The Right Side of the News

Well, Mueller did not write Barr's summary letter, Barr did. So how could Mueller have corrected Barr's letter before it was released? That would be like saying that I would have corrected your message before you posted it.We are being told that Mueller is involving in Barr's redacting of the report, but I don't know how much of that to believe since Barr had pimped himself out to Trump in order to get the job so that he could be in a position to do a cover-up for Trump.And we do have members of Mueller team voicing their objections to Barr's letter saying that it misrepresents what the report said. They also wrote their own summaries for each section of the report that could be released to the public without redacting, yet Barr is busy redacting even them. Just read the summary letter for yourself! For the third time, here is the link to actual text of the Barr's actual letter: https://www.nytimes.com/...s/barr-letter-mueller-report.htmlJust as you can watch Trump's statements and actions for yourself, you can read that letter for yourself. Of course you will never do that, because you are terrified that you might learn the truth.

Quite correct. Robert Mueller is a Marine and he was a Marine Corps officer (captain). I say "is a Marine", because "Once a Marine, always a Marine." Military service instills a set of values in us, especially where our country is concerned.One of those values is exercising the chain-of-command. You do not go around the chain-of-command except in the most extreme situations, and even then you will be held accountable for such a transgression. It is not just "extremely bad form"; it is a transgression of the bases of military organization and order. As such, going around Barr to make a public statement would go completely against Mueller's nature.There's a well-known word for someone who circumvents the chain-of-command, whistle-blower. As long as there are honorable options available, I cannot see Mueller being a whistle-blower.The first option I see would be for Mueller to advise Barr in the release of the report and for Barr to accept his advice in good faith.Failing at that, the second option I see would be for Mueller to request Barr to let him write and issue a dissenting statement.Failing at that as well, the third option I see is for Congress to call Mueller in to testify. This is the most likely option to be taken, as we can already see members of congress calling for it.Should all that fail, we still have Congress ready to subpoena Barr for the full unredacted report.And should all that fail, there's still SCPO Malcolm Nance's scenario of a truck dropping the Mueller report in front of the Washington Post in the middle of the night. (reference to the Pentagon Papers)

Stop looking in the mirror! Mueller is a Marine! He will not violate the chain-of-command unless it becomes absolutely necessary. It is not in his nature to be a whistle-blower. We all know far too well how completely ignorant you are about how anything at all works, but you're just being a blithering, willfully stupid idiot!What Mueller will do next depends on upcoming events, you idiot! He needs to see just exactly what Barr redacts before he can know what important information Barr will try to hide. The important issue is whether Barr will work with Congress to release the full report to them, since they will need that information and evidence in their investigations.And in the end, Congress is certain to call Mueller in to testify about his report. That would be the proper venue for Mueller to speak out. And we have not yet gotten there.So then you'll be happy when Mueller testifies, right? Stop projectile vomiting Fake News Network bullshit lies! Or at the very least clean up the mess you leave.And you still have not read Barr's letter. For the fourth time, you can read it for yourself at https://www.nytimes.com/...s/barr-letter-mueller-report.html. Do so!You claim that the Mueller report completely exonerates Trump. Show us! Quote exactly in Barr's letter that he says that the Mueller report exonerates Trump. Don't forget to include this part:

quote:

---

The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

---

Show us! Or admit that you are wrong.You claim that the Mueller report finds that Trump and his campaign did not collude with Russia. Show us! Quote exactly in Barr's letter that he says that there was no collusion. For that matter, quote exactly in Barr's letter where he even mentions collusion!Show us! Or admit that you are wrong.We all know that Barr pimped himself to Trump with bad legal arguments (so bad they make other lawyers' eye roll) for clearing Trump of charges of obstruction of justice (even though we all have watched Trump repeatedly obstruct justice in plain sight -- well maybe not you since the Fake News Network would never report any of that). That's why he got the AG job, so that he can protect Trump and fix the problems that Trump keeps creating. Reading Barr's summary letter we see that most of it addresses obstruction-of-justice issues. And I have no doubt that his top priority in redacting Mueller's report is to hide all the evidence of obstruction of justice that he can.

You mean that Faith must have also read that underground comic book, "The Further Adventures of Jesus Christ"? In that story, the crowd does assume that he had meant that he wanted to go first. When he walks away disgusted that the crowd didn't understand what he said, they get mad at him and bean him in the head with a stone.In another story, he's doing his 40 days in the desert, so to handle the heat he turns himself into a camel. Immediately Satan arrives to tempt him and Jesus says, "Get behind me, Satan!" Satan replies, "Get behind a camel? Even I know better than to do that!"And in another story, Jesus arrives in the present day (early 70's, Viet Nam War and the draft still going strong) and a policeman asks him for ID. Since he doesn't have his draft card with him, the policeman orders him to report immediately to the induction center. Checking him in, the old woman clerk asks him for his name. "Jesus Christ." "Hm, a Mexican-Greek. We don't get many of those."And in yet another story, Jesus arrives in the present day and gets run over by a car. Three days later, he returns and something else kills him. Three days later, he returns and gets killed again, but this time in the background we see ICBMs flying. Three days later, he returns and all that's left of earth is a fragment of the surface.

So Barr assumes that there should be evidence of "spying" (ignoring his attempts at falsely equivocating that with legitimate surveillance prompted by legitimate concerns), even though there is no actual evidence to base that on.Yet you routinely castigate the other side for the same thing and less. And you expect us to cut you slack that you unequivocally deny us? Fuck you, you hypocrite!You want the investigation to make the case? We want the same thing. We want to know what Mueller's findings are. We want to know what Trump's tax returns reveal. And yet your side keeps trying to keep that secret. Why? Why are you all so afraid of the truth? Because you already know that the truth will only incriminate you?In the campaign, Trump made a big show that anyone who pleads the Fifth Amendment has something to hide and so is automatically guilty. Yet when Trump does the same thing and far worse, you are completely fine with that, you fucking hypocrite.Have you actually read the Bible? Or even just the New Testament? Or even just the Gospels? Are you really that completely ignorant of what Jesus thought of hypocrites?

He's saying that you are projecting all your own evil on those broad-brushed "leftists", which apparently just means anyone who doesn't agree with you.

What we are seeing right now is a rash of anti-abortion laws to charge the woman receiving an abortion with murder, potentially punishable by death by execution (eg, in Texas and Alabama). Furthermore, Georgia has a bill that the governor is likely to sign that could lead to charges of negligent homicide for a woman who has a miscarriage, especially if some kind of accident occurred.Only about half of all human pregnancies will naturally go full term to live birth. Most spontaneous abortions (AKA miscarriages) happen before the woman is even aware that she is pregnant and they normally happen because the embryo/fetus is not viable (eg, it has mutations or alleles that make it nonviable). And there's the case of still birth, which I'm sure would be subject to these laws.A woman who has been through a miscarriage or still birth has already been traumatized enough (eg, my sister-in-law had a still birth and she and her husband were devastated by it), so then we have these anti-abortionists seeking to prosecute her for it. That shows us how evil those anti-abortion fanatics are, which reflects similarly on their religion.But since their motivation is to establish Christian Sharia Law, we need to ask just what the Bible does actually say about abortion and what punishment is called for -- they do claim that it's "God's Absolute Law", don't they? All that I am aware of is God commanding Abraham to perform an abortion and even giving Abraham instructions on how to do it. And if you cause the death of an unborn child then you pay the father a monetary fine for his loss of property. That last one conflicts with anti-abortionists' assertions about when an embryo/fetus becomes a person, since the Bible treats it as property, not as a person. Also compare the punishment for killing a fetus (a monetary fine, so basically a misdemeanor) with gathering firewood on the Sabbath (death, so basically a serious felony). It doesn't look like the Bible nor God take abortion seriously, so what's actually going on here? Does the Bible say other things about abortion specifically that would support anti-abortionists taking such drastic measures?

Still, from both sides, I want to know just exactly what kind of Christian Sharia Law justifications actually exist in support of such draconian legislature.One of the problems that we are all too well aware of is that most "true Christians" have their beliefs and they believe that the Bible supports their beliefs, even when it doesn't. As a result, they believe very fervently that their beliefs are based on the Bible and directly supported by the Bible, even though that is not at all true. The trivial example is that by an incredible coincidence God hates exactly all the people that we also hate -- to quote Nance's Counter-Intelligence Law: "Coincidence takes a lot of planning."So my basic position is question the basic position of others. So if they want to insist that their basic position is being dictated by "God's Absolute Law", then I sure as hell want to see exactly what that "God's Absolute Law" actually says.I haven't seen it yet.

Completely irrelevant, since I said absolutely nothing whatsoever about your propaganda film.Duly noted that you completely avoided the issues and questions that I did raise, which was the rash of severely draconian anti-abortion laws being written in state legislatures and just exactly what the Bible actually does say about abortion.If you don't know what the Bible actually says, then do not try to deflect and distract from that question -- Trump's gross dishonesty corrupts everybody working for him and obviously his followers too. Either admit you don't know, or make an honest attempt, so simply say nothing.

It's not fair to blame low budgets for how bad Christian movies are. They could still do a decent job on a low budget if they had any clue how to make a movie, or had attended even just one class on cinematography, or had watched documentaries on film-making (eg, The Story of Film: An Odyssey, which did an excellent job of explaining the kinds of shots and angles and editing with countless examples).There are several videos on YouTube (eg, this search results page, https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=why+christia...) which discuss the problem. This is the one I had watched several months ago: Why Christian Movies are BAD | The Problem with Christian Media - Part 2. Watch the entire video (15 minutes), but at around 3 minutes he admits that he used to blame the movies' low budgets, but then he saw that "God's Country" had a budget of a million dollars, so lack of funding was not the problem: "Money isn't the problem; it's execution." At about 4 minutes, he discusses the editing of a dialogue between two characters. First he shows it being done properly with the editing cutting between different camera angles which in itself helps to tell the story such that you can get the gist of the scene with the sound turned off. Then he shows a Christian movie dialogue which is boring:

quote:

---

Shot, reverse shot, shot, reverse shot. This isn't the result of a low budget. This is the result of laziness. Good editing can be achieved by a 13-year-old with a phone and iMovie. It doesn't take any money to edit like that. What it does take is creativity and a love for the art form.
...
The problem is not money; they have plenty of it. The problem with Christian movies is that they seem to be made by preachers, not filmmakers.

---

Add to that the ham-fisted writing and the use of false stereotypes and unrealistic events intended to feed the modern myth of Christians being persecuted (when most of the time they are the persecutors). As the narrator of this video points out, these Christians movies are actually sermons which preach culture war. He was a Christian raised on these movies. He saw "God is Not Dead" and was fired up to go forth and do battle against those evil atheists, only to learn the hard way that that propaganda film had lied to him.I remember when Phat posted a message about having just watched "God is Not Dead" and how it had excited him and fired him up. The big scene is when the student debates his atheist philosophy prof and proves that God exists. I asked Phat to tell us what the kid's argument was, he wouldn't tell us. It turns out that the "winning argument" was a big ball of nothing, just him saying that he believes in God so that proves it. Similarly, I watched a Christian movie on creationism with the same kind of lame writing. It culminated in a creation/evolution debate unlike any I've ever seen before or since: the creationist made a short statement of faith which had nothing whatsoever to do with creationism and the pro-evolution biology professor magically could give no response (that's the advantage of being able to write the script yourself).Part of the lack of realism is how the two movies depict college classes. In "God is Not Dead", the philosophy class consisted of every student having to accept the professor's religious beliefs, whereas an actual philosophy prof would teach his students how to think -- clearly at work was the typical "true Christian" misunderstanding of education (ie, learn about the subject matter) as being the same as their own practice of indoctrination (ie, tell the students what to believe and compel them to believe it). In the creationism movie, the biology class consisted solely of the prof asking which came first, the chicken or the egg (seriously! That was the entire content of the course!). Clearly, those writers had never attended any college classes.As for effect that these Christian propaganda films have, you should read the comments for the YouTube video. Here's one:

quote:

---

God's Not Dead is actually a really big reason why I no longer identify as a Christian. I still have faith, and it's a bit complex, but I am not a Christian and want nothing to do with mainstream Christianity. I understand that this movie and others like it do not represent all of Christianity, but they have become so big that the majority of Christians in America actually have conformed to that void of critical thinking whether they like it or not. I watched (or was forced to watch with my family) GND after I had been outside of the perfect Christian bubble for a few years. So it was not the wonderful, self-affirming feel-good movie that the rest of my family saw through their eyes of "Christian persecution in America is real." Instead, it was very clearly propaganda, as I now had Athiest friends and loved ones, and I had seen first hand the many persecutions inflicted on non-Christians and LGBT people by the Christian church itself.

​

In short, to a Christian in a non-diverse bubble, these movies are just a warm and fuzzy chocked full of confirmation bias. For an Athiest, these movies are pure comedy as surely nobody could actually believe stuff like that, right? But as a Christian on the fence, who has learned that non-believers are not the evil baby-eaters I was raised to believe and who has seen loudmouth Christians do everything in their power to destroy the rights, voices, and livelihoods of people who aren't like them, these movies are just another nail in the coffin of our once-perfect childhood religion.

---

No, there's tons of money in Christian movies. Again from Why Christian Movies are BAD | The Problem with Christian Media - Part 2 where Josh Keefe points out that the reason why these movies are so bad is not for lack of money: Face it, they've got a large built-in audience flocking to the theaters eager to be fleeced. And there's a lot of money in that fleece.BTW, Josh Keefe was raised Christian and probably still is one. He was raised on these movies. "God is Not Dead" inspired him to go out and confront all atheists, through which he learned the hard way that that Christian propaganda film had lied to him.In another video (The Problem With Christian Movies: God's Not Dead), he discusses how these films are just sermons devoid of storytelling -- basically, they're to actual film as Chick Pubs tracts are to actual literature. After discussing the failings of "God is Not Dead" at length, including how it not only fails to reach non-Christians but even alienates them with bad depictions of Christians, he contrasts it (at 18 minutes) with a Christian movie, Believe Me, which does succeed at storytelling and become that extremely rare critter, a good movie made by a Christian. Not only that, but for once it's a Christian movie that for once makes Christianity look like it could be something good, thus welcoming outsiders instead of alienating them. Edited by dwise1, : added to last paragraph

Au contraire! I keep asking what the Bible does actually say about abortion and you keep ducking that question. That's rather telling of you.As for the movie, there's nothing to suggest that it isn't just yet another "true Christian" culture-wars propaganda hack job. We've seem too many of those already. Nothing to see there.

It was already presented to you, but obviously you yet again refused to read the evidence. Yet again you have hoisted yourself upon the petard of your willful stupidity. No different than the torturers and executioners in the Spanish Inquisition. Or the Puritans in England in their deadly persecution of Catholics (which led to the Gunpowder Plot involving Guy Fawkes). Or the hunting down, testing through torture, and executing of "witches". All such acts by actors who sincerely believed the truth of their beliefs.That's just as false and invalid an argument as judging the truth of a religion by the number of its followers which you very recently also tried to use. Ever hear "The Road to Hell is paved with the best of intentions." You'd better make reservations early, because It's going to be very crowded.

You are claiming that the Spanish Inquisition did not happen? Really?You claim that the persecution of Catholics in England by the Protestants did not happen? Really?You claim that many women were not falsely accused, tried, and executed for being witches as per the Malleus Maleficarum? Really?You have far exceeded your previous levels of self-delusion. To quote from a British Navy officer's fitrep (paraphrased to adjust for gender):

quote:

---

She reached rock bottom and has started to dig.

---

You called it a fiction right there in Message 1308. You forgot what you had written only 13 minutes before? Is your mind deteriorating that fast now?And your paranoid hatred of Catholics is completely irrelevant, as always. Careful, your {voice=sarcastic}Christian love{/voice} is showing again.