So...

Abu Waheeb did not wear a mask, and was most certainly not gay or trans, and is now dead.

Rachel Levine did wear a mask, and is trans by their own admission, and is still alive.

This is the sort of "coincidence" you'll not read about from Breitbart.




https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...ac9d852cd1.png

The owner of the Minocqua Brewing Company is suing to get get Trump off the ballot in Wisconsin.

Here are his brews... seriously.


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...e83fac2f1c.jpg

I bought two of these yesterday:

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...a5cb04146e.png



I opened one today, and I think I'll put the other one on the shelf for a few years.


The owner of Goose Island Brewery, [imagine newspaper headline]

uhm....


I actually have no idea about the political positions of the owner of Goose Island Brewery.


Politics do not influence the flavor of beer. At least, not directly.



This one was good. At $25 a bottle, expectations are naturally high. I feel like this one delivered.

Mouthfeel was excellent. This is a beer you can almost chew on. It wasn't overpowering like so many of the uber-fancy stouts are these days. Notes of fruit up-front and a very slight sourness in the finish were a welcome surprise in this rich, thick Imperial stout.

At 12.9% ABV, it's off the charts for a brew of this style, and yet it's such a complex and interesting flavor profile that you don't even notice. I definitely felt it later, though.

The owner of Goose Island is AB InBev. I don’t think they want to talk about politics lately.

I opened two of those Christmas day I bought back in 2015. I found them still to be fantastic, but there wasn't much head. The Shoppette on base has (or had) them for $13.99 a bottle. I may have to see if there are any left. I still have one from 2018 in the garage fridge.

I bought the Banana Fosters 2023 today. I almost the Backyard Stout as well, but it's another $27 and I dont drink that much beer.

They keep saying this word...

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...831ac2abe5.png

Most people have absolutely no clue that "a threat to democracy" is a GOOD thing.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...b401f0e752.jpg
Speaking of fossils...

Not gonna lie, Tucker kinda lost me there when they pivoted from "How could hydrogen and carbon have possibly existed without dinosaurs?" over to the exact same scientific expert offering his own personal proof for the existence of God.


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...618d76ca25.png

There's been a low-level discussion about "intelligent design" for some time. Whoever updates Wikipedia has a definite view, and they say, "

Intelligent design

Intelligent design is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins". Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science. Wikipedia "

On the other side there are top-level scientists that see, for example, that even with ideal circumstances the DNA sequence changes needed for evolution could never match the timeline we're on now, without some form of intelligent design. And of course when the number of this and other anomalies start adding up, someone brings up "Occam's Razor" and you have yourself the current low-level debate.

Yes, it began somewhere around the 13th or 14th century bce, although there is not universal agreement on this point.

As someone who was raised in an evangelical Christian household, and has been dragged through places such as The Ark Encounter and The Creation Museum, I feel reasonably confident that I have heard in considerable detail most of the arguments which either favor intelligent design, or attempt to find fault with the idea of a 4.5 billion year old Earth.

If you are arguing that an intelligent creator and a young Earth are likely, in the context of a discussion about the formation of Methane (which, at CH4, is such a laughably simple hydrocarbon as to barely merit discussion in the same breath as crude oil), and the broader ramifications vis-a-via global energy reserves and atmospheric science then...

I'm ok with that. You do you, man.

Thank you for telling me.

I can always rely on you for a straw man. Thanks for not letting me down. ;)

Where was the straw man?

I really want to keep up with both sides of this one. But I'm not seeing failed logic unless you point it out.

Joe's equivocating a visit (a "drag") through the Ark Encounter and Creation Museum with scientific discussions regarding intelligent design. I've got no idea about the methane or young earth rant...not familiar.

I think if you note my previous post, I think it's agnostic as possible, showing both sides. I know religion is a trigger for Joe, so I probably should have avoided it completely.

One thing I will note is that the more we learn more about subatomic particles, and the universe with new images from the Webb telescope, some "written in stone" beliefs have had to be rethought.

... these are ...?

for example...

Sorry, I'm too lazy to spoon feed on every topic. Here's one link, and it's just to show that decades of assumptions by really smart people are needing to be re-thought.

Oops..found something. What this is....is a counterpoint to the idea of a greeter in a bow tie, welcoming you into the Ark. In other words, you can have a rational discussion about this topic and not have to pull out a bible, Torah, Koran, etc.

I'm with you on this one Cord. I am not religious though I was raised catholic. I stopped believing in a god as a young man. As an old man, you have time to reflect and experience to draw your own conclusions. I simply don't believe we are here by accident. I'm not going yo say that there is a divine entity looking down at all of us granting us wishes or punishing us or even an afterlife. But science always wants to have the answer and be the only source of truth. According to a quote I heard, that's not science, that's religion. Never questioning the answers is faith. Questioning the answers is science.

And remember science is a lot of theory. It is not the big-bang fact, it is the big-bang theory. It's not string fact, it's string theory. We can go on and on like the out-of-Africa theory. We found ten bones and have come to the conclusion that this is where modern humans came from and that this species of homo is different from this one because of this one feature, etc. Science is trying really hard to beat religion at its own game.

speaking of lies:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/saraha...imony-n2633443

it "appeared" because it was planned to appear.

it's so nice that NYC will cancel school (and the school dance) to house the illegal immigrants, while also still ignoring their own homeless population.