Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Who gets to post memescape?

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - BenTheBiased

1
No, the first thing to notice is that you have provided no reference link, so your post can be ignored.
3
I thought that post was pretty conciliatory too. Maybe even overly so. And his response to it was to go on a substance-free rant of multiple short posts accusing the general "you" of not being able to think logically. That's pretty telling.
4
Also, info about Papadopolous is supposed to have come from multiple sources, including the Australian, British, and Dutch governments, so I'm not sure how significant this "original electronic communication," whatever it was, actually is.
5
It would help if your own posts contained the alleged evidence and logic you claim we are unable to see. One cannot see what isn't there.
6
Feel free to show me the evidence and explain the logic, Dave.
7
FWIW (which probably isn't much), Nunes' claim is that the FBI got its information about Papadopoulos not from "official intelligence" but from Clinton associates feeding them info. I'm not really sure what that claim is supposed to accomplish. Is he trying to make the case that the info was obtained illegally? Or is he trying to cast doubt on the accuracy of the info? Because the thing is...Papadopoulos pled guilty. So however it was obtained, the info was clearly correct.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that the surveillance state is out of hand when it comes to ordinary Americans, but when we're talking about presidential campaigns colluding with foreign governments to interfere with elections, I'm not sure I care where the line about what constitutes acceptable surveillance is drawn as much as I care about presidential campaigns colluding with foreign governments to interfere with elections. I mean they are both important issues, but Nunes' continued attempts to push the former as a larger issue than the latter make him look reeeaaallly suspicious, especially as the investigation continues to yield guilty pleas.
8
Anyone who still puts any stock in anything Nunes says at this point is beyond gullible.

ETA: It would be interesting to try and pinpoint the moment Dave went from gullible rube just being taken in to true believer waving the pom-poms. Or maybe that sort of thing is just instantaneous with Dave. As soon as he begins to believe something, his belief in it is not only complete but also synonymous with his own ego. It's really fascinating.
9
Why did N. Korea fold?

"It's the economy, stupid."

China's that is.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Quote
China controls the DPRK
Wow, wrong in the very first clause. Didn't even make it a whole sentence. That's pretty impressive. Although tbf, it's not like it's an example of independent thought from Conservative Playpen anyway. They're just echoing Dear Leader's incoherent ramblings...



BTW, doesn't look like Fox News is toeing the line on this one. Or maybe they're just putting forth fake skepticism to make it look even more impressive when Trump gets the job done...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/22/lawmakers-calling-north-koreas-announcement-denuclearization-publicity-stunt.html
Quote
North Korea's nuclear announcement is clearly a publicity stunt, US lawmakers say

Lawmakers across the aisle Sunday described North Korea's announcement that it would halt nuclear tests and missile launches as essentially a publicity stunt.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Vice Chairman Francis Rooney, R-Fla., weighed in on Fox News' "America's News HQ", saying there's no sign the dictator Kim Jong Un has changed his spots at all.

"This guy has been negotiating through three consecutive presidents," he said about the Korean leader. "He's launched ballistic missiles. I don't think Iran has done that."

Rooney added that until there is demonstrable evidence that can be verified, "We better be very skeptical."
10
Dave, read this:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/republicans-believe-comey-used-pee-tape-to-trap-trump.html

Read it carefully.

Then tell me if you believe it.
Quote
The easiest way to see through these defenses is to imagine the alternative. Suppose that Comey decided not to tell Trump about the Steele dossier, even though its findings had been taken seriously by U.S. intelligence, and both Congress and the former president had already been briefed on it. Would Trump's defenders today be holding up Comey's silence as evidence that he did the right thing by withholding this information from the new president? Would they see it as a point in Comey's favor, evidence that he really did have a good faith interest in helping Trump? No, of course not. The backlash would be far worse. They would be charging Comey with having participated in the deep state conspiracy by keeping Trump in the dark about the investigation that posed such a serious threat.
One of the major shortcomings in the thinking of the extreme narcissist (Trump), the true believer (his supporters), or individuals who are both extreme narcissists and true believers (Dave), is that they are incapable of even imagining a scenario in which they are wrong. Since this is a prerequisite to realizing that one is actually wrong, these people never will.
11
Yes, but you're a person who apparently thought Manafort and Gates were "indicted for doing work for Donald Trump," so the way things appear to you doesn't mean very much. (Well, except insomuch as it represents the ignorance of the average American voter.)
12
At the very least those researchers who Socrates thinks "have never come to terms with the Levant fossils and sites" should be notified of Socrates' discoveries. It would only be common courtesy for him to contact them about their oversights so they can correct them.
13
I'll alert the presses.
14
I think both of those things are probably true to varying degrees.
15
Well, Socrates hasn't admitted these facts...
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22335
Quote
Here we report the ages, determined by thermoluminescence dating, of fire-heated flint artefacts obtained from new excavations at the Middle Stone Age site of Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, which are directly associated with newly discovered remains of H. sapiens8. A weighted average age places these Middle Stone Age artefacts and fossils at 315 ± 34 thousand years ago.
So maybe that's what he's referring to? :dunno:
16
Copying my post from the Dave Hawkins MAGA vanity thread...
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/why-were-republicans-so-desperate-to-release-the-embarrassing-comey-memos-heres-one-explanation.html

This whole thing is worth reading, but tldr, Republicans pushed hard to release Comey memos that say Trump talked about Putin's hookers, apparently because of a likely inaccurate Fox News report that if it were accurate might possibly justify Trump's dumb tweet about Comey leaking classified information.

If that's true, it's hard to think of a better example of this...

https://splinternews.com/the-long-lucrative-right-wing-grift-is-blowing-up-in-t-1793944216
17
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/why-were-republicans-so-desperate-to-release-the-embarrassing-comey-memos-heres-one-explanation.html

This whole thing is worth reading, but tldr, Republicans pushed hard to release Comey memos that say Trump talked about Putin's hookers, apparently because of a likely inaccurate Fox News report that if it were accurate might possibly justify Trump's dumb tweet about Comey leaking classified information.

If that's true, it's hard to think of a better example of this...

https://splinternews.com/the-long-lucrative-right-wing-grift-is-blowing-up-in-t-1793944216
18
I am in fact a scientist and understand evolution better than most folks here. But not worth arguing. Just another silly slur from you folks.

Ok this has to be some kind of performance art.
I hope so. It's preferable to thinking this is what a person is actually like.
19
Can anyone explain what Faid means by "washing up"?
Anybody?
Considering it was a reference to something you wrote, it shouldn't be this hard for you to figure it out. You aren't demonstrating much scientific aptitude here for someone who claims to be a scientist.
20
I do realize that there are transitionals. Neanderthals are great transitionals. Particularly since they are 99.7% identical to humans. But again not worth arguing because you folks do not work on the basis of evidence.
Says the person who has provided no evidence for his assertions to the person who has.
21
I wonder if people realize that the Omo I and Omo II are ABOVE the Member I layer. The dating of Member I is irrelevant if Omo I and Omo II were washed into the position above Member I.
To repeat, this is an issue for the dating of Omo I because the primitive Omo II is at the same depth. But not worth arguing. People here seem unable to grasp this point.
Perhaps Socrates doesn't understand that populations with different features coexisted.
https://archive.unews.utah.edu/news_releases/the-oldest-homo-sapiens/
Quote
Fleagle says no scientist has been bold enough to suggest Omo II is anything other than Homo sapiens, and that "quite often at the time of major events in evolution, one finds an increase in morphological [anatomical] diversity." Now that the new study confirms Omo I and Omo II are the same age - living within a few hundred years of each other about 195,000 years ago - some anthropologist suggest "maybe it [Omo II] isn't so primitive after all," Brown says.
Socrates may be bold enough to suggest Omo II is something other than Homo sapiens, but he isn't a scientist, and doesn't understand much about evolution, and has no support for his baseless assertions, so his suggestions can safely be disregarded. Not worth arguing. Socrates seems unable to grasp this point.
22
Quote
Studies of the postcranial remains of Omo I indicate an overall modern human morphology with a number of primitive features.

Yup - a number of primitive features means it is not a human.
Nope. It means it's an early human.
Perhaps Socrates doesn't understand that evolution involves transitional forms, such as early humans with some archaic features. Perhaps he is under the misapprehension that it operates via "huge saltations" that somehow immediately transform one species into another overnight. This is how it would need to operate for his baseless assertions to be correct.
23
It is driving people crazy that I am not giving both reference link and copy and paste. I have put up with you folks giving neither for years.
But it is nice to see people starting to do it.
When everyone starts to do it I will start up again.
You actually present a stronger case by not doing it. When you don't provide references, perhaps some of the guests might wonder if there is any basis to your assertions. When you provide the references, they can plainly see that your assertions are baseless.
24
I wonder if people realize that the Omo I and Omo II are ABOVE the Member I layer. The dating of Member I is irrelevant if Omo I and Omo II were washed into the position above Member I.
I wonder if you realize your baseless speculation has been disproven many times already. Here's another...
https://archive.unews.utah.edu/news_releases/the-oldest-homo-sapiens/
Quote
Brown says potassium-argon dating shows that a layer of ash no more than 10 feet (3 meters) below Omo I's and Omo II's burial place is 196,000 years old, give or take 2,000 years. Another layer is 104,000 years old. It is almost 160 feet (50 meters) above the layer that yielded the Omo humans. The unconformities represent periods of time when rock was eroded, so the fossils must be much older than the 104,000-year-old layer and close in age to the 196,000-year-old layer, Brown says.
25
Quote
Studies of the postcranial remains of Omo I indicate an overall modern human morphology with a number of primitive features.

Yup - a number of primitive features means it is not a human.
Nope. It means it's an early human.