Opinion Politics (warning, may contain political views you disagree with)

Remove this Banner Ad

Isn't people who bang on about the bible and refuse to look at evolution because of the way they interpret the bible closed minded? Yes it is. It's world wide.

You do realise that many Indigenous Australians did believe in the dream time and have a deep spiritual connection with the land but majority aren't creationists? Majority of Indigenous people these days use dream time stories as I was of describing how the earth and all It's beauty came to be but not as gospel truth. I would know as of my family connection to this. You are twisting things again.

They use it to describe how the earth came to be, but don't believe it?

Again, I know elders personally who believe it. They also believe in the water spirits completely, which is why they protest for land rights. Are they fools or some other derisive word for that belief?

Or is it only the creation part you have an issue with?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

All religions are stupid imo but as long as they dont bother with it I don't have a problem.

Generally not a fan of hating on religion.

Until the religious followers hate on you for not following their religion
 
Ok.



Having studied World Religions as part of a philosphy course, I can let you know that most of the known religions have a creation story. As do Australian Indigenous people. I assume you are calling them and all religious people 'full wacko'?

To the second bolded section. Is it possible you are being closed minded? At all?

I have studied religion to at university and it was said that during a lecture Christianity is about faith not facts. Why not facts... because they can't provide any.

People are sheep that flock to religion because it gives them something to cling onto and are easily brainwashed.
 

On Monday, the chairmen of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees sent letters to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines demanding the administration give details of any briefings they gave Biden about his family’s influence-peddling schemes.

“The Committees seek to understand if, because of Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings and his vulnerabilities, Joe Biden was given ‘defensive’ briefings to discuss potential foreign interference either during his time as Vice President or while he was a presidential candidate,” lawmakers write in both letters.

The FBI director and the director of national intelligence were given until April 29 to respond.

In their letters, House Republicans outlined the major findings of their impeachment inquiry that has uncovered a series of financial relationships with foreign oligarchs. Former Biden family business partners have testified about the president’s influence-peddling schemes and claimed they opened risks for national security. Tony Bobulinski went as far as to claim President Joe Biden was "compromised" by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) even before the 2020 election.

“I want to be crystal clear: from my direct personal experience and what I have subsequently come to learn, it is clear to me that Joe Biden was ‘the brand’ being sold by the Biden family,” Bobulinski told lawmakers at a March hearing. “His family’s foreign influence peddling operation — from China to Ukraine and elsewhere — sold out to foreign actors who were seeking to gain influence and access to Joe Biden and the United States government.”

House Oversight Chairman James Comer of Kentucky formally requested testimony from President Biden last month.

“The Committee has identified and successfully traced money from foreign transactions — including from China — to your own bank accounts,” wrote Comer. “…In addition to requesting that you answer the questions posed in this letter, I invite you to participate in a public hearing at which you will be afforded the opportunity to explain, under oath, your involvement with your family’s sources of income and the means it has used to generate it.”

Comer also said last month that Republicans’ impeachment proceedings would most likely culminate in criminal referrals to the Department of Justice.

Hunter Biden, who had previously made a public hearing a prerequisite for cooperation with House Republicans, declined lawmakers’ invitation to testify at an open forum. Instead, Hunter Biden’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, demanded House Republicans hold a hearing into a former client’s business deals, in a potential violation of legal ethics rules.

Hunter Biden testified only in private, and, according to Wyoming Rep. Harriet Hageman, used his addictions as an excuse to avoid answering tough questions.

Don't overlook the obvious, when a Republican senator who spent 25 years as prosecutor says that they don't have any evidence - and can you do something better than the Federalist and the National Revue. Spare those links for the gullible here. I thought you were a serious evaluator of news.

I'll give you a couple of concrete examples of what I mean about the laptop, and how there's a difference between verifying the laptop as being owned by Hunter Biden (or the Beau Biden Foundation) and verifying the contents, although even a perusal through the Hunter Biden laptop story on Wikipedia will tell you how much of the content has been verified. The point here is how espionage methodology is to sprinkle a little disinformation amongst the majority content that could only have originated from Hunter Biden.

Firstly, here's the "blind" computer Repair shop own John Paul Mac Isaacs on Fox news indicating fake data is present different to contents of the hard drive that he sent to Giuliani's lawyer.



Secondly, here's a specific example of a good journalist uncovering a document that could only have appeared (due to its date) on Hunter Biden's laptop after it was sent to repair and when it was in Giuliani's custody


The same journalist also gives us a good understanding the actual physical form of the Hunter Biden "laptop", which I found helpful.

EMPTY WHEEL H.BIDEN'S LAPTOP
 
I have studied religion to at university and it was said that during a lecture Christianity is about faith not facts. Why not facts... because they can't provide any.

People are sheep that flock to religion because it gives them something to cling onto and are easily brainwashed.

That is completely made up. Even ardent atheists and famous one's at that admit there are some facts in the bible. Historical and archeological. Even non religious scholars admit there is a lot of evidence that Jesus the man existed. If you did study religion and did hear that in a lecture then the lecturer was a complete fool. I do not believe you studied it in a university, that is simply not something that would have been said. If you did please let me know which one as I will investigate the course and syllabus.

They may have said salvation is based on faith. They would not have said Christianity is about faith not facts, as they can't provide any. That is garbage, but would also be typical of a bigotry aimed at Christianity that is not aimed at other religions.

People of all varieties cling to different beliefs. That does not make all religious people fools. And while you are happy thinking yourself above more than half the worlds population, I do not, and will not.

Of all the nations on earth, all who have had a religion or do have a major religion. I am thankful that I was born in Australia, in a nation formed on values that were only found in nations that had Christianity as its major religion. That is enough for me to grant some respect at least.
 
That is completely made up. Even ardent atheists and famous one's at that admit there are some facts in the bible. Historical and archeological. Even non religious scholars admit there is a lot of evidence that Jesus the man existed. If you did study religion and did hear that in a lecture then the lecturer was a complete fool. I do not believe you studied it in a university, that is simply not something that would have been said. If you did please let me know which one as I will investigate the course and syllabus.

They may have said salvation is based on faith. They would not have said Christianity is about faith not facts, as they can't provide any. That is garbage, but would also be typical of a bigotry aimed at Christianity that is not aimed at other religions.

People of all varieties cling to different beliefs. That does not make all religious people fools. And while you are happy thinking yourself above more than half the worlds population, I do not, and will not.

Of all the nations on earth, all who have had a religion or do have a major religion. I am thankful that I was born in Australia, in a nation formed on values that were only found in nations that had Christianity as its major religion. That is enough for me to grant some respect at least.

It's not made up at all. I was told by one of the head lecturers who is Catholic that Catholicism is based on the pillars of faith not facr. If you don't like this go argue with Notre Dame not me.

You can argue til you are blue in the face but that's what was said. Too funny
 
Secondly, here's a specific example of a good journalist uncovering a document that could only have appeared (due to its date) on Hunter Biden's laptop after it was sent to repair and when it was in Giuliani's custody

Very interesting turn of events. Do you think the photographs, videos and extracts from his apple account backed up on the laptop that show him engaging in activities and discussions were planted?
 
It's not made up at all. I was told by one of the head lecturers who is Catholic that Catholicism is based on the pillars of faith not facr. If you don't like this go argue with Notre Dame not me.

You can argue til you are blue in the face but that's what was said. Too funny

Ah that is a completely different claim. And I know some of the lecturers at Notre Dame. So you are saying they also said they had no facts to offer? Or was that your commentary?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ah that is a completely different claim. And I know some of the lecturers at Notre Dame. So you are saying they also said they had no facts to offer? Or was that your commentary?

Like I said you can't let it go. You are wrong. For someone apparently so educated in religion you don't even understand the bases of it.

I'm done arguing with you on something you are clearly wrong about. Catch ya
 
Like I said you can't let it go. You are wrong. For someone apparently so educated in religion you don't even understand the bases of it.

I'm done arguing with you on something you are clearly wrong about. Catch ya

Hahaaha this is ridiculous.

You said a lecturer said Christianity is based on faith not facts, because they have no facts.

That is completely different to a lecturer saying Christianity for a Catholic is based on what they call the pillars of faith.

I know enough through my studies to know that is a completely different claim.

For example when dealing with businesses, a business owner will say they make 60% profit. I ask is that Gross or Net. Small business owners often say, 'that's just profit'.

When we get into the numbers it is usually Gross profit and not Net Profit. And while they both have the word profit in them, they are very different things.

You have done the same with your ridiculous claim.
 
Hahaaha this is ridiculous.

You said a lecturer said Christianity is based on faith not facts, because they have no facts.

That is completely different to a lecturer saying Christianity for a Catholic is based on what they call the pillars of faith.

I know enough through my studies to know that is a completely different claim.

For example when dealing with businesses, a business owner will say they make 60% profit. I ask is that Gross or Net. Small business owners often say, 'that's just profit'.

When we get into the numbers it is usually Gross profit and not Net Profit. And while they both have the word profit in them, they are very different things.

You have done the same with your ridiculous claim.

What are you on about

Still carrying on
 
Interesting article from a senior employee of 25 years. They suspended him this week.

Riley Gaines says, not the only interesting article. I haven't seen reported elsewhere.

I've been following the oral arguments to the Supreme Court of the former Biden v Missouri, now Murthy v free speech case which have some interesting discussion from the plaintiffs.

 
Last edited:
What are you on about

Still carrying on

You made a claim that a lecturer said Christianity is about faith not facts, because they had no facts to offer.

And it is now clear they never said that, you just misinterpreted them or didn't understand.

You can disagree with Christianity without disparaging all Christians. You made a claim that all people who were religious are fools. Do you still stand by that or were you meaning only Christians?

You said all who believe in Creation are whackos, do you still stand by that? Do you apply that only to Christians or do you include Aboriginals. Muslims and other religions?
 
Here's a specific example of a good journalist uncovering a document that could only have appeared (due to its date) on Hunter Biden's laptop after it was sent to repair and when it was in Giuliani's custody


The same journalist also gives us a good understanding the actual physical form of the Hunter Biden "laptop", which I found helpful.

EMPTY WHEEL H.BIDEN'S LAPTOP
Who is the supposed good journalist 'empty wheel', that you've been quoting verbatum?

Taking an AI modified clip of Mac Isaac warning about the Patrick Byrne group with Maxey and Ziegler, who miraculously found extra gigabytes of data that Mac Isaac immediately said was fake, isn't related to Giuliana or the original data subpoenaed and verified by the FBI in Dec 2019 is not only misleading it is purposely developing a fake narrative.

Edit: Quote added. "Further both John Paul (Mac Isaac) and Yaacov refused requests from Mr Maxey and Me Ziegler to work with them because they seemed to be pursuing political attacks that were not of interest to John Paul or Yaacov.

Not only were John Paul and Yaacov wary of their motives they publicly questioned the legitimacy of the information being presented to the public by Mr Maxey and Mr Ziegler.


1713578471378.png

From Mac Isaac's lawyer.

In letters sent Monday to Attorney General Merrick Garland and his Delaware counterpart Kathy Jennings, Mac Isaac’s lawyers allege that Hunter attorney Abbe Lowell potentially violated federal and state laws by “knowingly using false information to report an alleged crime and allowing that information to be disseminated to the media” when he alleged that Mac Isaac had “unlawfully accessed” and disseminated the contents of Hunter’s laptop.

Mac Isaac’s attorney, Brian Della Rocca, took particular issue with Lowell’s claim that the shop owner unlawfully accessed and copied Hunter Biden’s laptop data without his consent.

“John Paul received Hunter Biden’s consent to access his laptop when Hunter Biden signed off on the work authorization while at The Mac Shop on April 12, 2019 …,” Della Rocca wrote. “Pursuant to the work order, signed by Hunter, when he failed to retrieve his laptop and the hard drive to which the data was recovered more than 90 days later, it became abandoned property so John Paul could dispose of it as he saw fit. John Paul determined the best disposal of the laptop and hard drive would be to turn them over to the authorities.”

Della Rocca also denied Lowell’s claim that Mac Isaac unlawfully shared the laptop with allies of former President Donald Trump and profited from doing so, saying Mac Isaac never disseminated the laptop’s contents to the media or made a dime out of it.

“John Paul did share the original laptop and external hard drive with the FBI in December 2019,” Mac Isaac’s attorney wrote. “Thereafter, while watching the impeachment hearings against President Trump in 2020, John Paul was concerned that there was no mention of the information on the laptop. It seemed as if no one even knew about the laptop.

“At that point, John Paul decided that he would try to get the information to Congress. When his efforts failed, he went to President Trump’s attorney, Rudy Giuliani.
 
Last edited:
Della Rocca also rejected Lowell’s claim that Yaacov Apelbaum, founder and CEO of cyber analytics firm XRVision, was “working with Senator Ron Johnson’s office” when he helped Mac Isaac create a “forensic image” of Hunter’s laptop hard drive.

“It is false, as Yaacov has never worked with Senator Johnson’s office,” wrote Della Rocca, who added that Apelbaum was only asked to analyze information on the laptop and not to copy it.

Della Rocca says Hunter’s legal broadsides against Mac Isaac are an attempt to intimidate him after Mac Isaac launched a defamation action against the Biden scion.

“John Paul has suffered the loss of his business, friendships, and lives in constant fear. It is time to let Hunter Biden know that enough is enough.”

Della Rocca says he wrote to Garland and Jennings to expose “the outright lies used by Hunter Biden and his attorney to try to manipulate public opinion … I am disappointed that I even had to prepare these letters”.

“While I respect your office’s ability to differentiate between a political ploy and a real legal request, I am compelled to write because my clients have become the victim of these unethical political games masked as a legal request,” Della Rocca wrote.

Della Rocca also suggested that the federal Department of Justice and its Delaware counterpart should investigate Hunter and Lowell over the false complaint.

“During that investigation, perhaps Hunter Biden should provide verifiable evidence of his whereabouts on April 12, 2019, [the date he left his laptop at Mac Isaac’s store] … Such an inquiry could resolve many of the lies being levied at John Paul.”

For Mac Isaac, who has written a book about his experience, “American Injustice,” the nightmare continues.

“I am already feeling the fallout from Hunter Biden’s letter,” he told The Post on Monday. “Once again, with the mainstream media’s help, half the country wants to see me imprisoned.”


1713579294822.png

1713579341695.png
1713579370655.png
1713579520100.png

1713579602327.png
 
You made a claim that a lecturer said Christianity is about faith not facts, because they had no facts to offer.

And it is now clear they never said that, you just misinterpreted them or didn't understand.

You can disagree with Christianity without disparaging all Christians. You made a claim that all people who were religious are fools. Do you still stand by that or were you meaning only Christians?

You said all who believe in Creation are whackos, do you still stand by that? Do you apply that only to Christians or do you include Aboriginals. Muslims and other religions?

Stop finger pointing and talking nonsense
 
Still not willing to clarify your points or answer questions.

This after calling billions of people fools and whackos. Well done.

I don't need to. You are clearly wrong and refuse to concede this fact as per usual.

Go look up the pillars of faith and educate yourself on something that you have claimed to have studied and are so knowledgeable of.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top