Jump to content
LOTROCommunity
Doro

The Rage Corner

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

I'm hoping Trump gives the US military carte blanche to deal with ISIS... that would solve a lot of these problems very, very quickly.

ISIS isn't the main source of these problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Laurinaohtar said:

In the words of the great philosophers Rick & Morty."Nobody belongs anywhere, nobody exists on purpose, everybodys going to die. Now lets go watch TV"

what a load of twaddle!

5 hours ago, cossieuk said:

Current reports suggest that the man arrested last night might not be involved and that the perpetrator may still be at large and also be armed.  Too many people had him guilty before any information was released.  People need to wait and see what comes of the police investigation before blaming anyone for this.  Stop jumping to conclusions

well i was right about the hijacking:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4049822/Was-truck-HIJACKED-Cousin-driver-registered-Polish-lorry-claims-making-drop-Berlin-s-revealed-haulage-firm-lost-contact-moments-crash.html

the now released 23 year old Pakistani asylum seeker was known to police & had been in an out of trouble since arrival in 2015...

as for jumping to conclusions...  i am completely comfortable calling this a terrorist attack by a Muslim.  yet with each new incident, over and over the complicit media & officials regurgitate the hollow mantra, "don't jump to conclusions."

& the Christmas season isn't over.  how much more...

before Germans finally give this accomplice & her policies the long overdue boot?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

A lot of it has to do with equal treatment of women, as Jesus was frequently ministering to women, and several of his actions were against the secular norm of the day.  Essentially He beat the feminists by about two thousand years, and did it in such a way that men were also uplifted (and not emasculated as they are now).

Which Plato also did 400 years before Jesus. Are we to all label ourselves as Platoists simply because we agree with a message given, or can we live at the "buffet of morality", where we can pick what we like without having to tie ourselves down to believing all the claims of a religion? Unless, of course, we can admit that those who call themselves Christians are not just about a message that had merely been repeated by Jesus, but also believe the Bible through and through, in which case it is no longer about morality and rather beliefs about reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

That's just it though, the beliefs define the morality.

That's what I'm getting at. Either, you gather your morality from a variety of sources (even from your own thoughts) and it's all good, or you believe everything in the Bible and only happen to agree with its teachings because they were in there. Which leads me to the idea that religious morality isn't true morality, rather the result of cognitive submission to scripture.

But surely you also believe things that aren't in the Bible, right? And there are surely things in the Bible you also disagree with. My point is why limit yourself to the label of Christian, when there's a much wider world out there with much more to offer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

If you're being cognitively submissive to scripture, you are doing it wrong...

We have minds to think with for a reason...  Why would a God give me one if He didn't intend me to use it?

Also, that's where the theological notion that we're all unique creations, all brothers and sisters in Christ, comes into play.  We're all inherently different, and those differences are to be understood and celebrated (provided they aren't dividing us, that is).

That's why I look at the world around me and appreciate the vast difference in everything because that's the very spice that makes our existence interesting.  Granted, I don't have to agree with everything... because that would be boring.

That's also one of the reasons why I dislike Mormonism, because they homogenize everyone involved with that faith.  There's other theological reasons there as well.

To call yourself Christian is to be submissive to scripture. It implies you agree wholeheartedly with everything it teaches, regardless of whether it is valuable or not. And when it comes to morality, it means you only have certain morals because of a book, as opposed to them being a natural part of you. So we end up with Christians who don't believe half of the Bible, but call themselves Christian because some things line up.

With God and minds, it's one of those classic paradoxes. God gives us free will and then punishes us for eternity for using that free will in a way he didn't like. And sometimes that's as simple as a person looking at a book of contradictions, evil, and a few tidbits of good advice, and deciding it isn't how a celestial being would try to convince us of his existence. It doesn't help that God supposedly knows everything that will happen anyway. If he knows he's set people up to not believe in him, then letting it happen is an exercise in futility.

Ultimately, I feel organized religion is a funny concept. It makes spirituality a bureaucratic process, instead of a naturally evolving one. It's putting limits on something that doesn't need it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

That also means you know how to interpret said book, and it's theological structure.  Once you understand the latter, a lot more of the things people tend to poke at fall by the wayside as you realize that people are arguing over whether or not a pine tree is part of the forest.

Given there are over 40000 denominations of Christianity means that the Bible can be interpreted many way, and each group says theirs is the correct way and the others are wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

That also means you know how to interpret said book, and it's theological structure.  Once you understand the latter, a lot more of the things people tend to poke at fall by the wayside as you realize that people are arguing over whether or not a pine tree is part of the forest.

90% of most of the issues with Christians have been people who try to take the literal interpretation of poetry (or the exaggerations the ancient Jews tend to use waaaay to frequently), and then try to beat us over the head with something pulled out of historical and Biblical context.

The same can be said with interpreting Plato, for example.  To really understand what Plato was writing when he wrote Republic, you'd have to understand what was going on during the writing of the work, as well as understand who Plato was.  Otherwise you open the door to grossly misinterpret what Plato had said, because you can't apply modern values to a work that's over two thousand years old and expect to follow the author's intent.

Now the question becomes how, what, and why you decide something is now just poetry/exaggeration. In most cases, people place all the stuff that can now be argued against in the category of metaphorical, but they keep the things like God (not the part where they say there are multiple Gods, though, that is metaphor for "reasons"), and Jesus being magic, and various other "miracles" that should really belong in the same category.

The reason that they keep this stuff is that without the weight of claiming that the creator of the universe is real and he turned himself into a Jew in a desert for our sins, the religion goes from trying to be an authority to just being another book to add to the shelf. Obviously not something Christians would be willing to accept, since it makes the whole thing look like a farce. And it doesn't help when even the Bible says it's wrong and corrupted by the people who wrote it.

4 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

I've largely been side stepping that one, but there's nothing as far as morality goes within the Bible that I find objectionable.

Well, I would bring up a whole host of immoral things from the Bible, but most can be waved off as "poetry" or being from the Old Testament (even though Jesus said he wanted to uphold the Old Testament), but let's just bring up some stuff from Jesus himself.

He demands (multiple times) people give up their worldly possessions, abandon their families (in fact, he wants them to hate their families), neglect themselves physically, and live life as a homeless scrounger, going door to door asking for food and shelter (and anyone who refuses them will be punished eternally for it). Doesn't that seem a little objectionable? After all, the vast majority of Christians don't do this. I'm guessing they brush this off as poetry, since it's undesirable.

There's also repeated mention of him not bringing peace, but division or even a sword. He wants to burn the Earth and wishes it was already kindled. He wants to pit families against each other. Not particular moral, either.

Or the very concept of "the sacrifice", where it takes the suffering of someone else to clean your sins, instead of yourself? That sort of scapegoating is hardly agreeable (not that the sin is particularly deserved anyway).

And there's loving your enemies, turning the other cheek, and leaving everything until after you die, because that's when you'll get revenge. A strange disconnect between when Jesus told his followers to buy swords, but there it is. It seems he has some sort of dual personality going on throughout the NT.

That's a few to start with.

4 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

This can't really be avoided on this point....

<theology>

I wonder how much of what the general population knows about Hell came from Dante, and not from the Bible.  There's not really a concept of "Hell" in the Old Testament... just Sheol, which is more akin to something like what we'd think of for Hades of the Forgotten West... a place where souls reside after they die, and little more.  We don't see a more formal definition of Hell until Revelations.

Personally, I think Hell is something that's largely self-inflicted, as you come face to face with God when you die, and you have to spend the rest of eternity with that knowledge, and the knowledge of what you did while you were on Earth.  The separation from God (Hell), is largely self inflicted at that point.  The other alternative that makes sense is cessation of existence, or more akin to the potter baking a pot, realizing that it's just unfit, and then destroying it.  I mean, if God is an eternal being, and we are temporal, gaining the ability to be eternal would be considered Heaven in that case.

</theology>

Oh, don't you worry, I'm well-versed in Biblical inaccuracies. The number of times I've had to point out that Lucifer was never connected to the Devil in the Bible makes me yawn.

However, Hell has been mentioned in the Bible (strangely enough, in the NT, where Jesus turns up) as a place of punishment, especially in reference to a place of never-ending fire. I recall something about furnaces, eternal fire, and gnashing of teeth (something they really liked using as a description, for some reason).

4 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

That's why I'm a non-denominational protestant...

Much of the bureaucratic nonsense is also what Jesus was railing against, as the Jewish rabbis of the time had done just that with the Law of Moses and calling them out on that is one of the contributing factors to His crucifixion.

But you're still a protestant. It's still a specific theological grouping, with specific beliefs that separate them.

Actually, that's another thing that I often find amusing. Jesus said that if people want to pray, they should go do it in private. He was all anti-property (for his followers, at least), and anti-establishment, and all that jazz, but we have things like the Vatican, and churches, and donations asked of congregations, etc. How do Christians handle that disconnect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

Some stuff is extremely obvious (like Psalms for instance, which is essentially a collection of song lyrics and poems), other stuff (like proverbs) has more of a grammatical structure similar to other known Jewish poems of that era.

Specifically touching on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers - focusing specifically on the narrative sections (and not the parts that laws, geneology, or other such information), the narrative sections have a structure that is similar to epics of the era is was written.  The other thing to keep in mind is that the books written by Moses (or at least attributed to him by tradition), were aimed at people that were in the process of migrating from Egypt to Israel (well, the area that would later be called that).  The Jews finally create Israel once they finally arrive there, so a lot of things were said "don't do this" because the Law of Moses also functions as a public health code (which is why there's so much emphasis on clean/unclean).  The intent was to keep the Tribes alive so they could get from point A to point B.

The other thing you're touching on is Jesus's relation to the Law of Moses, which necessitates that Jesus is both a divine being, and lived a life without sin, as Jesus was the sacrifice that paid off the sin for all of humanity, past, present, and future.  That payment fulfilled the animal sacrifices that were called for in the Law of Moses, and also largely did away with most of that stuff.

So what it boils down to is cherry-picking what parts to call literal, and what parts to say are metaphorical/no longer relevant. I hinted at one of them, with the whole mention of multiple gods in Genesis, and how that's considered poetic, or a mistake, or any other excuse. But a single God? Well that has to be literal.

23 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

Remember what I said about context?  This goes back to Ancient Greek idioms.  When you make the choice of one thing over another, it is said that you love what is chosen, and you hate the other.  The Greek language also has many words for different types of love, and other emotions for that matter.  Greek is a language that, when translated to English, tends to lose a lot of emotional context because of how the Greek and English languages work.

That's just excusing texts. The context of the passages is quite clear, but Christians don't follow it because it would be inconvenient for them. To save face, it's thrown into one of the many dismissive categories or allegory, bad interpretation, or simply misunderstood.

23 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

I'm going to need more verses to understand what you're talking about, as it's coming across as you may have taken several passages and munged them together to something else.

No "munging" at all.

Luke 12.

49“I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! 51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

Matthew 10.

34“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn “ ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— 36a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ 37“Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

I'm sure there'll be a couple of tricksy ways you can dismiss those. I've seen it many times before, but I'm always curious to see new ways.

23 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

Not necessarily.  It deals with fulfilling the sacrifices used to atone for sin, which is how the ancient Jewish faith worked.  With the tearing of the curtain in the temple, it was a tone shift to a more personal relationship with God instead of a more ritualistic and sacrifice based relationship because the Jews were perverting the original intent of the sacrifices.

There's also the concept of forgiveness, and seeking and giving forgiveness for sins committed against each other, as the point was more to balance things between God and you, not between each other.

I don't think much of ancient Jewish faith is moral, either. But it still does not answer whether or not you believe it's moral for the only solution to a crime to be someone else's suffering. I certainly don't. The very idea of atonement through a proxy feels wrong to me. Or is this a case of you following the Bible so much that nothing can possibly be immoral about it?

23 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

Despite what pop-culture would have you think, it's never about revenge.  It's about your relationship with God, and (putting it bluntly) not being a dick to everyone around you.  Granted, the humanity thing makes that problematic sometimes >.>

As for the rest, references please.

It's nothing about pop-culture. It's about Jesus' message when it comes to reassuring Christians that they don't need to worry about punishment in this life for people, because he'll do it all for them in the afterlife. Though I'm not sure what you want references specifically.

23 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

Almost all of the description of Hell comes from Revelations.  Revelations (in addition to being a written form of a vision) is very heavily encrypted with metaphors and symbolism, some of which have been lost to time.  Attempting to take a very symbolic book at what it's literally saying is doing it wrong.

I'm not even referring to Revelations. I was referring to Matthew 13:42, 13:50 and 25:41, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7. No Revelations and no Old Testament, purely because I knew you would try to excuse those as symbolic or metaphorical.

But you're right, taking a symbolic book literally would be wrong. And yet here we are.

23 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

Same can be said about those that follow political ideologies, humanism, or the SJW/political correctness stuff.

And the same applies to them. Narrowing yourself down to a single bracket, and dogmatically following everything in it, is a mistake. And aligning yourself with a particular group because you share a few vague similarities is also a mistake. Like when I see Muslims eating pork kebabs, it just makes no sense for them to limit themselves to the incorrect label of Muslim.

23 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

As far as donations go, a lot of that SHOULD be used to fund the clergy and outreach programs, which is in line with what the Tribe of Levi used to do in the Old Testament.  The church is used as a common meeting place, more as something built out of respect and adoration for God.  It's something that's built because we want to build it, not because it's mandatory.  Then there's the operational costs involved with running a ministry, as it is generally expected that the preacher should only take enough of a salary to sustain themselves, so they do not diminish the church's ability to run programs to help aid those around them.

For the rest of the stuff, go ask a Catholic.

So Jesus message was clearly flawed and unfollowable. No Christian will give up their possessions and families to follow his teachings, because they'd rather believe he was about living comfortably and helping others on occasion. The very morals he taught aren't being upheld, and these supposedly "Christian" acts of helping others have been put in their place instead, because it's a more comfortable thing to do. Morals we've developed ourselves, as opposed to following from outdated scripture.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LordVorontur said:

They look like upstanding, law-abiding citizens.......

Funny to actually see a cop called "Duffin" try to excuse their racist attack as them just being kids. 'Cos dey gud chillren, dey dindu nuffin!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back when the US election results were announced, loads of professional victims took to Twitter to express their fear, sadness, and disappointment at the result, making up scenarios where millions of Americans would be put in concentration camps now that Trump was in. In particular, loads of Muslims were telling each other not to wear headscarves, and then media outlets started using it to suggest there was some sort of violence going on against them. There wasn't, they just made up their own boogeyman when they realized they didn't live in the world of constant abuse they imagined.

Well, it seems there's a site that tracks all fake crime stories, mostly those involving the uber-left SJW types, who either lie about crimes against them to further their victim complex agenda, or who are the ones setting up their own abuse.

http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/

It's a nice rage reliever to browse through them. Gays, Jews, Muslims, blacks, women, and any other "persecuted minority" you can think of, all wanting to get a bit of sympathy for things that never happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Doro said:

Back when the US election results were announced, loads of professional victims took to Twitter to express their fear, sadness, and disappointment at the result, making up scenarios where millions of Americans would be put in concentration camps now that Trump was in. In particular, loads of Muslims were telling each other not to wear headscarves, and then media outlets started using it to suggest there was some sort of violence going on against them. There wasn't, they just made up their own boogeyman when they realized they didn't live in the world of constant abuse they imagined.

Well, it seems there's a site that tracks all fake crime stories, mostly those involving the uber-left SJW types, who either lie about crimes against them to further their victim complex agenda, or who are the ones setting up their own abuse.

http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/

It's a nice rage reliever to browse through them. Gays, Jews, Muslims, blacks, women, and any other "persecuted minority" you can think of, all wanting to get a bit of sympathy for things that never happened.

My personal favorite is that illegal aliens feel fear and persecution that they might be deported.

Well duh... they are illegal aliens and just what part of illegal do they not understand?

Ah yes and for the progressives out there = Illegal alien is the word which political correctness translates into "undocumented immigrant". Ahhh... isn't that a much nicer and friendlier term? Rather like being unable to call a suicide bomber a "terrorist" but rather a "warm, fuzzy, blowy upy, misunderstood radical".

Just because Obama didn't enforce the US borders and used executive orders to "simulate" a policy that he didn't have the votes to implement legally through Congress does not mean that Trump has to forget the "illegal" part of "illegal alien"

So there is talk about expanding "sanctuary cities"... lol progressive mayors determining their own federal immigration policy... back to the days of city states I guess. :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Doro said:

the stories from "Shit that never happened land" are ample.  in all my watching from the sidelines, i've only ever seen one that was real (Guy sucker-punches a protester in the head as he is escorted from a Trump rally.

yet in the stuff that did happen, the material is so ample, there are actual compilation vids:

believe me this is but one example of dozens of leftest ferals acting out.

or sometimes they are just paid agitators:

when they go low...  they really reach down FAR!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

been busy recently, so a bit late on this one...

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/01/12/thousands-us-troops-on-russias-doorstep-in-poland-deployment.html

because deployment now, Vs...  oh, sometime in 2014 doesn't make this look like a complete fucking farce!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when the lame-stream media has no shame & will promote a boldfaced lie.

and the fraud is repeated Ad nauseum by profoundly dumb people (or just straight up dishonest liars) who will jump at any opportunity to confirm a belief that fits their bias.

what the reality looks like:

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

it is interactive, you can zoom all over the place to plainly see the NYTimes tweet is utter horseshit & fake news.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LasraelLarson said:

when the lame-stream media has no shame & will promote a boldfaced lie.

and the fraud is repeated Ad nauseum by profoundly dumb people (or just straight up dishonest liars) who will jump at any opportunity to confirm a belief that fits their bias.

what the reality looks like:

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

it is interactive, you can zoom all over the place to plainly see the NYTimes tweet is utter horseshit & fake news.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-inauguration-crowd-size/index.html

Clearly, Obama drew the bigger crowd, looking at the video of the zooms from the podium, and also, the statistics.

 

Stop raging about fake news, man, you come across as pathetic. Trump's crowd might not be as anaemic as the NY Times photo's show, but they were not near Obama's.

 

Why do you care so much, anyway?

Thought you were a Canuck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, LordVorontur said:

Trump's crowd might not be as anaemic as the NY Times photo's show, but they were not near Obama's.

if you are going to make a comparison, make it honestly.  NYTimes clearly made a false comparison & played it off as real.  it wasn't.  you should be able to click on the image above and see the side by sides of both leaders at the podium.  the differences aren't that distinguishable & if you zoom around in the CNN interactive from my previous post, you can even see folk already in the stands of the parade route as well (right side of mall, avenue heading at angle away from the capitol building, behind the photo platform.)

the only numbers that are clearly higher, is the bus usage, but that can also be shifted by different demographics.

what is clear is it wasn't more numbers by even 2 X, let alone the ridiculous claims being made of 5X and higher.  that is just flat out false.

& the reason for the white spaces (aside from the grass protecting tarp highlighting the empty spaces, that weren't on the ground in Obamas photos...) the check point delays as protestors had chained themselves to different entry points, delaying arrivals, but not ultimately stopping anything, as you can see in the side by side, both images are full all the way back to the monument.

52 minutes ago, LordVorontur said:

Why do you care so much, anyway?

Thought you were a Canuck?

a Swede lecturing me on caring?  as sad as Canada has become, we still haven't stooped to the depths Sweden has...  at least we can still win a podium spot in Junior Hockey.  Feminist Sweden's Hockey fame days are over.  gone, (since 2014.)  man hating bitches don't want boys achieving anything & all those beautiful Swedish women... they'll be gaining too much body-weight to be competitive at anything.  thing of the past.

i care because i hate Marxism where ever it manifests on the globe, and i will gleefully oppose it at every opportunity until it is decimated entirely.  & that includes feminist/Marxist identity politics.  which the left in the US has drunk the koolaid & drunk it deeply.  Hillary and her corrupt vagina needed to be kicked to the curb.

i care because while Obama may have had higher numbers, the difference was no where near the fakery NY Times tried to pass off as legit.  or the multiple idiots who bought it wholesale and proliferated it as fact...  it is clearly false.  the side by side images of the actual podium speeches are very close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LordVorontur said:

I'm just gonna leave the rest of your post unresponded.

you know Sweden is doomed mate; it is a bloody dumpster fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from the fact that you are comparing a forward facing picture with a top down one. It was mostly the manner of the press conference delivery that made me laugh, it was so unnecessarily defensive 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Laurinaohtar said:

Aside from the fact that you are comparing a forward facing picture with a top down one. It was mostly the manner of the press conference delivery that made me laugh, it was so unnecessarily defensive 

There is, I believe, a truly adversarial relationship between President Trump and the main stream media.

The MSM has been bleeding income for years as alternative sources for news proliferate on the internet. The pie is only so big and MSM's slice gets smaller with every hit on an internet news oriented site. The MSM has only a couple trump cards (hehe) = backing by elites / establishment and a sense of "credibility". The establishment and MSM narrative has seen rejection in Brexit and in the election of Trump and in populist trends all over Europe and, I believe, they are in panic mode. 

Power is slipping away from those who have no desire to be weaned from the teat in clear, definable ways and I love every moment of it!

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, LasraelLarson said:

when the lame-stream media has no shame & will promote a boldfaced lie.

and the fraud is repeated Ad nauseum by profoundly dumb people (or just straight up dishonest liars) who will jump at any opportunity to confirm a belief that fits their bias.

what the reality looks like:

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

it is interactive, you can zoom all over the place to plainly see the NYTimes tweet is utter horseshit & fake news.

And that's despite 6 out of 14 of the entry points being blocked by a bunch of SJWs throwing a tantrum. Something the media isn't making too much about, instead focusing on an empty lawn pre-inauguration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2017 at 6:35 PM, LasraelLarson said:

when the lame-stream media has no shame & will promote a boldfaced lie.

and the fraud is repeated Ad nauseum by profoundly dumb people (or just straight up dishonest liars) who will jump at any opportunity to confirm a belief that fits their bias.

what the reality looks like:

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

it is interactive, you can zoom all over the place to plainly see the NYTimes tweet is utter horseshit & fake news.

This time lapse video shows the picture to be pretty acccurate

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone else getting glitches when Twitter links are added to posts here? Every page that has one refuses to scroll down to the bottom for me, and jumps about when I'm trying to look through posts. I've had to type this on a different page entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...