russia responsibly tried to negotiate when NATO pushed past its own promises not to meddle with Ukraine. The Russians remained honorable, even when the sock-puppet leaders of NATO and the U.S. were being dishonorable, but everything changed when their stubbornness became an existential threat. How long could Putin stand by to let ethnic Russians get slaughtered by the western globalist NGO-created Nazi regime in Ukraine? He suffered it as long as he could.
I don't see Russia as some dark colossus with evil intentions, and I don't think Putin is doing anything but looking after the welfare of the Russian people, as every leader should look after their own people. The Russians wanted to be included the table of international affairs, which was completely reasonable, but the west repeatedly rejected them and even punished them for standing up for themselves as if they are still the old Soviet Union. Who can blame the Russians for opting out of the west's systems of nation-control? That's the real reason they want to take Russia down. It's gotten out of their control to become an existential threat to the western hegemony in every conceivable way. It has also become a deadly threat to the globalist anti-human agenda.
Russia is not the bad guy in any of this. It's the sock-puppet leaders of western nations who need to explain what they're doing.
The worst part in PA was that the sensors the government required for environmental reasons often went bad, and they were extremely expensive to replace (both for the labor and for the part itself).
I tend to agree that it's a racket.
The thing to notice is that all this kind of "white supremacy" rhetoric is ultimately coming from psychotic old white men with power. The breathtaking hypocrisy of this is lost on obedient leftists, who seem to think that their lives will end in glory with the wings of their own ideological virtue bearing them upwards to land in a godless socialist heaven. But all the while Hell is laughing at them with a knowing look. It waits with open arms to receive them with a nasty surprise.
We had that in Pennsylvania when I lived there. I will tell you, it made it a lot harder to be poor. Politicians do not love you, and they aren't interested in your safety.
He knows.
It is not a real two-party system. It's all one thing, and each side has its function. The function of the Republicans is to give the illusion that there is opposition to the outrages perpetrated by the Democrats, but in the back room they have already made the deal.
Absolute gold.
After seeing massive support for Cameron Blake, the school administration said they were going to allow American flags in the parking lot. They are "allowing" nothing. The truth is that they were forced to recognize the reality that their unpatriotic wokeness was never going to be enforceable. It's face-saving that saves no faces.
Welcome to Democrat America.
The police will not protect you from being murdered, but they will arrest you later for staying alive.
They were giving out Oscars last night? How much I just don't care.
I never watch even clips of vitriolic MSM people because it's like splashing your face with poison, but I watched this one for the sake of the guest. How refreshing to see her stick to her guns in the face of repeated denials from Stephanopoulos. Not your classic give-in Republican.
No one should take any political advice from Mitt Romney, and I can't imagine that President Trump would ever do it. Romney has a green ring around his neck from wallowing in the swamp, but now he's hopelessly irrelevant within his own party, and his scrabbling to still seem important is getting a little tragic. It's like he calls every so often from behind a swamp tree to say, "Look, I wiped off the cooties. Please let me play."
No, they're not happy. It looks like the WEFrs in Poland stepped up to take some heat off the Germans. The Polish foreign minister said that NATO involvement "is not unthinkable." It means the warmongers running NATO have been thinking about it (and making plans), as the leak from the German military verifies. Now they have to find some other plausible way to poke the bear without looking like they're doing it. Good luck with that. It's not possible now that the cat is out of the bag––actually whole herd of cats. Every sneaky move they try will be ridiculously obvious because they will no longer be able to make it seem like they're only responding to Russian provocation. This is beside the fact that Putin is far more shrewd than they are willing to acknowledge. He knows what they're doing, and they're not going to get the WW3 and destruction of Russia they want. They will only succeed in destroying NATO and probably the EU.
She's a KAREN?
It could work if the person has a tapeworm.