Also no evidence of evolution. Zero, nothing.
Tucker is prime example of why you need to look at the argument not who is saying it, because on some things he's not just right but has the receipts while on others he's a crackpot loon.
Brave is fine, it's just still old-school where you have to actually know what you're searching for. "That movie with the cool guy in it" isn't going to work there.
Just searched Brave for Israel / Palestine and half the results are from Al-Jazeera, which at least isn't our legacy media.
Considering that you write so poorly (an act seemingly), the only readers you could possibly influence toward and not away from your views are middle-school dropouts.
That's why I assume it's intentional. And I have to say, good job being the foil that makes our views shine brighter.
Sports are better without umpires, judges, referees, but with objective measures instead. The less subjective the better. That's why they brought in instant replays.
If a ruleset could turn "my character died because I didn't buy the DM lunch" into Baldur's Gate II then that would be great, but they don't.
Youtube probably say "if you mention the ban it'll be two weeks" like in that scene from Breakfast Club.
What’s going on? The obvious culprit is Facebook.
Ha ha right.
This article is based only on Comscore data. What conservative is going to voluntarily install a spyware in an era where the DoJ wants to put you in jail for mean tweets?
"and The Federalist, founded just over a decade ago, lost a staggering 91 percent. (The site’s CEO and co-founder, Sean Davis, called that figure “laughably inaccurate”"
The Federalist didn't lose 90% of it's traffic, you absolute moron Atlantic writer, it has the smartest readers and they're becoming untrackable.
They're not games, more like peer pressure simulator. It's your turn, but DM says you tripped on a rock and miss your turn or something dumb and arbitrary like that, but he can only do that if the other players go along with it.
New ruleset is like Congress passing some new "workers rights" bill - now things are fair, peon's rights, my gripes are important - but really it's the same bullshit as before, you just feel like this time it'll be different.
It'd be great if we were in some fantasy land where Ron Paul is president and the best product wins, but in our world instead of something at least tolerable like a deposit they're banning incandescent entirely.
And all because a certain demo can't plan for more than a day out.
Still a heat pump is more efficient and other fuels cheaper.
On the other hand an incandescent heats you radiantly so you feel warmer and can be comfortable in a colder house.
And incandescent has a continuous light and continuous spectrum and so looks better, and as a black body doesn't actually instantly turn on or off (a tiny fraction of a second, but it's less harsh). They just feel better.
You should always have a choice of incandescent. If they really want to influence people that see $0.25 incandescent vs $5 led initial price put a refundable deposit on the incandescent so when it burns out you get that money back.
A big airplane style drone isn't hard to stop, but the new wars will use swarm drones.
Like here's a drone that recharges from power lines so it basically has unlimited range and can carry a much heavier payload. You going to shoot down edit: your own power lines?
Of course it's easy to stop this one attack, but there's so many ways small drones can get around defenses. They're like the technology version of asymmetric guerilla warfare.
they also absolutely despise the idea of a man enjoying anything at all, ever, if it doesn't not immediately benefit a woman
I think they want everybody to be miserable and "for women" is just a measure of that; if you're at their beck you're at least as miserable a creature as they are.
It's not that modern characters aren't "beautiful," it's that they're intentionally, perversely, and maliciously made to be ugly freaks.
I think what's going on is quite simple. It's self-esteem.
People that are happy with their selves, that are healthy or content or believe they have value, they like seeing beauty and those that believe they are worthless freaks want to see ugly. It's like if you wake up depressed that feels appropriate on a rainy day, and if you wake up manic you expect the day to be bright and clear. People want their outside environment to reflect their internal state.
These woke people are worthless people and they know it. They may sometimes be nice to their in-group, but even that is transactional and "performative" - they're not nice or happy people. Any skill they have, they know some youtuber can do it better and they don't feel the intrinsic value of improving themselves. Kids coming in last place in a contest where the adults prohibit rankings to protect their feelings actually feel worse about themselves than just coming in last place. When you try to protect kids from failing they end up feeling worthless.
So they want things to be ugly. Because inside that's what they are.
These Canadian liberals use wikipedia to determine the 'factuality' of news sources.
It might seem okay because they include Info Wars from time to time, but every article or headlines page is priming you to not trust right news and trust liberal news.
For instance they have Breitbart as "mixed factuality" when they've never posted anything non-factual in their reporting. From a far right perspective, sure, and things liberals wish weren't true, but not false. Wikipedia's 10-paragraph hit piece about their "accuracy and ideology" identifies not a single falsehood.
So if you're okay with being propagandized to on every story, sure, read ground.news.
His grift is he hosts an hours long podcast with some notables, takes what they say and makes a video of it out of lots 5 second trailer clips on a repeat loop.
But he's better than whoever idiot is on his podcast (Mauler I think) that's always saying "but I feel like they should have explained 1+1=2 at least put a throwaway line in there" for the most obvious basic shit.
Like how Alan Turing is supposedly a father of computer science despite the only thing he's known for, the universal computer, being predated by superior Lambda calculus.
In the war he just tweaked the Polish Bomba design and made many mistakes that led to relying on the Americans to decode four rotor Enigma messages.
There's no there there. But the guy was undeniably British and gay, so he gets boosted by both.
Shadiversity is great they just take like 10x longer to say something than they need to.
The issue is that fire can't move as fast as the arrow so the flame goes out right away. The flame has to be restarted at the target, so hot coals or red hot metal should work fine, or something alchemical like substances that mix on target (two vials that break on target to combine ingredients).
Fire Arrows Work (Shadiversity)
And I think like an alchemists crucible there could easily be secrets lost to modern cosplay youtubers.
I thought he might be saying panspermia or something like that, but then he says God created Man so it's pretty clear he's just a religious nut on that topic.
It is totally possible life here came from Mars or interstellar space debris, but to pretend that life did not continuously change through evolution once it was on Earth is insane. Any level that you look at from molecular to micro to macro says it.