Knowledge learned from airplane propeller development, as well as from jet plane wing aerodynamics, has had a great impact on the design of wind turbine blades, which are now affecting the evolution of birds.
If anybody ever happens upon this thread, I just want to point out, for the record, that froren is lying. He has obviously listened to and remembered this old Ron Paul speech and he understood exactly what Dr. Paul was saying, but for deceptive reasons froren choses to feign misunderstanding.
The (very clear) point of Dr. Paul's RNC speech was that regular people are better at solving problems than the government. If the government stopped taking tax money to monopolize "helping the poor" (while wasting most of that money on ever ballooning bureaucracy) then churches and other private initiatives would step in to do the job better, and at better value for the money. We wouldn't just let our sick and our poor die in the street, because unlike a faceless bureaucratic machine that inevitably comes to exists only to perpetuate itself and its own power, we are humans who care about other people.
The people at the RNC were cheering for the goodness of regular people, for the fact that Americans give more to charity than any other nation, and for the positive libertarian vision championed by Dr. Paul.
When the government gets in the way, and makes everyone poorer (by excessive taxation and bureaucracy), however, people become colder, and they can always excuse it to themselves by pointing out that the government promised to solve the problem, and they already forced us to pay them to solve it. So now it is the government's responsibility, but a bureaucracy cannot have any feelings of responsibility, because it is a machine and not a human.
This is also what happens in communist countries like China and the USSR before it.
Unfortunately, many people will probably just read deceptive statements like feoren's, and never go listen to the actual speeches. The left loves to dissuade people from actually listening to conservatives. Just see how they are shamelessly lying right now about Trump's "bloodbath", hoping to stir up actual political violence from people who they manage to trick and frighten.
The left is always trying to use 1984 style newspeak to prevent people from having an honest debate, so naturally they talk as if it was an established fact that either a government bureaucracy must continuosly rob Peter to pay Paul, or everyone starves.
This is because the left wants as big and powerful of a state apparatus as possible, because they intend to use it as an army against their political enemies. A recent example of how the left sees the role of the government is Letita James' lawfare against Donald Trump.
Ron Paul's message was that whenever the government tries to "help", it always backfires. Expecting the government to solve social problems, and allowing them to take money from regular people, leads to financial ruin for the country, and it won't even fix the very problems it claims as the reasons why we must give up our freedom and prosperity. In fact it always manages to make the problems worse.
> even though bodybuilding as a community is perceived and perceives itself as being driven by scientific research, it is still almost completely anecdote driven,
Well I mean, it IS driven by scientific research, just not research into exercise physiology as much as organic chemistry
Can somebody explain, since this was a long planned coup attempt against a Capitol that has its own police force, in a capital that has one of the largest and most heavily armed police forces in the world, why did the guncrazy far right militants leave their guns at home? And instead behaved mostly like an out of control protest with a few dozen violent rioters? It is a very peculiar way to attempt to overthrow a government.
You don’t need the guns if you have people on the inside. And a good number of the rioters seemed really quite surprised when law enforcement fought back against them. After all, they were carrying Blue Lives Matter flags, surely the cops are on their side!
(and besides, there were a good number of people with guns at the protest. And some others brought pipe bombs. Thankfully neither ended up being a factor but no one would have known that at the time)
As I said, they did have weapons. Not an overwhelming amount of them certainly, but more than enough to pose a threat if they managed to capture Nancy Pelosi.
And again: if you have the support of the police (and potentially also the armed forces) it’s all pretty moot anyway.
The QAnon "storm" narrative revolved around unnamed "true patriots" within some unnamed national security service rising up to overthrow the corrupt.. something.
Or at least that's the common interpretation of QAnon ramblings.
But the point is that there wasn't any centralised leadership plotting this. There was some groups (who did have weapons) who were absolutely planning this, but the protestors in general was much more decentralized in purpose and method.
The FBI divulged this morning that the Oath Keepers, a right-wing militia, were trying to trap congress members in the underground tunnels of the capitol to gas them.
masonic is ignoring the possibility that "gas" talk was figurative. It was reported that Oathkeeper Thomas Edward Caldwell received facebook messages during the insurrection: “Tom all legislators are down in the Tunnels 3floors down,” and “Go through back house chamber doors facing N left down hallway down steps,” and “All members are in the tunnels under capital seal them in. Turn on gas,” according to the FBI.
FBI charging documents do make references to the telecommunications of the OK defendants, where they are trying to trap and gas congress people under the capitol.
Hrm. You made a very specific (and false) claim, got called on it, and now you say "references to... trying to..." in apparent attempt to weasel around it.
Neither the FBI nor Capitol Police has made claim that any lethal gas was present, period. Not in possession of "Oath Keepers" or otherwise. Not in "underground tunnels" or anywhere else.
No reputable news agency seems to be claiming thus, either.
So, the burden is on the claimant to show that this isn't pure narrative fantasy.
I suspect they thought there'd be more complicity or active support from the police/guards. bringing your guns out in the open directly would have been too visible a giveaway up front, giving people time to react/block.
A lot of the protesters have said they expected the police to be largely on their side. I suspect that when things got violent both the armed rioters and police realised that guns would just end up in a blood bath on both sides, and the first person to shoot on either side would probably end up dead pretty quickly.
I suspect the police weren't shooting because they realized how overwhelmed they were. I've seen a couple of videos where they had drawn their guns and prepared to fire but they were simply surrounded.
If I suspend my disbelief for a second, do you have a link to any interviews or similar with those protesters?
Surely you are not conflating quotes from peaceful demonstrators against (alleged) election fraud, with militants trying to violently overthrow the government?
Here's a WP article on it. I remember seeing video of a woman retreating from the Capitol saying something about them being on the same side as the police and complaining why they weren't joining them, but I can't find it, sorry. One of the protesters was carrying blue lives matter flag.
That's the one. There's a theory that onions help neutralise the effects of mace, they've been used by protesters in the Middle East for this and it's possible some of the Capitol rioters came with them and gave her one.
That sounds dubious to me. Have you chopped onions? What I’ve heard is that she probably wasn’t maced and was just using the onion to irritate her eyes and force tears to fake being maced. (People who actually get maced tend to be slobbery, snotty messes.)
> why did the guncrazy far right militants leave their guns at home?
Because despite their public rhetoric and willingness to carry guns when they don’t expect law enforcement opposition, they realized that their only chance of success at the Capitol was to not be treated by law enforcement the way that law enforcement (including the Secret Service) would treat a visibly-armed mob surrounding the Capitol during proceedings (which include Secret Service protectees).
How did they coordinate not bringing guns? Or did they each individually realize this strategy without coordination? I think you’re giving them too much credit here.
I agree that “realized their chance of success” makes it more group-strategic than is probably warranted.
“Realized that the likely law enforcement stance likely at the Capitol would make visibly carrying a firearm increase their personal risk rather than their effectiveness” is probably more accurate.
> the possible retort I could make that then interests of the politically powerful can not only coincide with the will of the people but also be the will of the people
The good old 'those noble and good hearted revolutionaries get to be the politically powerful and the "will" of the plebs better align with theirs, or else...'
From the looks of it, their plan seem to be to institute enough political repression that they won't have to worry about any next government/president/administration.
> If you want to broadcast to state level, you must have education, journalism rigor, and standup to scrutiny, have to explain inconsistencies or your role is revoked.
And make no mistake, what they mean in reality by the above is always the same, namely that "free speech" will mean you are freely allowed to repeat the talking points of the Party.
In the unlikely event that your post isn't immediately removed by the moderators, I just want to add that it is obvious that nobody on the left actually honestly believe the over-the-top hysterical nonsense they have been spouting the past 2 weeks.
Ask them to explain, if these were organized far right militants trying to overthrow the government in the most heavily guarded city in the world, in a building that has it's own heavily armed police force, how come they didn't bring guns?
The left are the ones actually carrying out a coup against democracy, by using the chaos and confusion caused by a pointless protest that spiraled out of control.
are you absolutely certain that your thoughts are not being constrained by your language?