diy solar

diy solar

Democrats on Jan 6th committee destroyed 50% of the evidence.

Is Anyone Surprised? Left-Wing Media Doesn't Like 'Rich Men North Of Richmond'​


Leftists across America have been triggered.

That's probably not going to come as a shock to anyone, but the establishment media and woke social media response to Oliver Anthony's gritty coal country ballad 'Rich Men North Of Richmond' is less than enthusiastic. Much like their reaction to Jason Aldean's 'Try That In A Small Town' which blew up the charts in the face of heavy media backlash, 'Rich Men North Of Richmond' is being derided as a "right wing anthem" laced with "conspiracy theories."

'Try That In A Small Town' goes straight for the throat in pointing out the level of anger among rural Americans and conservatives when it comes to the chaos wrought by leftist ideology. The message is bold - "Try that in our neck of the woods, and we'll rain hell down on you." Democrats attacked the song as "thinly veiled racism" hearkening back to the days of southern lynch mobs - But of course, the race baiting tactic is long worn out and no one seems to care about the accusations anymore. And, rather hypocritically, leftists once again reveal their underlying racism by suggesting that a song about rising crime can only be about black people.

Oliver Anthony's song is much more reserved and seems to take inspiration from protest songs of the 1960s and 1970s. The sound is also rooted in the classic country tones of performers like Hank William's Jr, escaping the boring overproduced robot music of the modern era. Rich Men North Of Richmond is simple, but Anthony's talent is undeniable. The song is also honest in its observations, so it's not surprising that the media is unsettled by it.

The political left often brags about their loyalty to the working class, but like all communists, they see the working class as a tool to be exploited, not a valuable pillar of society that needs to be saved. As soon as working men speak up in a way that runs contrary to the narrative, leftists seek to slap them back down again.

Initial social media complaints about the song sought to link it to racism, just as critics tried to do with Try That In A Small Town. The suggestion was that "Rich Men North Of Richmond" was a Civil War reference in favor of the Confederacy and slavery. When woke activists were educated on the fact that the phrase refers to rich politicians in Washington DC, they shifted to the classic argument that white America doesn't really know what hardship is and that they are in no position to complain. That's obviously nonsense, but reasoning with zealots is impossible.

The corporate media has taken a more subtle approach than usual to the song, stopping short of calling it a racist theme for lynch mobs. However, they are running with the "right wing anthem" argument (and in their minds that label alone is supposed to be a very bad thing).

The specific criticisms of Rich Men are perhaps the most interesting aspect - For example, Rolling Stone made particular reference to 'Regan era talking points' like Anthony's critique of fat people living on welfare. The political left has been engaged in an aggressive campaign to make "fat shaming" a form of hate speech, and they treat debates over welfare and entitlement programs as "archaic" and outdated. It's a common method of dismissing a political conflict by pigeonholing anyone in disagreement as being a caveman.

Strangely though, media commentators are even more annoyed by Rich Men's lyrics referring most likely to Epstein's Island, where "politicians look for minors." Rolling Stone called the reference 'head turning' and described Epstein's trafficking of child sex slaves to wealthy elites and powerful political leaders as "alleged" - The events on Epstein's Island are not a theory, they are factual and on record. Keep in mind that this is the same Rolling Stone that attacked the film Sound Of Freedom, a movie about a real life child trafficking sting, as "Q-Anon conspiracy theory."

The New York Daily News pointed out the reference while diminishing child trafficking as "...the center of many right wing conspiracy theories." According to the Department of Homeland Security, child trafficking is a global $150 billion a year business, often involving very wealthy participants.

It should be said that the establishment and the political left tends to reveal their true colors in the things that they try to sabotage. The progressive attempt to diminish a talented songwriter singing about the plight of the blue-collar working man and the corruption of government indicates that these people don't care at all about the working man and are invested in government corruption. It's a reality most of us are aware of, but it's fun to hear about it in a song that makes leftists and media journalists squirm.
 
It's ok to have a sense of humor Smurph.
I was asking a serious question.. We have lasers on navy ships, even some lasers on air planes... and we have ground based lasers.

Why not one in space to shoot stuff on the ground?
 
I was asking a serious question.. We have lasers on navy ships, even some lasers on air planes... and we have ground based lasers.

Why not one in space to shoot stuff on the ground?
From what I understand, the energy requirement to make it effective as a weapon to shoot down incoming missiles required something akkin to a nuclear detonation.
 
From what I understand, the energy requirement to make it effective as a weapon to shoot down incoming missiles required something akkin to a nuclear detonation.

The problem is refraction.

This is why even ground based lasers are limited to just a few kilometers.. like 4 to 6 miles..

As electromagnetic energy (photons) travel through the atmosphere, the air particles and gasses that make up our atmosphere refract the energy like death by a 1000 cuts... Every gas and dust particle sucks away a tiny bit of energy by either heating up, or reflecting (bouncing) some of the photons away. Sure, you could pump even more energy into the beam to make it punch through the air, but the refracted energy would cause anything around your target to be harmed as well.. in the case of humans, that would cause them to go blind at best.. or burst into flames.

It would no longer be a surgical weapon but more of a carpet bombing.

Even the best lasers for defense have to wait until their target is close.
 
The problem is refraction.

This is why even ground based lasers are limited to just a few kilometers.. like 4 to 6 miles..

As electromagnetic energy (photons) travel through the atmosphere, the air particles and gasses that make up our atmosphere refract the energy like death by a 1000 cuts... Every gas and dust particle sucks away a tiny bit of energy by either heating up, or reflecting (bouncing) some of the photons away. Sure, you could pump even more energy into the beam to make it punch through the air, but the refracted energy would cause anything around your target to be harmed as well.. in the case of humans, that would cause them to go blind at best.. or burst into flames.

It would no longer be a surgical weapon but more of a carpet bombing.

Even the best lasers for defense have to wait until their target is close.

I thought the laser was to scramble guidance, not to transfer heat energy.
 
I thought the laser was to scramble guidance, not to transfer heat energy.
How would a laser scramble guidance?

Oh! You mean like jamming a laser guided bomb! Dang, I forgot all about those..

The answer is no. Those big expensive power sucking lasers do not work by jamming anything.. They burn through their target in the hopes of hitting something vital.. and since cruise missiles and guided rockets don't have bathrooms or dance floors, pretty much everything inside them is vital so it almost doesn't matter where you hit them..

In the case of long range munitions, the laser hits something important.. the fuel, GPS, steering controls, or even the explosive warhead itself.

That's not to say a laser guided bomb can't be jammed with another laser.. theoretically possible, but the reality is quite different. You would have to know the exact frequency of its laser seeking head, and be positioned to hit it. None of which is really practical on a battlefield.

Interesting tidbit.. Most of these high energy defensive lasers aren't lasers at all.. They used doped fibers.. and while they still get the light amplification, there is no lasing or optical cavity...

Don't ask me how that works because that's a physics I don't study. What I can say is that the beam of light is pumped through an optical fiber that has atoms of rare earth elements in it (it is "doped"), with elements on the periodic chart that never enter the vocabulary of most people... EVER..
If someone ever wanted to make a case for humans copying alien technology, fiber lasers would be a good one to start with.
 
How would a laser scramble guidance?

Oh! You mean like jamming a laser guided bomb! Dang, I forgot all about those..

The answer is no. Those big expensive power sucking lasers do not work by jamming anything.. They burn through their target in the hopes of hitting something vital.. and since cruise missiles and guided rockets don't have bathrooms or dance floors, pretty much everything inside them is vital so it almost doesn't matter where you hit them..

In the case of long range munitions, the laser hits something important.. the fuel, GPS, steering controls, or even the explosive warhead itself.

That's not to say a laser guided bomb can't be jammed with another laser.. theoretically possible, but the reality is quite different. You would have to know the exact frequency of its laser seeking head, and be positioned to hit it. None of which is really practical on a battlefield.

Interesting tidbit.. Most of these high energy defensive lasers aren't lasers at all.. They used doped fibers.. and while they still get the light amplification, there is no lasing or optical cavity...

Don't ask me how that works because that's a physics I don't study. What I can say is that the beam of light is pumped through an optical fiber that has atoms of rare earth elements in it (it is "doped"), with elements on the periodic chart that never enter the vocabulary of most people... EVER..
If someone ever wanted to make a case for humans copying alien technology, fiber lasers would be a good one to start with.
Nope. High powered lasers designed to defend against missiles dont target anything "vital" on the missile. They merely cause a small deformation on the skin of the missile fuselage. The airflow at the speed at which the missile travels is sufficient that the missile breaks apart.
Youre right about defraction, and it was even worse for Boeings ABL system they spent billions developing. The concept was that a 747 was supposed to loiter off the coast of hostile countries and target ballistic missiles on the upward part of the trajectory. They got pretty far into development when they realized coastal areas are usually prone to cloud coverage and it would be useless most of the time. It also used a chemical laser which required carrying large amounts of highly toxic liquid substances, and would have to operate at only large airports around the world in foreign countries that wouldnt be too keen at having a plane crash and the resulting deadly mess.
It looked good on paper.
Tracking and guidance remains a big issue with all directed energy weapons. We can project a powerful beam but coordinating that with your tracking apparatus, with the required feedback for error correction, is difficult. ABL used 3 different lasers all in all IIRC.
This is sick:

 
And then there are those whose stupidity just comes naturally as part of their arrogance and conceit.

You're someone who thinks we could be spreading life thru the galaxy with our space probes.. And invested something like 3 pages(?) arguing about it..

Take a moment to allow that level of stupid to sink in. You're in the climate denier camp, the anti-vaxxer camp, the stolen election camp, and probably several other camps created for the demographic of really stupid people we have in this country.

I understand why you constantly disparage education.. its because you don't have one.
I understand why you constantly disparage the "elites".. its because you aren't one.


1692230713138.png
 
You're someone who thinks we could be spreading life thru the galaxy with our space probes.. And invested something like 3 pages(?) arguing about it..

Take a moment to allow that level of stupid to sink in. You're in the climate denier camp, the anti-vaxxer camp, the stolen election camp, and probably several other camps created for the demographic of really stupid people we have in this country.

I understand why you constantly disparage education.. its because you don't have one.
I understand why you constantly disparage the "elites".. its because you aren't one.


View attachment 163106
Show me one single post where I have denied climate change or expressed anti vaccination views.
One.
Single.
Post.

This is typical of you. You dont pay attention to what other users actually post. You just make false assumptions of what their views are and direct all your ire for everything you oppose and hurl it at them, and call them stupid.

As for my views on the 2020 election, I have always documented my claims with credible references, that youve not refuted, so dont pretend you can portray them as conspiracy theories just because you believe the lies of most of the media. Zuckerbucks happened, thats never been seriously questioned by ANYONE.
 
Keeping this on topic, it would be relevent if you provided proof the Democrats didnt destroy almost half the evidence of January 6th. The references I provided say they did.

You coming in here just to abuse people and call them stupid is just your expected interference for the illegal and reprehensible actions of your shit political party.

Just like your ridiculing the idea the election was stolen or rigged. In discussions where proof was provided all you did was provide personal attacks and abuse, now you think more of the same is a credible argument from you.

Who is the stupid one. (Not a question)
 
Show me one single post where I have denied climate change or expressed anti vaccination views.
One.
Single.
Post.

This is typical of you. You dont pay attention to what other users actually post. You just make false assumptions of what their views are and direct all your ire for everything you oppose and hurl it at them, and call them stupid.

As for my views on the 2020 election, I have always documented my claims with credible references, that youve not refuted, so dont pretend you can portray them as conspiracy theories just because you believe the lies of most of the media. Zuckerbucks happened, thats never been seriously questioned by ANYONE.
People who lie ( make up stories tend to have a hard time remembering who they lied what to so..............)
 

Is Anyone Surprised? Left-Wing Media Doesn't Like 'Rich Men North Of Richmond'​


Leftists across America have been triggered.

That's probably not going to come as a shock to anyone, but the establishment media and woke social media response to Oliver Anthony's gritty coal country ballad 'Rich Men North Of Richmond' is less than enthusiastic. Much like their reaction to Jason Aldean's 'Try That In A Small Town' which blew up the charts in the face of heavy media backlash, 'Rich Men North Of Richmond' is being derided as a "right wing anthem" laced with "conspiracy theories."

'Try That In A Small Town' goes straight for the throat in pointing out the level of anger among rural Americans and conservatives when it comes to the chaos wrought by leftist ideology. The message is bold - "Try that in our neck of the woods, and we'll rain hell down on you." Democrats attacked the song as "thinly veiled racism" hearkening back to the days of southern lynch mobs - But of course, the race baiting tactic is long worn out and no one seems to care about the accusations anymore. And, rather hypocritically, leftists once again reveal their underlying racism by suggesting that a song about rising crime can only be about black people.

Oliver Anthony's song is much more reserved and seems to take inspiration from protest songs of the 1960s and 1970s. The sound is also rooted in the classic country tones of performers like Hank William's Jr, escaping the boring overproduced robot music of the modern era. Rich Men North Of Richmond is simple, but Anthony's talent is undeniable. The song is also honest in its observations, so it's not surprising that the media is unsettled by it.

The political left often brags about their loyalty to the working class, but like all communists, they see the working class as a tool to be exploited, not a valuable pillar of society that needs to be saved. As soon as working men speak up in a way that runs contrary to the narrative, leftists seek to slap them back down again.

Initial social media complaints about the song sought to link it to racism, just as critics tried to do with Try That In A Small Town. The suggestion was that "Rich Men North Of Richmond" was a Civil War reference in favor of the Confederacy and slavery. When woke activists were educated on the fact that the phrase refers to rich politicians in Washington DC, they shifted to the classic argument that white America doesn't really know what hardship is and that they are in no position to complain. That's obviously nonsense, but reasoning with zealots is impossible.

The corporate media has taken a more subtle approach than usual to the song, stopping short of calling it a racist theme for lynch mobs. However, they are running with the "right wing anthem" argument (and in their minds that label alone is supposed to be a very bad thing).

The specific criticisms of Rich Men are perhaps the most interesting aspect - For example, Rolling Stone made particular reference to 'Regan era talking points' like Anthony's critique of fat people living on welfare. The political left has been engaged in an aggressive campaign to make "fat shaming" a form of hate speech, and they treat debates over welfare and entitlement programs as "archaic" and outdated. It's a common method of dismissing a political conflict by pigeonholing anyone in disagreement as being a caveman.

Strangely though, media commentators are even more annoyed by Rich Men's lyrics referring most likely to Epstein's Island, where "politicians look for minors." Rolling Stone called the reference 'head turning' and described Epstein's trafficking of child sex slaves to wealthy elites and powerful political leaders as "alleged" - The events on Epstein's Island are not a theory, they are factual and on record. Keep in mind that this is the same Rolling Stone that attacked the film Sound Of Freedom, a movie about a real life child trafficking sting, as "Q-Anon conspiracy theory."

The New York Daily News pointed out the reference while diminishing child trafficking as "...the center of many right wing conspiracy theories." According to the Department of Homeland Security, child trafficking is a global $150 billion a year business, often involving very wealthy participants.

It should be said that the establishment and the political left tends to reveal their true colors in the things that they try to sabotage. The progressive attempt to diminish a talented songwriter singing about the plight of the blue-collar working man and the corruption of government indicates that these people don't care at all about the working man and are invested in government corruption. It's a reality most of us are aware of, but it's fun to hear about it in a song that makes leftists and media journalists squirm.
Theyve tried to do the same with the 70s hit from The Band and Joan Baez "The Night They Drove Ole Dixie Down" by portraying it as promoting the Confederacy and slavery which is just stupid. It tells the story of a poor white farmer who never owned slaves, lamenting the starvation and poverty at the end of the war. It relates that local people were celebrating the end of a futile, ill conceived war. It was written by a Canadian and its biggest chart performance was from a firm liberal feminist.
But dont confuse them with facts.
 
Show me one single post where I have denied climate change or expressed anti vaccination views.
One.
Single.
Post.
I didn't say you denied climate change.. I said "climate denier".. You folks no longer deny the climate is changing like you did back in the 80's and 90's.. The story has changed from denying the climate is changing, to denying its caused by mankind.. and I think we're now in the middle of another shift and new story where it has become "deny and reject anything that can help mitigate it"

Your "camp's" story changes almost every decade.. Same thing happened with tobacco, acid rain, and several other problems. There's actually a book about it called "Merchants of Doubt".. you should read it.



This is typical of you. You dont pay attention to what other users actually post. You just make false assumptions of what their views are and direct all your ire for everything you oppose and hurl it at them, and call them stupid.
Says the guy who didn't pay attention to what I posted.

"Call them stupid" ???? Dude, you spent 3 pages(?) arguing that we're spreading life thru the galaxy with our space probes...

As for my views on the 2020 election, I have always documented my claims with credible references, that youve not refuted,
Your definition of credible is any wack job with a blog or youtube channel.

so dont pretend you can portray them as conspiracy theories just because you believe the lies of most of the media. Zuckerbucks happened, thats never been seriously questioned by ANYONE.
I'm sure Zuckerbucks did happen.. You can thank the republicans for that.. they fought long and hard all the way to the supreme court to allow mega corporations to put money into our politics.. You got what you asked for, stop crying about it.
 
I didn't say you denied climate change.. I said "climate denier".. You folks no longer deny the climate is changing like you did back in the 80's and 90's.. The story has changed from denying the climate is changing, to denying its caused by mankind.. and I think we're now in the middle of another shift and new story where it has become "deny and reject anything that can help mitigate it"

Your "camp's" story changes almost every decade.. Same thing happened with tobacco, acid rain, and several other problems. There's actually a book about it called "Merchants of Doubt".. you should read it.




Says the guy who didn't pay attention to what I posted.

"Call them stupid" ???? Dude, you spent 3 pages(?) arguing that we're spreading life thru the galaxy with our space probes...


Your definition of credible is any wack job with a blog or youtube channel.


I'm sure Zuckerbucks did happen.. You can thank the republicans for that.. they fought long and hard all the way to the supreme court to allow mega corporations to put money into our politics.. You got what you asked for, stop crying about it.


"I didn't say you denied climate change.. I said "climate denier"...

Haha. Youre fucking hilarious. That whole paragraph is an exercise in mental gymnastics where you back pedal your statement to criticizing our opposition to questionable policies that claim to mitigate climate change but are actually intended to promote other agendas like global socialism, totalitarian government power, or giving more power to liberals.

If thats what I am accused of then Im proud of it.

Just dont accuse me of being a koolaid drinking wanna be environmentalist who stupidly promotes every stupid policy thats proposed even if it leads to more harm than good.

But anyway you were called on your bullshit and just doubled down with more bullshit.


As for Zuckerbucks here you are trying to equate it to something republicans did.

No, no, and no.

Ill waste my time and present this again.
"Zuckerberg gifted nearly half a billion dollars to two left-wing groups that then gave the money to government election offices. One of these two groups was the Center for Technology and Civic Life. By the September before the election, Zuckerberg and his wife had given it $350 million, meaning the small organization’s prior revenues of $1.8 million exploded by roughly 20,000 percent.

The cash, or “Zuckerbucks,” wasn’t an unconditional donation, however. There were strings attached, which amounted to Democrat get-out-the-vote efforts, mass mail-in voting, and ballot “curing,” whereby election workers “fix” mail-in ballot problems after the ballot has been submitted.

These dollars also didn’t flow indiscriminately to needy areas of the country but largely to government election offices in the biggest cities of swing states, where the majority of Democrat voters are concentrated. Those funds were used for Democrat voter outreach, designing and translating ballots, and staffing ballot harvesting, curing, and counting operations."

--------------------
----------------

That has absofuckinglutely NOTHING to do with ANYTHING republicans have done, EVER.
By gifting these government servants in these election offices with slush funds they were free to spend on virtually anything they wanted to, the election was corrupted and its no surprise all these government workers want to claim the election was fair and secure. Their own corruption would be revealed if they told the truth.
The election was fucking rigged. Trump has been telling the truth.
 
More zuckerbucks links.




Youtube? Blogs?

No. More dishonesty on your part. I presented these same links repeatedly. Why are you so full of shit?
 
The election was fucking rigged. Trump has been telling the truth.
If you can clear your system of whatever drugs you're on, consider the following:

The republican's haven't been able to prove anything about rigged elections, and yet they control the supreme court.

Option 1)
So assuming the election was rigged, that means the democrats are so much smarter than conservatives that not only were they capable of stealing an election, they were able to do it without getting caught..

Option 2)
Its either that, or you're just a an idiot.

Based on the fact that you think we might be "spreading life thru the galaxy with our space probes".. I'm pretty certain its option 2.

1692250838801.png
 

Is Anyone Surprised? Left-Wing Media Doesn't Like 'Rich Men North Of Richmond'​


Leftists across America have been triggered.

That's probably not going to come as a shock to anyone, but the establishment media and woke social media response to Oliver Anthony's gritty coal country ballad 'Rich Men North Of Richmond' is less than enthusiastic. Much like their reaction to Jason Aldean's 'Try That In A Small Town' which blew up the charts in the face of heavy media backlash, 'Rich Men North Of Richmond' is being derided as a "right wing anthem" laced with "conspiracy theories."

'Try That In A Small Town' goes straight for the throat in pointing out the level of anger among rural Americans and conservatives when it comes to the chaos wrought by leftist ideology. The message is bold - "Try that in our neck of the woods, and we'll rain hell down on you." Democrats attacked the song as "thinly veiled racism" hearkening back to the days of southern lynch mobs - But of course, the race baiting tactic is long worn out and no one seems to care about the accusations anymore. And, rather hypocritically, leftists once again reveal their underlying racism by suggesting that a song about rising crime can only be about black people.

Oliver Anthony's song is much more reserved and seems to take inspiration from protest songs of the 1960s and 1970s. The sound is also rooted in the classic country tones of performers like Hank William's Jr, escaping the boring overproduced robot music of the modern era. Rich Men North Of Richmond is simple, but Anthony's talent is undeniable. The song is also honest in its observations, so it's not surprising that the media is unsettled by it.

The political left often brags about their loyalty to the working class, but like all communists, they see the working class as a tool to be exploited, not a valuable pillar of society that needs to be saved. As soon as working men speak up in a way that runs contrary to the narrative, leftists seek to slap them back down again.

Initial social media complaints about the song sought to link it to racism, just as critics tried to do with Try That In A Small Town. The suggestion was that "Rich Men North Of Richmond" was a Civil War reference in favor of the Confederacy and slavery. When woke activists were educated on the fact that the phrase refers to rich politicians in Washington DC, they shifted to the classic argument that white America doesn't really know what hardship is and that they are in no position to complain. That's obviously nonsense, but reasoning with zealots is impossible.

The corporate media has taken a more subtle approach than usual to the song, stopping short of calling it a racist theme for lynch mobs. However, they are running with the "right wing anthem" argument (and in their minds that label alone is supposed to be a very bad thing).

The specific criticisms of Rich Men are perhaps the most interesting aspect - For example, Rolling Stone made particular reference to 'Regan era talking points' like Anthony's critique of fat people living on welfare. The political left has been engaged in an aggressive campaign to make "fat shaming" a form of hate speech, and they treat debates over welfare and entitlement programs as "archaic" and outdated. It's a common method of dismissing a political conflict by pigeonholing anyone in disagreement as being a caveman.

Strangely though, media commentators are even more annoyed by Rich Men's lyrics referring most likely to Epstein's Island, where "politicians look for minors." Rolling Stone called the reference 'head turning' and described Epstein's trafficking of child sex slaves to wealthy elites and powerful political leaders as "alleged" - The events on Epstein's Island are not a theory, they are factual and on record. Keep in mind that this is the same Rolling Stone that attacked the film Sound Of Freedom, a movie about a real life child trafficking sting, as "Q-Anon conspiracy theory."

The New York Daily News pointed out the reference while diminishing child trafficking as "...the center of many right wing conspiracy theories." According to the Department of Homeland Security, child trafficking is a global $150 billion a year business, often involving very wealthy participants.

It should be said that the establishment and the political left tends to reveal their true colors in the things that they try to sabotage. The progressive attempt to diminish a talented songwriter singing about the plight of the blue-collar working man and the corruption of government indicates that these people don't care at all about the working man and are invested in government corruption. It's a reality most of us are aware of, but it's fun to hear about it in a song that makes leftists and media journalists squirm.
Overall, we rate ZeroHedge an extreme right-biased conspiracy website based on the promotion of false/misleading/debunked information that routinely denigrates the left.
 
More zuckerbucks links.




Youtube? Blogs?

No. More dishonesty on your part. I presented these same links repeatedly. Why are you so full of shit?
You keep repeating lies, why?
 

diy solar

diy solar
Back
Top