All_Pro_Bills
-
Posts
6,901 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by All_Pro_Bills
-
-
1 hour ago, BillStime said:
I got to tell you. You ruined my day by posting a picture of Satan here. I can only guess this picture was taken right after she was told that Jeffery Epstein was killed in jail and she realized her husband's sexual activities on his private island with under-age girls would not be revealed.
But you've failed to address my fundamental argument. And since you can't or won't do that I must conclude you know I'm right.
-
14 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:
The pastor should’ve looted a Best Buy or burned down a Wendy’s...or some other form of acceptable peaceful protest. Dumb s&@t. 😉
Good answer. Or attack Federal buildings and property in DNC controlled jurisdictions where crime committed by party members is legal.
But whatever side of the issue you're on we all know what's going on here. And if anyone wants to pretend its not about this one thing then go ahead. But let's be honest about it.
These round ups of "suspects" related to 1/6 have got nothing to do with "terrorism", or "justice", or a group of unarmed people trying to over-throw the government. Hell, Joe said yesterday you'd need nuclear weapons and F-15's to pull that off.
What its all about is the political party in control using the events at the Capitol, whether genuine or manufactured, as pretense for an attempt to use the power of the State to oppress and silence its political opposition.
If you don't understand that you're just sleepwalking through life.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, B-Man said:
Rashida Tlaib explains that ‘opposition to Critical Race Theory is obviously rooted in racism,’ you racist dog whistlers
.
She's projecting. And clearly playing defense with that flimsy explanation. And on top of its she's plain ugly..
-
1
-
-
On 6/22/2021 at 5:49 PM, B-Man said:Leftists -- We need to change the rules because our ideas don’t stand on merit
You spoke the magic word - Merit. Eliminating merit or the system of meritocracy is at the heart of everything the left supports. And everything they oppose. In their minds nothing is earned. Everything is the result of privilege or the lack of privilege. And their most recent fantasy is that its all based on race. Its at the core of some very stupid ideas which boil down to eliminating the assessment of qualifications or ability in deciding anything.
Imagine how pro sports or the Olympics would look like if the concept of merit and ability were eliminated. Too many tall NBA players or too many fast track athletes on the national team. That's the world they seek. The liberals dream world is one completely devoted to mediocrity and the pursuit of a lowest common denominator to create an under-performing and dysfunctional society.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Capco said:
...
Oh hey look. Another 2 pages of Rah-Rah shouting (I'm too tired to go into specifics rn but I have been watching this thread).
...
@Tiberius I tried to give you a quick run-down of what I objectively thought were serious flaws in the structure of Critical Race Theory (CRT) while avoiding a full-flung description of the entire thing (since idk, you seem to be on a major time crunch maybe?).
Considering that we are typically on the same side of things, I figured that you would give me the benefit of the doubt when it came to the parts of CRT that I did not comment on (i.e., the parts that are worthy of merit).
But that is specifically why I quoted you at the very beginning of my statement, after you said you didn't know anything about CRT. I was trying to loosely educate you (within the realm of what I myself know), while also challenging your rational thought.
Like, I'm begging for someone to actually provide a rational response to my post earlier. I want to learn more.
So far, the best, most well-written commentary provided after my post was provided by Ben ***** Shapiro.
Do you have any idea what that makes me feel like as someone who is routinely called a communist?
A "theory" is generally some conclusion that is supported by a set of observable facts and data but falls short of being accepted as fact. And what we do is gather and analyze more information, facts, objective data and observations, and statistics in order to validate or invalidate the theory. As these facts are gathered they support the theory or suggest other causes or other more plausible theories. I just don't see how critical race theory passes any of these objectives tests. It appears to be a subjective interpretation of history created by the authors while bypassing the scientific method of validation and invalidation.
For example, concluding the primary reason behind the Revolutionary War was so the colonies could maintain the system of slavery. Its possible this could have been a factor but there is no evidence to support the conclusion it was the primary factor. It is the author's subjective opinion. The evidence and documentation and data of the period suggests the primary driver was the desire for independence from the Britain and the rule of the King. None of the important documents of the time, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and others emphasize the support of slavery at the expense of other objectives and principles. The preponderance of evidence that points to other factors should invalidate the assumption that slavery was the primary cause. But the originators of this theory ignore the data and cling to their narrative.
The core of the theory is that "Race" is the primary driver of all social, political, and economic relationships. Whites share a collective persona and blacks share a collective persona and nothing exists outside of these persons. All white people share an inclusive and exclusive list of traits and that all black people share an inclusive and exclusive list of traits. But we can invalidate this conclusion by looking at demographic data in different aggregations such as income or education levels. A wealthy white person has far less in common with a poor white person than they have with a wealthy black person. And a wealthy black person has far less in common with a poor black person than they have with a wealthy white person. I would argue the prevailing factor determining status and person attributes in a "Capitalist" dominant culture has nothing to do with race and everything to do with income. And I can development an alternative view of culture and classifications using income to explain all the negative consequences faced by the poor. Consequence of being poor which are shared by whites and blacks. Privileges of being wealthy shared by whites and blacks. From statistics and simple observations. Observations the authors of CRT ignore. Observations that better explain how culture works in this country.
And that's the flaw in CRT. I could go over each and every one of their key conclusions and provide an alternative explanation for every one of them that is much more plausible based on the examination of facts and data available. And invalidate the entire theory. But ideologists don't want to listen to facts or statistics. They just want to believe. At best the authors of CRT suffer from confirmation bias when analyzing facts and data. At worst they are knowingly perpetrating a fraud for some purpose other than "teaching history". What they are teaching is a flawed subjective interpretation of history and culture.
And frankly if the objective is to "teach history" we can view events of the past from the perspective of others without CRT.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Doc said:
The "fight" will now be to get rid of the filibuster. Good luck with that one.
And then in 2022 "fight" to restore the filibuster when the Republicans gain control of the Senate.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, unbillievable said:
it would be a lot quick to just throw a grenade in the middle of the group and see who falls on it. There's your winner!
-
1 hour ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:
Hey it’s the will of the people. Don’t worry about the exodus of productive people, the backfill plan is already there, sanctuary city!
Buffalo is headed for socialist utopia. Buckle up kick back and enjoy the ride, for those of you who didn’t already leave long ago.
at least this particular one has a more genuine hard knox grass roots story and isn’t one of these fake (secret elites) well not yet anyway?
if any restaurant owners, particularly Italian or pizzarias are looking to relocate to a new state as Buffalo decays again please PM me. I have a well to do suburb in mind that is under-severed.
A Bocces and a Mighty Taco would look good down in the business district here too.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:
I’m glad I don’t live anywhere near that dump anymore… but I REALLY hope she wins. I’d love to see how this experiment turns out 😂
Raise you hand if you think any productive individuals or businesses are contemplating expanding or locating inside the city limits of Buffalo this morning?
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, 716er said:
Toughest guy in PPP right here.What a man!
Please refrain from using binary gender terms. It could trigger a panic attack in progressives as they attempt to dial their crisis councilors.
-
2 hours ago, BillStime said:
Great, did the folks in Portland try to over throw the government during a JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS to confirm the electoral college for the Presidency of the United States?
Did the leader of the Democratic party host a rally the SAME DAY as the JOINT SESSION and tell folks to FIGHT LIKE HELL?
Oh, No? So, shut the @#$@ up - and take the Big Lie to your safe place.
Whitewash and rewrite history all you want "All Pro" but it won't work...
I guess I hit the bullseye here. And I'm not a pus-sie leftist so I don't have any safe space. The entire concept is childish and just shows how mentally and emotionally weak these progressive really are here. Why anyone is afraid of them is a mystery. They're scared of their own shadow and will cry and curl up at the first sign of stress.
But insurrection is insurrection. Right? Destruction of Federal property is destruction of Federal property. Right? Attacking Federal and local law enforcement is still attacking Federal and local law enforcement. Right? I've got no problem with enforcing the law and seeing justice served at all here. But you need to ask yourself why you support conditional application of the law. All over the law and order theme here but ignoring all kinds of violence elsewhere. Maybe its your dumb ass political views? Maybe the fact not a single person has been charged with insurrection should give you a clue. Or is that too difficult to comprehend?
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, BillStime said:9 hours ago, BillStime said:
Everyday tourists…
More tourists
According to the Portland DA planning and carrying out an attack on a Federal building while carrying riots shields, body armor, and helmets along with assorted weapons is not a criminal offense.
-
1
-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, JaCrispy said:
You listen to and watch great classic comics like Pryor and Carlin and they simply take apart and attack the establishment. Fast forward to today and guys like Colbert not only don't attack the establishment, they dutifully support it by being critical of people that question it.
What goes through their mind during the conversation is this.
How dare anyone attempt to apply critical thinking and logic in questioning the official narratives about everything that the government provides to you. No discussion and debate is allowed. The words of our omnipotent overlords shall not be challenged. You will believe what you are told to believe. And if you continue to question the narratives I will be forced to name you the name we dare not speak. I will accuse you of the worst possible transgression, being a "Trump supporter". A disciple of the messenger of Satan. And as such you should be burned at the stake for expression such words.
And that's a glimpse into the mind of the insane "Progressive" movement.
As for Colbert, I guess it like they say "when a persons livelihood depends on not believing something its impossible to get them to believe it".
-
1
-
-
44 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:
Why, when conservatives “deamonized” The Dixie Chicks, it wasn’t racism but this is? Funny, the only people that seem to see color most, are the Woke Supremacists.Because invoking the battle cry of racism is the quickest and easiest path to shut down any debate. As from that point forward anyone that disagrees is obviously a racist.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Buffalo716 said:
Yes, you read that right.. the founding fathers were staunchly liberal
Freedom of speech , press , assembly, religion, capitalism
The right to bear arms
All exclusively liberal ideologies... You will never find a fascist regime that gives you the rights to any of those
Yet why do modern liberals oppose these more than anything? Cancel culture en masse... If you say or do anything that offends them they're coming for you .. socialism on the rise in democratic party
Liberalism was founded on the principle of individual freedoms.. not just individual freedoms for liberals, but for everybody
But if you don't agree with the left, they call you racist, bigot, homophobe, fascist and they will try to cancel you
Looking back in a greater context, it's very easy to see that the liberal ideologies that our great country was founded on.. are being upheld by conservative people in this country
Freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, right to bear arms, states rights , capitalism
Are all forefront to members of the conservative party...
Yet people who call themselves liberal, are tying to censor speech, and press.. have gone after freedom of assembly.. and the right to bear arms
And it's the conservatives who are upholding American traditions and values
Traditional liberal of the 60's questioned and criticized the government and distrusted "the establishment". Today the "liberals" of the 21st century are the establishment and would like nothing more than to outlaw all criticism and opposition to "their" government. The oppressed have become the oppressor.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Unforgiven said:
Maxine Waters: ‘I’m Told’ Organizing for January 6 Riot Took Place in the Trump Campaign
Saturday, during an appearance on CNN, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) suggested the Trump campaign played a role in the January 6 Capitol Hill riot.
Who told her? Billstime? Tiberius? lol
No one buys this anonymous source nonsense anymore...
Trump should sue her for slander imho, she's obviously a bald faced liar.
Rep. Waters, the very person that encouraged supporters to get in peoples faces and get confrontational", is just trying to get in front of the curve by blowing more smoke to counter the developing story that the FBI played a significant role in what is looking like another "false flag" event. Facts are pointing to the use of informants and assets (potentially leadership) inside the liberty movement that were coached and directed by the FBI to initiate and incite violence. This is a well established and common practice of the agency. One term for it is "entrapment". As several persons known to be prominent actors in the event were not indicted while anyone caught jaywalking near the Capitol on 1/6 has been arrested and held without bail in solitary confinement under maximum security logical and critical thinking points to something being amiss. But of course all the usual apologists, dimwits, dullards, and lobotomized progressives will proclaim "nothing to see here" because Google and Facebook say it isn't so.
The narrative that will be pushed by their stooges in the press is the Trump campaign is responsible for the planning violence and is trying to deflect blame to other parties. Or so says "anonymous" sources. or perhaps truthfully "imaginary" sources.
-
2
-
2
-
-
On 6/17/2021 at 10:02 PM, BillStime said:
First off, Mr. Winslow is a known critic and opponent of the former Trump administration. A Trump hater. So lets understand his motivation. And that motivation is not necessarily the pursuit of the truth. That's a common theme in lots of places including the media. Like CNN which employs a multitude of former FBI officials playing the role of journalist and analyst. Can you guess what they always conclude when the motives and conduct of the FBI are questioned?
The questions being asked about FBI involvement in 1/6 have nothing to do with this guy pictured above. Its purely for dramatic effect. The question is what role did the FBI and other law enforcement or intelligence agencies play in the planning and execution of the events that lead to the violence at the Capitol on 1/6? Did informants or assets act on directives from the FBI to riot? To create an incident? To create the pretext for passing "terror" legislation aimed at domestic enemies of the government?
We don't know. But what we do know is this tactic has been used by our government before both domestically and internationally. And what we do know is the legal filings appear to admit the government had "assets" embedded in certain groups and at the event. What we don't know yet is what role they played. What we do know is the government has no interest in telling us what role they played. So what are they hiding?
And for the media we've pretty much figured out their role. To run interference as a propaganda and information distribution racket in service of the State. And given how many times they've been on the wrong end of the truth when it comes to these "conspiracies" I can't understand why they've got any credibility left to even speak. At this point who can believe anything they say?
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:
Of course there are going to be exceptions since the vaccines approved so far decrease your risk of getting infected by 95%, 90%, and 76% depending on which one you got. Not 100%. I love how over 315 million people in the US has received one dose (148 million fully vaccinated) and this clown finds one person who got Covid despite being fully vaccinated. All this article tells is young adults should get vaccinated ASAP because you can see the impact that Covid can have on them long term.
If only I had some kind of mechanism that could allow me to travel back in time and invest in Peloton stock.
Yes, no process is 100% perfect all the time and the mRNA vaccines are around 94% effective in generating the antibodies in the systems of the population getting vaccinated. Which means it didn't work for 6% which remain sustainable to the virus. The risk is not knowing if it worked for you. An antibody test would determine if it worked on any specific person or if they have "natural" immunity or if they have no antibodies and no immunity.
-
14 hours ago, Big Blitz said:
Covid 4 life!!!
The Delta variant might pose the biggest threat yet to vaccinated people
The Delta variant appears to be more transmissible than any other coronavirus strain.
Some experts worry the variant could result in more breakthrough cases in vaccinated people.
Others are concerned that Delta could evolve into even more dangerous mutations.
https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-coronavirus-variant-strongest-threat-vaccinated-people-2021-6
China.....
Looks like a high ranking Chinese defector is spilling the beans on COVID and other topics. Which in part could explain the sudden about-face on the lab theory.
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, BillStime said:
oh no no no - not according to any right wing fascist blog or news source
But crickets when Trump bowed to Putin in Helsinki
Anyone along the political spectrum that thinks conflict or war with Russia, or for that matter China or any other country, is some desirable and positive event is more or less insane and shouldn't be in any decision making capacity much less be listened to for their views. For starters the majority of these "hawks" never saw combat and if you speak to combat veterans you'll find the majority view war as a last result based on their personal experiences. I'd like to ask these war advocates how many "boots on the ground" their families are offering up for the cause? They always seem to ask others to do the dirty work of the actual fighting and dying.
My view is any time you can de-escalate the risks of a potential lose/lose scenario conflict its a good thing. And even though I'm no fan of the Biden administration he appeared to do that much to the surprise and disappointment of the war-monger sect.
-
From what I've seen the Biden/Putin meeting was constructive and productive. Which is a good thing when staring down 100's of nuclear ICBM's and contending interests. But is would seem the MSM is disappointed the encounter was not the contentious and hostile interaction they and all the Russia-phobes were demanding. Rather than one as described by the participants as having been constructive and civil.
-
9 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said:
There are multiple irreversible tipping points in the evolution of global warming. The article is highlighting one of the earliest that could be expected to go. Passing through one tipping point does not mean we shouldn’t try to avoid the others. As damaging as the loss of summer Arctic ice coverage would be, something like permafrost thawing in the Northern Hemisphere would be much more devastating to future generations. Because we’re dealing with feedback control systems that proceed nonlinearly and that could trigger cascading positive feedback loops, I don’t have a problem with the alarmist tones in the article.
What specific climate change metrics (surface temps, ice sheet sizes, glacier sizes, snow cover, sea level rise, ocean temps, ocean acidification levels, various extreme weather events, etc.) did Al Gore get wrong? Can you state his erroneous claims verbatim from the documentary and then provide the numbers from peer-reviewed research papers that contradict his claims? I’ll spot you the Mount Kilimanjaro glacier example, though Gore could have used plenty of other glaciers to make his point.
It has honestly been a very long time since I saw the film, so I should probably watch it again over July 4 weekend to judge how well it has aged. But when critiquing the documentary’s veracity, we need to be mindful of distinctions between worst-case scenarios and expected ones. We also need to be cognizant of the fact that only 15 years have passed. Hey, at least Al Gore covered the thermohaline circulation science better than “The Day After Tomorrow” lol…
Which data sets are you determining to be incomplete? How are they incomplete? What should climate scientists do to assemble more complete data?
A few quick responses:
1. All known major non-anthropogenic climate change factors have been isolated and ruled out with rigorous data processing techniques. Atmospheric carbon rose ~31ppm from 1988 (the year of James Hansen’s Senate testimony) to 2006 (the release of Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”) and then an additional ~37ppm up to now. Simultaneously, mean Earth surface temperature rose ~0.33 degrees Celsius from 1988 to 2006 and then an additional ~0.39 degrees Celsius up to now. If anyone has a better explanation for this correlation, please cite the research paper you are referencing or tell us your novel hypothesis!
2. Water, methane, ozone, sulfur dioxide, and nitrous oxide are the other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere besides carbon dioxide. The methane also oxidizes into carbon dioxide over time, a lesser-known scientific fact that proponents of the fracking industry like to omit! The other ~99% of stuff in the atmosphere (mostly nitrogen and oxygen) does not contribute at all to global warming.
3. Most climate scientists and many green energy engineers are active members of and financial contributors to all sorts of environmental conservation organizations.
Well there are really two separate issues going on. The first is the "need" to lower greenhouse gas emissions to manage global temperature changes. The second is the "need" to replace hydrocarbon based energy sources when the cheap and easy to find oil supply starts to run out. The solution to replace oil and gas with electricity is a convenient and handy answer to both questions.
But that leads to another issue which is the objective of electrifying all applications of hydrocarbon produced energy in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining the currently living arrangements, growth trajectories, and continuous increases in energy consumption required to support that growth (not even to mention advances in developing nations) is a pipe dream and a dead end. There is no way this is going to happen through the deployment of solar panels and wind turbines. The resources necessary don't exist on the planet or reside in countries or regions where there is resistance to developing them. The capital expenditures will exceed current estimates by many multiples. And our society and population are not at all equipped or ready to handle the radical changes to lifestyles and living conditions that will result. And counting on some yet to be developed technological breakthrough in energy production isn't much of a strategy either. The oil age provided a one-time bump in growth through a very efficient and cost effective means of producing large amounts energy and driving growth and progress but once its gone the human race will revert to trend unless something is found that produces more energy more efficiently and at less cost. Wind and solar and other renewables at current efficiencies at current cost just won't cut it. We need to stop fooling ourselves and work to find an effective long term solution.
-
12 hours ago, Chef Jim said:
Stop just stop. No one, not a goddamn one of us is wanting to erase race relations nor are we against teaching the history of race relations. The has almost not one ***** thing to do with teaching the past. It's how they intend to use that past to engineer the future. The fact that you continually bring this up shows us that you aren't paying attention to anything we are saying. Open your eyes, ears and mind. Just as you are likely against (and rightly so) teachers using their influence on children to push a religious agenda we're concerned that teachers will use this to push a divisive agenda. They are so similar yet you don't see it.
The problem is they won't stop. Because to true believers of CRT its not a theory or "teaching tool" its an ideology, a belief system. And ideologists or people of faith are not driven or moved by logic and facts.
Debating with believers that racism is not the core and primary driver of American culture is like arguing with Christian Fundamentalist that God does not exist. Debating with them that we do not live in 1860 but rather 2021 is futile. Trying to convince them that White people don't sit around all day in groups thinking of ways to discriminate against Black people is useless. Whatever the issue or cause, Its just simply impossible to reason with ideologists and fanatics.
But their ultimate goal is not to bring an awareness of history or eliminate racism but rather to replace and eliminate the core cultural beliefs and values of America with something that aligns with this ideology. To impose the values of a specific sub-culture on the dominant culture. Through coercion and if necessary through force. This isn't about racism its about power. Transferring power and control of society to them and people that hold similar views. Its about using the concept of racism as leverage to gain power. Its deception at its best.
How stupid and weak are people that either buy into this or remain silent against their best interests? Either compromise your values and or fight them. For me, I don't see anything there I particularly care about going along with so the choice is pretty clear.
-
59 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:
I have watched it and Fahrenheit 911 to try and understand what the viewpoint was based on. F911 was garbage propaganda, it would wrap sleazy innuendo with slightly related facts and then draw a conclusion that always made Bush look the worse possible.
An Inconvenient Truth was not as bad as propaganda to me because I think most of the scientists believe it but they are simply not great at their jobs. They drew conclusions based on incomplete data sets but thought they were complete.
Is what's happening climate change or climate cycles? After all the Earth was a lot warmer and lot colder at various times in many cycles for billions of years. Without any humans around. 715 million years ago the entire Earth was covered by ice. About 100 million years ago the Mid-West US was an inland sea. Then cooler, then warmer, then cooler. The last ice age ended about 12,500 years ago. CO2 concentration is now a bit over .04% of the atmosphere. What about the other 99.96%? Does that have any impact? Seems not as CO2 is all that matters.
And what about water and air pollution? Misuse and mismanagement of land? Respect for the habitat of other species? The alarming extinction rate of animals on the planet? Destruction of coral reefs and the pollution of the oceans? Over-fishing of the oceans? All kinds of stuff that "environmentalists" appear to have forgotten about while chasing big grants and paychecks for "green" energy. But that's what happens when political ideologists take over the cause.
-
2
-
Critical Race Theory
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
I'm also not sure how anyone can come away from an examination of CRT and exposure to it with the conclusion that its a history lesson that includes events and facts that have been generally omitted from the "white" version of history. Its a theory, and perhaps a hypothesis that doesn't even qualify to the level of theory. Its a subjective opinion and interpretation of events and race relations by the authors. It is not an objective, scientific method tested theory that survives the rigors of factual examination and alternative models of race relations and history. Even myself, not being what I consider a history or sociology expert can come up with a multitude of alternative "theories" that explain all these topics in a different way.
One big problem is its being presented as some "hard science" that passes all the tests to qualify as fact rather than what it is, which is just a subjective view of race relations and events. And the fact it supports the agenda of specific interests and belongs in the fiction section of the library rather than the non-fiction section is what needs to be made clear. If you're looking for objectivity you need to look elsewhere.