jbluhm86

Reading again, I noticed that - besides not mentioning Obama anywhere - the article never mentioned Clapper or Brennan either. All three are your own additions to the story. All of this went down from 2001-2007 during the Bush administration; the case was settled at least a year before Obama even won the election, much less assumed office. Yet, your first reaction was to blame Obama. For someone who accuses others of TDS, you sure are preoccupied with a man who hasn't held the office of the President in nearly 3 years. I should buy stock in Chiquita, because at the rate you're slipping on banana peels trying to backpedal, i'd be a billionaire in a year....

If Epstein was smart, he would've just converted to Catholicism. At least then he could've hidden out in Rome under the loving arms of the Church, immune from extradition back to the US.

Nah, I'm not in the Alaskan bridge real estate business, so I'm not going to buy that attempted deflection either: In fact, the Blaze article doesn't mention Obama at any point, so that was your own addition. All they did was dangle the "deep state" phrase to you like a worm, and you immediately:

Well, I tried. So, Cal: what year was Obama elected into office?

"THEY'RE TURNING THE FISH GAY"!!!

I'm feeling pretty magnanimous today, so I'll give you a free chance to reread the source article and then reread your comment above and give you the opportunity to correct your obvious mistake.

CBS Sports: Hue Jackson: Despite 3-36-1 record, Cleveland was 'some of the best coaching I did I did a literal spit take when I first saw this. The man has lost all touch with reality at this point.

I've always found it amusing how baby boomers get into such an uproar over the national debt when they're the generation who took the proverbial credit card of national wealth given to them by the preceding generation and proceeded to be the ones that maxed it out to begin with. And the best part is, most boomers are on the back 9 of life anyway, so they'll more than likely never be affected by having to be the ones to pay the debt off.

My Bachelor's degree in Biology ended up just a shade under $70k. Miami University definitely isn't among the cheapest unis to go to.

That which we call a rube, By any other name would still be as simple...

If this is what old age does to one's brain, I hope I stroke out well beforehand.

I thought the sky was blue due to Rayleigh scattering, but I practice that science wizardry.

Well, I don't know about you nerds, but my 4th of July celebration went pretty awesome. Nice cookout at my friend's farm and shot off over $2k worth of fireworks:

Sunscreens, whether synthetic or "natural", work on the principle of blocking or deflecting UV light from the skin, so even "natural" sunscreens will reduce the amount of Vitamin D one can synthesize from sunlight. I'd rather wear sunscreen and pop a Vitamin D supplement and not get cancer, imo.

Gorilla - Yes Chimpanzee - Yes Fish - Yes, for some. Bony fish have caudal vertebrae, which support tailfins. Plants - No, not in the context of animal tails. Inspects - Dunno. Better ask Dr Claw. From your friendly neighborhood biologist. 👍

Happy 4th of July to all you fuckers on here. Have fun and stay safe today. I'm all set to go for today:

I don't think that any scientist worth his or her merit has stated that science will prove everything. Science is just a tool (the best one we have available, imo) that humanity uses to understand the world and universe around them. And its most likely true that scientific observation and discovery as we understand it may only yield part of the universe's mysteries to us and not the whole picture. But, to me, a gap in scientific knowledge doesn't automatically mean that the correct move is to throw God or religion in there to explain the gap. All respects to the late Dr. Krauthammer, but he's making the same mistake in logic that you were up above: the God of the Gaps argument. I think many religious people (and some atheists) erroneously state that atheism claims outright that there is no God. Atheists cannot definitively disprove the existence of God just as the religious cannot definitively prove the existence of their religion's God(s). However, the one advantage (imo) that the nonbelievers or skeptics have over the religious is that they cannot claim to know more about the universe that what they know. For example: astronomers know, through many careful measurements and observations, that the universe is currently expanding and that it keeps getting bigger as time moves forward. Logically, if you run the clock backwards in time, the universe shrinks until it reaches a point around 14 b.y.a. where the entire universe is concentrated into a single point: the Big Bang. Notice that scientists here claim to know only that which they have observed and have empirical data for. They know only that there was a Big Bang that created and grew into the universe we observe today. And although there are several hypothesis out there of what caused the Big Bang, none claim to know precisely what happened. The religious, on the other hand, take that gap in knowledge and make the leap to fill it in with their own religious beliefs and deities to explain their world based on bad or nonexistent "evidence" (religious texts/dogma). Therein lies the key difference between atheistic thought and religious belief. I, and other atheists like me, present a view of the universe as it presents itself through empirical data and observation and - most importantly - is open to reinterpretation/correction when presented better data. The religious, on the other hand, come from the complete opposite angle of thought by claiming they ALREADY know how the universe was/is - through their religious texts - and, when presented with data to the contrary, are forced to either reject the new information outright or try to hammer the proverbial square peg into the round hole and try to make the data fit into their preconceived ideology. “Spirit” comes from the Latin word “to breathe.” What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word “spiritual” that we are talking of anything other than matter (including the matter of which the brain is made), or anything outside the realm of science. On occasion, I will feel free to use the word. Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or of acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.” ― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

The hits keep coming from over at Bengals subreddit:

He may, at most, have practiced a form of deism in which there was a creator God who created the universe, but made no further interaction or interventions afterwards; he said he was agnostic on the idea of a deity on the whole. A miracle, in your Judeo-Christian sense of the word, is a suspension of the natural order to produce a fortuitous outcome; a direct intervention in the normal running of the universe in your favour. I don't know why you're seemingly trying to backhandedly redefine Einstein's use of the word "miracle" to fit your own Christian/theistic definition of it when the man clearly stated that biblical stories and a personal God were "childish"; it seems to me like you're trying to square the circle on this issue as if it would be some kind of "gotcha" moment if you could pull it off, or that it would somehow add some kind of clout to belief in Christianity if he did believe what you believe about religion.

Well, given his stated views on religion, particularly the theistic variety, I'm 99% sure it was a metaphor.

Out of curiosity, I used TBB's way-back-machine and searched the threads back in 2015, the year gay marriage was legalized, to get a gauge on what poster's thoughts were when the ruling first came down, and I came across this thread. In particular, I noticed a post by a fellow user which pretty much sums up the point of many of the pro-gay marriage arguers on here, and their main issues with the anti-gay marriage posters. Here it is (emphasis is mine, not the OP):