• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Carborendum last won the day on June 26

Carborendum had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Carborendum's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (4/4)



  1. Nope. The police specifically pointed that out. No one was even arrested. Their only desire was to disperse the protesters.
  2. This was the description from the police department. And I'm inclined to believe it. It was the same with Jan 6th. My neighbor was there on Jan 6th. She said that it was supposed to be very standard as protests go. March around. Hold signs. Shout trite sayings... But she saw some people doing weird things. Many people noticed it. She decided to get herself out of there. Good thing too. She might be rotting in a gulag right now as well. Unfortunately, the idea of third party agitators never crossed their minds. They just figured it was some extremist group that was still supporting what the same cause. But with the benefit of hindsight, it was most certainly the third party agitators. I get the impression that it was a similar situation here. The only difference was who was doing the banging on doors and windows. In DC, the ones banging on doors and windows didn't start until after the police already let them into the building. And only a few were tearing things down. In Arizona, a few started banging on the locked doors without police opening anything up. Then everyone in the protest joined in. They all began trying to break the glass. Then the police launched the tear gas. In DC, common protesters were arrested. The agitators were let go. In Arizona, no one was arrested. Does anyone else see a problem with this?
  3. I've heard of this in variant forms, primarily about plain old-fashioned homosexuality specifically. Since then, I've spent some time thinking about it. And there may be a logic to it. But when we bring in the Plan of Salvation into it, the picture changes quite a bit. Scientifically, naturally, according to man's understanding: It is possible that nature has some mechanism that says that the available elements, nutrients, resources, etc. can only successfully sustain evolutionary natural selection trends to a certain point. After that point, some nutrient deficiency will trigger a trend of increased non-heterosexual behavior. Perhaps, a look at all the nutrients required for human biology have a limiting element that specifically effects heterosexual tendencies. It's within the realm of reasonableness. Counterpoint: If we believe only in man's science as described above, then it stands to reason that non-heterosexual individuals are specifically NOT supposed to reproduce. They are specifically NOT supposed to raise/rear children. Nature itself is demanding that this be the case. So, why would we allow these individuals to propagate the species? Their argument completely falls apart on their own terms. Yet, trans men are being placed in jail cells with biological women and impregnating them. Gay couples are being allowed to adopt and use surrogates to make babies just so they can be raised by homosexual couples? Consider the Plan of Salvation: The Lord has told us: Multiply & replenish the earth. There is enough and to spare. If these are both true, then the theory should not be used to justify non-heterosexual behavior. Either way, homosexual propagation, raising, or rearing is not justified.
  4. There was. I can't find it anymore. Thanks, Twitter (I'm guessing). The "uniforms" were a group of people all clad in black with masks -- like you'd see from ANTIFA, but you could see by their mannerisms that they were not ANTIFA. They were something else. The weapons were the wood posts that some were using to carry signs that were then used to try to break the glass on the buildings. That was the point where they shot the tear gas at the protesters. And there was video of the palm tree outside smoking. But it isn't clear if that was from the police or the protesters. From the police website: So, just like Jan 6, the majority were protesting peacefully. But there were agitators. And I believe it was those agitators I saw in black.
  5. It was a comet that had not been discovered at the time of the transmission. This was apparently disputed:!_signal I have no idea why they cited the second source (New Scientist) as discrediting the comet theory, when it clearly supports it. The other two make some good arguments. But they are no stronger than the arguments made by Antonio Paris. And the biggest problems they have with the comet idea can be explained by the fact that two of them were in the vicinity at the time and there was some interaction.
  6. I can't tell if you're joking. You know they figured that out right?
  7. And a a Twitter Video^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1540548828696150016|twgr^|twcon^s1_& It was declared a "hostage situation" when state senators were not allowed to leave their chambers for fear of their lives. This really was a literal insurrection. It was not just a random mob people with similar interests. It was not a bunch of people protesting and letting their emotions get the better of them. It was organized with people wearing uniforms and carrying weapons drawn (not just concealed carriers keeping their self-protection close to their chest). Their intent was to destroy property, vandalize, intimidate (and likely kill) senators. The police response was proportional and reactionary. The main tactic wasn't to arrest large numbers of people. The tactic was to disperse and allow the senators to be free. Compare that to how they treated Jan 6th. NOTE: From CNN WP, etc. They headlined the fact that police used tear gas rather than the danger that was posed to the senators. They don't dare show the videos of just how bad these actors were.
  8. I've never heard this song before. And, yes, the tune is very nice, but the lyrics... The only place that this combo thrives is in musicals. So, it seems fitting that Richard Harris (Camelot) would have been the original performer.
  9. Actually, I noticed something else recently in various news sources across the political spectrum. Language is more honest. For decades, the language has be euphemistic: "Pro-choice/ Pro-life", "women's health", "reproductive health", "right to choose." Recently, everyone is being more honest. Pro-abortion!/Anti-abortion! Abortion rights! "Abort the baby". It's not just an embryo or fetus or mass of cells anymore. Actually a lot will still say that. But I've heard a lot more language lately where the left openly admits they want to "kill the baby." If you haven't heard it much, don't worry, you will hear more of it. It's the natural course throughout history. Once everyone is on board the bandwagon of honesty, we can really discuss the reality rather than ignore the real issue.
  10. THANK YOU!!! This has been bugging me for years.
  11. I remember when this commercial aired. But I had thought that the jingle they used was a modification of an existing song. I've since tried looking for the original song to no avail. Am I correct in assuming this was a pop song by a popular artist/act? Or was this original to the Friskies commercial? I could swear I remember hearing a song that started out with "No No. No no. No nonono. nono. no. no." on the radio. But I can't remember who it was. I even remember some commentator saying that it had set a world record for the use of the word "no" in a single song. Am I remembering wrong?
  12. The biggest consideration is: Which is more likely? That one child will be a good influence on the other? Or that the other may be a bad influence on the one?