Tippaporn

Hubris.

Eventually the science types reach a dead end and run out of plausible arguments to counter with. So far no bite in an attempt to prove the existence of chance and accidents. Or the existence of a God of Chance. They just move on and continue to believe in a whole lot of unproven assumptions which they base their lives on.

For our or any other reality to function in a practical sense requires a flow of information which technology can never hope to replicate. In dreams we have access to much more information. The rules governing dream reality are not the same as those governing waking reality. The information we receive in dreams needs to be distilled and packaged in a way that allows us an understanding. There's translation occurring. It's not so much a lack of control of our own abilities. Rather it's because we've been taught that dreams are meaningless. Therefore no one attempts any serious study of them.

LOL. Are you trolling him, mauGR1? Of course the Big Bang was an accident. From nothing everything appeared. And if we grant that theory as correct then God only knows what triggered it. I know that the triggering mechanism is rarely discussed. Best just gloss over that. In fact the Big Bang was the Greatest of Great Accidents. It was the Father of all accidents. Maybe the mother, too. Of course with the emergence of LGBQT+ it might be politically proper to use any number of other sexual orientations. It was the Zim or Zee of all accidents.

No hypocrisy in science? Perhaps you haven't read my subsequent post. Facts themselves are a weak brew of reality. The truthiness of any fact is relative to the reality from which the fact resides. That statement may make no sense to you, Fat is a type of crazy, but that is only due to a lack of knowledge. The lack of knowledge is regarding who and what we are and what the true nature of this or any other reality is. I'll throw in that this reality isn't the only one. If there's any one assumption that's taken for granted that is erroneous, but incorporated into so many theories about existence, it is that physical reality is the only reality. Perhaps one day our species will move away from the "one world, one God" paradigm.

Sorry, VincenRJ, but I've gotta harp on this ridiculous notion of chance and accident you put forth as "fact." You laugh at faith and then quickly turn around and castigate people for refusing to believe in chance and accident. Yet you can't prove that what these terms represent is indeed a functioning mechanism of the workings of reality. You yourself operate wholly on faith that chance, accidents, or other such synonyms used to describe unexplained events are real. If what you say is true, that these terms are definitively operative in the workings of reality, then do explain what laws govern them. Or what triggers them? Or how they work in the grand scheme of things? Do get as detailed in your explanation as you can. I'm pulling your leg here, VincentRJ, because the questions I posed to you are purely rhetorical. We all know, as do you, that you are incapable of coming up with any explanation of their functionality. And that is because they do not exist. As much as you believe that sh!t just happens it doesn't. I'll challenge you to prove me wrong on any of the above.

Chance, accident, luck, happenstance, fluke, quirk, coincidence, and providence are all terms invented to provide an answer that the rationale mind could accept for the occurrence of events that otherwise cannot not be explained. Science uses many of these terms in their "explanations" of how reality works. Science most surely believes in the invisible God of Chance which they've been unable to prove the existence of. How about science does the tough work of coming up with real answers instead of faux theories with holes so large that you can easily drive an universe through them? It's funny that science loves to poke holes in "non-fact" based ideas by positing questions that no one promoting those "non-fact" based ideas have answers for. And then heap ridicule on these stupid pagans. Yet science is just as guilty as so many of their theories have huge unexplained gaps where the thread from point A to point Z is cut again and again. So what to do about those missing links? Well, let's just paper over them all over with "chance" and "accident." That should suffice. The hypocrisy is so overwhelming that it's laughable.

Rory Gallagher performing Pistol Slapper Blues/Too Much Alcohol at RTE Studios, Dublin, on 14.2.77.

Irma Thomas with I Need Your Love So Bad off of her '64 Wish Someone Would Care LP.

There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: "A republic, if you can keep it." If you want to split hairs go ahead. Republic for short.

On a case by case basis, yes. But not across the board. That's when a DA takes it upon himself or herself to thumb his or her nose at the legislature which passed the laws the DA is sworn to uphold but then refuses to enforce.

I'll give you kudos for your passionate beliefs. "45 had ZERO right to the docs he kept." You have no way of knowing that with the certainty you express. That much is obvious to anyone who is looking at this objectively. "His counsel/he LIED in a signed affadavit in June claiming they had returned everything. That is intent to deceive and can form the basis for charging him with "conspiracy to commit espionage". Again, you have zero personal knowledge of all of the details regarding whatever Trump transferred back or any of the disputes and talks between Trump and government agencies in the whole. What you do have so far is a one-sided story put out by a media who has clearly shown they are propagandists. And the narrative fits like a glove on your Trumpian bias. The U.S. is not a democracy. It's a Republic. That you get this elemental fact wrong suggests you may be wrong about much else.

In this day and age where DAs decide what laws they will enforce or not I don't doubt you, ThailandRyan. That America is descending into chaos is not an argument I would take the opposing side on. Still, it would be interesting to know where O.R. Releases are taking place in the country. My assumption, and I could be wrong, is that it's in major urban areas. I give you credit here.

Now I know what Trump feels like.

You don't have to be an American, like me, to recognise accomplishments. Or corruption.

A few here responded jovially to your post so I guess they love their Democrat corruption.

Substance over form. He gets an A+.

How did you get inside my head to write that? Bravo, mate!

Speculating on the honesty of an FBI director is a habit of Trump's. That alone undermines his credibility. You're an Aussie. So you can be forgiven for not knowing FBI history. J. Edgar Hoover was as honest a FBI Director as they come. Thanks for the injection of some much needed humour in this thread. Back to being serious. You suggest that questioning authority undermines one's credibility. In actuality the reverse is true. Those who slavishly follow authoritarians have lost all credibility. And credibility may be the least of the noble virtues one contemptuously kicks to the gutter. I'm fine with criticizing authority, honestly. But not at the defense of the obvious perpetrator and without a shred if evidence. That's just deflecting and muck raking. Wait, that's not what you said. Which was that anyone who questions the honesty of an FBI Director has lost credibility for the shear act of questioning. So now you say you're fine with questioning an FBI Director . . . honestly, in fact. So which is it? Okay? Not okay? Depends on which way the wind blows? Better, depends on how it suits my political viewpoints. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Quote me or shut up. Gladly.

You would be behind bars though. I just stumbled upon your simple, succinct, yet deadly accurate reply.

Wait, that's not what you said. Which was that anyone who questions the honesty of an FBI Director has lost credibility for the shear act of questioning. So now you say you're fine with questioning an FBI Director . . . honestly, in fact. So which is it? Okay? Not okay? Depends on which way the wind blows? Better, depends on how it suits my political viewpoints.

You're an Aussie. So you can be forgiven for not knowing FBI history. J. Edgar Hoover was as honest a FBI Director as they come. Thanks for the injection of some much needed humour in this thread. Back to being serious. You suggest that questioning authority undermines one's credibility. In actuality the reverse is true. Those who slavishly follow authoritarians have lost all credibility. And credibility may be the least of the noble virtues one contemptuously kicks to the gutter.

How many Russia, Russia, Russia articles did these outlets print which were ultimately proven false? WaPo and the NYT are two iconic U.S. newspapers who have sadly soiled their credibility to an unreconcilable point. To anyone who still maintains a shred of objectivity these two once proud pillars of the fourth estate have ignobly become nothing more than Democrat activist propaganda arms. As you reject my sources so I reject yours. But with much more good reason.

But most every leftist here has been saying regarding the negotiations Trump was having that it's all cut and dried. What's there to negotiate? Trump retained classified documents which he was not legally allowed to have. Period. End of story. If that's true then they have enough hard evidence to arrest him this very moment. Isn't it typical for law enforcement to make arrests as soon they have the smoking gun? What more would they be waiting for?

Here are a couple of quotes from this far, far leftist leaning article: “The reason this smells so bad is that there is all sorts of evidence he did not receive this on the merits.” What?!?!?!?!?! When the exact same point was made about Hunter's merits for gaining his lucrative position at Burisma the left made never ending implausible excuses. And now they're turning the tables thinking we're brain dead idiots with faulty memories? "Back in April, The New York Times reported that Jared Kushner’s four years of Saudi ass-kissing and murder-excusing had paid off in the form of a $2 billion investment from the kingdom‘s sovereign wealth fund to his newly formed private equity firm." ozimoron, tell me that it's not true that you suck up every word this far left leaning liberal writes as gospel? The above is the first sentence of the first paragraph in the article. And you expect objectivity from this writer? Worse, you expect me to treat this as a serious, objective piece of faux journalism? Put up some proof, not just a leftist hit job.