Trump Campaign Uses 'Dark Knight' Music In Campaign Ad, Warner Bros. Says It's Looking At Legal Options
from the the-infringement-we-deserve dept
Update: As was pointed out by some in the comments and at other media outlets, we want to clarify that the video in quesiton was not created by the Trump campaign, but was instead created by a Reddit user and then passed around the internet by Trump himself and his campaign. None of that really changes the overall point on the hypocrisy of the President, given his widespread use of intellectual property law, nor does it change the laughable response from his campaign manager.
Every political campaign season, which now apparently perpetually overlap and place us all in a never ending and hellish new reality, we always end up hearing about supposed copyright infringement by political campaigns. These claims typically involve music that accompanies candidates at public events, and the claims typically are misguided, as campaigns usually get a blanket license for this music. Still, more recently, we've also seen the occasional use of music by a campaign that actually does appear to be infringement, as both Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee have found themselves having to defend their use of music on the trail. As you keep that history in your head, place it directly next to the rather infamous view Donald Trump has taken on intellectual property in general, and even on how his campaign has used it jealously in particular.
And then read about how the Trump 2020 campaign decided to release a campaign video that just flat out used music from The Dark Knight for some reason.
President Trump’s latest 2020 campaign video was removed from Twitter Tuesday night after Warner Brothers Entertainment requested it be taken down due to the use of music from “The Dark Knight Rises'” score in the clip.
“The use of Warner Bros.’ score from ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ in the campaign video was unauthorized,” a Warner Brothers spokesperson said in a statement before the removal. “We are working through the appropriate legal channels to have it removed.”
The two-minute video not only utilized Hans Zimmer’s “Why Do We Fall?” from the 2012 threequel, but also shared the font used for the film’s title cards.
What makes this all interesting is, again, Donald Trump's and his family's long history of IP use, enforcement, and their willingness to wield litigation as a cudgel. It seems hypocritical for the Trump campaign to bandy about using well-known movie scores in a campaign advertisement. It's also plainly understandable why Warner Bros. wouldn't want to be seen as backing any particular candidate by remaining silent on the use of its music. While we regularly rail against silly takedowns over copyright, this one seems to make sense.
Or, if you are to believe Trump's campaign manager, Brad Parscale, this is all somehow CNN's fault.
Sad to see an @ATT owned company pull such a great video made by an every day American in good fun. AT&T now owns @CNN and is positioning themselves as a weapon of the left. pic.twitter.com/jP9kM0Rx7p
— Brad Parscale (@parscale) April 10, 2019
Now, if you think that tweet makes even a modicum of sense, I... just... no. AT&T does indeed own Warner Bros., and CNN too, but it takes more mental yoga than I'm capable of to somehow twist the mind into believing that a takedown of obvious copyright infringement is somehow to do with a parent company's ownership over a long-standing cable news company.
Maybe just don't hypocritically slap a movie's soundtrack onto a campaign ad?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: campaign ad, copyright, dark night, donald trump, hans zimmer
Companies: at&t, warner bros.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And this isn’t fair use...
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And this isn’t fair use...
The story doesn't give any detail about the takedown process, which means we can only guess whether "fair use" is a relevant concept. For a DMCA takedown it matters, but many major sites have "backdoor" processes that don't involve courts or rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And this isn’t fair use...
It does appear to absolutely be a DMCA takedown, probably triggered by a bot.
I bet Trump is taking it personally and/or as some kind of Clinton plot to take his campaign down, though...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And this isn’t fair use...
Why would it be? It's a commercial intended to promote Trump, it's not a parody or similar, and it can be argued that any appearance that WB, Hans Zimmer or others are endorsing Trump could harm them among people who don't support Trump (who, despite the constant claims otherwise by the orange one, are a majority of Americans).
That would appear to make it likely to fail all four "tests" applied to determine fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And this isn’t fair use...
Unfortunately far too many people think everything is fair use. It actually hurts those trying to make sure that fair use is protected. Although my favorite was when someone put "Used under educational pretenses" on a copyrighted video in a sad attempt to prevent copyright claims. I guess they didn't know what 'pretenses" means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And this isn’t fair use...
"Unfortunately far too many people think everything is fair use"
Commercial use - right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And this isn’t fair use...
Just using someone else's music isn't fair use.
Where is the commentary or Criticism relating to the piece of music? It's not there.
Where is the transformative angle? Doesn't exist.
Is it a parody? No
You can't just slap someone else's soundtrack on your work just because you want to. It isn't fair use because it isn't a limited and “transformative” use. It's copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the tiniest bit of fairness to the orange goblin sitting in the Oval Office — and I despise giving him that much — his campaign did not create the original video. Someone else made the video; he merely lifted it from YouTube and reposted it.
…which means the video not only contained copyright-infringing music, but Trump himself technically violated the (presumed) copyright on the video itself. Now that’s comedy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And if we would go with a certain persons recommendation on how to handle copyright infringement I can only say one thing: "Throw the damn pirates in jail!".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is why this is copyright infringement
Playing music at a political rally, music venue, store, public place, etc.. is done with blanket license through the likes of ASCAP and BMI. This license allows you to play any and all music and the rights holder have no say in whether or not you can play an individual song. However, adding music to a video (visual medium) requires a different kind of license called a sync license. Sync licenses are not granted automatically and there is no organization like ASCAP that will sell you a blanket license. They must be negotiated with the rights holder for each individual song. If even one of the rights holders says no then it can not be used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here is why this is copyright infringement
The usual copyright trolls have insisted that playing music at "private events" like an estate pool party constitute a public performance, for which money must be paid.
As usual, though, expect out_of_the_blue to crow about this as some twisted personal victory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here is why this is copyright infringement
It's worth citing for those who don't get it:
IF A CAMPAIGN WANTS TO USE A SONG IN A CAMPAIGN COMMERCIAL, WHAT PERMISSIONS DOES
IT NEED?
The campaign will need to contact the song’s publisher and possibly the artist’s record label to
negotiate the appropriate licenses with them.
https://www.ascap.com/~/media/files/pdf/advocacy-legislation/political_campaign.pdf
I'm sure Trump fans will pretend he's not a pirate somehow, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here is why this is copyright infringement
Someone who declares a national emergency in order to divert dozens of billions from the national budget into the pockets of his construction industry cronies is not a pirate.
He is just annoyed that he can do the big crime while getting ankle bites for the petty crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Here is why this is copyright infringement
And there is NO EMERGENCY at the Border! Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Here is why this is copyright infringement
There is a humanitarian emergency that cannot be addressed by walls or locking children in cages. With regard to illegal immigration, an "emergency" that has not substantially changed over a decade is not something in need of bypassing Congress. It also turns out that the majority of illegal immigration goes through the regular border control points by people not returning from a regular trip. A wall will make it harder for such people to return silently.
There are also a number of measures with regard to border surveillance that would be more effective than walls. However, those would not allow shoveling large amounts of money for decades into the construction industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'It's easy to avoid infringement' they said...
An entire campaign worth of people, and they can't be bothered to have one of them actually license the music they're using and/or make sure that it is licensed, such that they end up looking like chumps and shooting yet more holes in any claims to 'respect creators' they might otherwise use.
Gotta love the pathetic attempt to shift blame too, classic Trump to get caught out like that and try to make himself out as the victim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'It's easy to avoid infringement' they said...
Well.. it's not surprising. Trump's track record is of hiring cronies who are directly opposed to the very function of the position to which they are hired. The idea that he'd hire a campaign staff that doesn't understand campaign law would be par for the course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Force of Hypocrisy’s Face is strong with you!
I think there is no better testament to the tw-faced phony opinion of Techdirt’s supporters than this article and the accompanying comments. I have seen hundreds of articles and thousands of posts and even the open proclamation that “copying is not theft” on this site for years. Now that a Trump supporter copies a little music, the entire narrative shifts into an opposite gear, and everyone suddenly agrees with the same “opposite time” line of reasoning complete with legitimizing copyright enforce if Trump is the pirate. Wow.
You are completely phoney fucktwats, all of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Force of Hypocrisy’s Face is strong with you!
As usual you disingenuously conflate things because it fits your narrative or perhaps you aren't smart enough to realize this.
First, the video with the music in question was used in a political and commercial setting without a license which makes it a clear case of infringement. No one here have ever said that this type of infringement is okay, even you should understand this but I don't have very high hopes of that.
Second, "copying is not theft" is still true since no-one was deprived of their copy of the music in this instance.
Also, why aren't you screaming about throwing the ones perpetrating this copyright infringement in jail? You have on many occasions said that "pirates" belong in jail with no exceptions.
I think we all can clearly see who the real hypocrite is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Force of Hypocrisy’s Face is strong with you!
I think this series of posts will be useful for years to come, especially in a legal setting.
No kidding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Force of Hypocrisy’s Face is strong with you!
Oh, do please explain in unequivocal terms how the posts are going to be used in a legal setting!
I dare you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Force of Hypocrisy’s Face is strong with y
I’ll give you a hint - my attorney is well known to be all bite and no bark. Sky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
…your attorney is a langolier?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, he probably is a fictional character, so why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You are obviously a sexist. Not all attorneys are men, you ignorant insensitive sexist pig. I’m filing a grievance with the USPTO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Don't forget to report PaulT to ICE. "They" must be from a garbage country to be so insensitive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, report me to an agency that deals with a different continent to where I live. That’ll show me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is was only sarcasm, following in the other AC's footsteps... Seemed obvious but sorry for the miscommunication.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Poe strikes again... Honestly, one AC replying to another with inane moronic assertions usually means he's just replying to himself
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not really. The phrase “copying is not theft” refers to the asinine belief that copyright infringement is a form of theft. The act of copying a creative work (in part or in whole) may be prohibited or unauthorized, but it is not theft; even the Supreme Court recognized that fact. Nothing about this story is hypocritical in that regard because we can believe the maxim of “copying is not theft” and point out a case of copyright infringement simultaneously. That the infringer is either Donald Trump or one of his supporters is ultimately irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hilarious reasoning, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please explain how a person cannot simultaneously believe the axiom “copying is not theft” is true and copyright infringement is still illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please go on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How's that Paul Hansmeier defense fund coming along, bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Force of Hypocrisy’s Face is strong with you!
So what you're saying is, you hate it when copyright law is enforced?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Now that a Trump supporter copies a little music"
You can't even go a full paragraph without lying about the very thing you are commenting upon, can you? This was not "a Trump supporter", it's Trump's own employees, on his own commercial product. It's his own project.
But, hey, you're right, we do treat this differently. It's not someone sharing a file, or who captured a snippet of music in the background of a family video, or who is using fair use right to create something new. It's the POTIUS trying to push for re-election while flagrantly and directly violating ASCAP rules that cover exactly this kind of usage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your post is music to my ears. It confirms so much, so publicly, and right from your own mouth.
“But, hey, you’re right, we do treat this differently” - no kidding.
You advocate selective application of the law depending upon who is the subject of the law, and you admit that you speak for the group. The group has a single opinion, and that opinion completely depends upon who is the subject of the law, not the law itself. All your arguments concerning the law can be suddenly inverted if it applies to someone with whom you disagree.
You have no credibility at all. You have now officially flunked legal kindergarten.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The funny thing about credibility, you get none for taking things out of context - which only tells us you are a very dishonest person..
You just can't help yourself, can't you? You just have to constantly lie, conflate, misrepresent, cherry pick, distort to make your point which always fails.
You have officially flunked being an honest person for a VERY long time now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"“But, hey, you’re right, we do treat this differently” - no kidding."
Yes, I treat different actions differently. The rest of your nonsense only makes sense if you lie about what other people are saying and ignore your own hypocrisy.
I do notice that you're not taking Trump to task about so openly breaking the law for profit, as you do the average citizen. Whereas you call for the greatest possible punishment for others, you give this fraudster a free pass. Why is that, I wonder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We advocate for fair application of the law. If Donald Trump or one of his supporters infringed upon a copyright held by Warner Bros., they should receive the same treatment under the law that you or I would receive if we had infringed upon that same copyright. Neither of them should receive any form of immunity from the consequences of violating copyright law only because of who they are — and the same belief would apply if we were talking about Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Same for people who steal games, right? Or movies, or music, right? You advocate for equal application of the law for anyone who infringes any copyright, right? You are no one should receive any form of immunity from copyright law, patent law, trademark law, or any other law, right? Right?
Oh wait, where am I again? Is this “Infowars”?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your rhetorical gimmick will not work on me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: old impotent fuckwit is lost and cinfused
“Oh wait, where am I again? Is this “Infowars”?”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tell me it's the villains music and they play it as he enters the stage. That's it right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Honest question - why do you hate Trump so much?
I understand why the Estabishment hates Trump - are you the Establishment?
I understand why the Deep State hates Trump - are you part of the Deep State?
I understand why Hillary hates Trump - are you Hillary?
I like the value of my 401k going up. I like the idea that less illegal aliens will be entering the US after The Wall is built. I like Burr and think he is going to prosecute a lot of criminal activity, and soon. I see Chelsea Manning is in Jail, I think that’s great. My taxes are lower. My income is higher. My friends are happy and saving more money than ever.
What is there NOT to like about Trump’s results?
Why do you hate him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Honest question - why do you hate Trump so much?"
"I like the value of my 401k going up."
"I like the idea that less illegal aliens will be entering the US"
Denial is a horrible way to go through life, perhaps professional help is in order and since you are so well off I'm sure you can afford it, unlike most of your fellow citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You mean the way Clintons “tell the truth”? “I did not have sex with that lady”. Right. Vote them in, they deserve your respect.
The consequences of you not liking the “style” of Trump? Yeah, I can live with that. Who cares?
Legal Immigrants are not the same as Illegal Aliens.
And I am at least 1/4096th Native American, so yes.
I ask you why you hate Trump, because he makes me happy. Your response is that I need help. You hate him, I am happy, but I need help. Confused much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"And I am at least 1/4096th Native American, so yes."
So, less Native American than Mestizos and many other people who you're obsessed with building a laughably ineffective, horrifically expensive and unsustainably expensive barrier to keep out form the land that you just admitted your ancestors stole from theirs?
Hmmm...
"You hate him, I am happy, but I need help. "
Yeah, when you're ignorant and informed by fantasies, that would likely make you more happy than someone cursed with knowledge of the real world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you even SEE Trump standing by the WALL that reduced ILLEGAL CROSSINGS by 75%?
Did you even LISTEN to the Border Patrol agents that Praised the Wall as a Solution to Many of their Problems?
Are you Completely Ignorant of the World Around You?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How can a wall thats not built yet reduce anything by 75 percent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some has been built, no kidding, Trump was on TV about it and I saw him. Standing right there, by a wall, bright as day and twice as long.
Walls work. I have a wall. Israel has a wall. China has a wall. And look at them! No problems with illegal immigrants there! Or here! Everyone in my house and everyone in my yard was invited! Except my in-laws, of course, but that’s life. We all pay a price for boom boom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Walls work. I have a wall. Israel has a wall. China has a wall.
Did they build it down the center of a large river?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rivers can be moved. Lots of rivers have been moved. Look it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What side of the border wall is it going to be moved to? Fox News hasn't made any mention of how this wondrous feat is being engineered.
Is that included in the estimate, or should we expect a 2nd check from Mexico for the effort?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, about that:
(Source)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Spend absolutely absurd amounts of taxpayer money to fix the sections of wall that already exist! Spend absolutely absurd amounts of taxpayer money to fix the sections of wall that already exist!"
Hmm, more accurate, but not quite as catchy or easy to chant...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What's fun to me is people who are supposedly rabidly anti-communist demanding that a replica of the Berlin wall be erected at many times the scale. Never mind the fact that it won't work, it's insanely expansive and will displace a lot of US citizens for no real result, it's the aping of Soviet tactics in the name of "democracy" that gets me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Israel has a wall. China has a wall. And look at them! No problems with illegal immigrants there! Or here! "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_from_Africa_to_Israel
https://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_China
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are some parts of the border where barriers have been built at high traffic areas to help funnel people to particular crossings.
People who are ignorant enough to believe anything Trump says on the issue have bought into the idea that the wall and wall alone was a magical barrier that repelled immigrants (rather than simply redirecting them to other crossings) and that therefore if the wall is extended for another 1,00 miles the magical properties will work across the whole border.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you even SEE Trump standing by the WALL that reduced ILLEGAL CROSSINGS by 75%?
No. But if they were reduced by 75%, then it undercuts exactly what fucking emergency he keeps talking about.
Did you even LISTEN to the Border Patrol agents that Praised the Wall as a Solution to Many of their Problems?
And how exactly would some simple minded grunts know about anything other than their narrow scope of work? If they're so knowledgeable, why are they jockeying a jeep looking for people instead of defining policy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The crossing were reduced 75% for THAT PORTION of the border that had the BIG BEAUTIFUL NEW WALL. Not the whole border, you ignorant moron. Go watch some Fox News so you can understand what is happening in the world.
Why don’t you come to the bar where the border patrol agents hang out after work and ask them yourself, big man?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not the whole border, you ignorant moron. Go watch some Fox News so you can understand what is happening in the world.
It was your sentence structure that was confusing, cuntwaffle.
Why don’t you come to the bar where the border patrol agents hang out after work and ask them yourself, big man?
Sure - just tell me where the simpletons hang out and I'll be there. I stopped worrying about meat headed sacks of shit beating me up in the lunch room a long time ago, shit-for-brains.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
cuntwaffle
How do you like to be addressed as? Zis, Zat or some ozer zing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow. That's roughly equivalent to "Go talk to some 3rd graders so you can understand what is happening in the world." You'll get an equally valuable and accurate assessment.
Fox "news" is pure right-wing entertainment. There is no factual value in anything from there. And yes, there are plenty of liberal-leaning "news" outlets that are just as bad. Mainstream news is almost completely worthless now if you consume just one or two of them. You have to consume all of it and try to find the truth in the bullshit. Most are far too lazy to do that and just trust one outlet to provide them with a world-view because it's far too much trouble to engage in critical thinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How much of the wall could your “friend” have built if he spent his money on a waa and not spending upwards of $50 a vote?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The wall reduced illegal crossings of that 90 feet of border by 75%. 25% were still able to scale the wall despite it being much easier to simply walk 45 feet and go around the wall. In related news, illegal crossings of the border to the left and right of the wall each increased by 50%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Donnys still not gonna touch it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"You mean the way Clintons “tell the truth”?"
I do not necessarily like liars. Trump and his cohorts are not telling the truth. Is that simple enough for you to understand?
Style has nothing to do with it, obviously.
The pilgrims were legal immigrants? Let's celebrate Columbus introducing disease to the inhabitants of the Caribbean.
Yes, you are confused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The pilgrims were legal immigrants? Let's celebrate Columbus introducing disease to the inhabitants of the Caribbean.
We don't blame the travelers, we blame the ones who aren't vaccinated against whatever the travelers have picked up from their exotic vacations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, that is a really big chip on your shoulder, how do you manage to remain upright?
Ignorance is bliss huh ... well you continue to think that, idk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There may be a problem with the 'native American' argument. If we are going to go back in history, then let's go back in history. If we go back far enough, and your not constrained by your religion telling you the world is only 6,000 years old or so, then current thinking is that from an evolutionary standpoint, we all came from Africa. Each and every one of us, regardless of current skin color, religion, ethnicity, etc..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just one point to clarify. You lump all Christians into one group, but one can follow the cross while also understanding that the 6,000 year estimate young Earth creationists give is far from accurate. The fact that the earth is billions of years old does not in fact conflict with the biblical account. What astrophysics, astronomy, geophysics, microbiology, and more tell us about the Earth's formation actually matches up exactly in terms of events and their order with what Genesis says. Some people get thrown off by the use of the word "day" in those passages, for example, but it doesn't mean quite what you think it does. In many cases, an English word has several translations in Hebrew. There are several Hebrew words for "day" in Hebrew, but the one used most often in the Genesis account can refer to one of several different amounts of time, including a long unspecified period that could easily be millions to billions of years. Each of the creation days was not a literal 24 hour day but rather on the order of a geological epoch, if not more. And from that perspective, we are still in the seventh "day" in fact. There is a Hebrew word that specifically refers to a 24 hour period, but it's actually used only once in the entire creation account and not in reference to any of the numbered days. When you see it say "on the nth day" in the passages, those lines use the first meaning of "day" that I mentioned, that of the long, unspecified period of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow. I like that. Are you a liberal? You seem inspired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This has what to do with evolution and migration over a 1.5 or so million year period?
I only mention religion because some teach things different than what science tells us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Science is a democratic thing
Donny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
... and?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you read the news?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Each of the creation days was not a literal 24 hour day but rather on the order of a geological epoch, if not more. And from that perspective, we are still in the seventh "day" in fact.
Sounds like god is pretty damn lazy, resting all this time. You'd think someone that powerful wouldn't run out of gas for so long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A vague story is easily reinterpreted when new facts are presented. The bible excels at this. Soon there will be a new edition that replaces "day" with "era" or "unspecified time period" and all the believers will trot that out as "See? The bible was right!".
It's all still myth and revisionist history.
Good for you for accepting new data into your world view. Some day enough facts will emerge that will make it impossible to interpret the bible as anything more than an attempt to keep the populace in line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That may be the prevailing theory however there are many holes that defy explanation and it does not give the illegal immigrants a free pass now does it?
Native Americans were here first and to deny that is simply more of the same irresponsible behavior we have seen for centuries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Correction: Native Americans, the ethnic group now named as such, were not here first. Archaeology has found that there was an earlier group of settlers of a very different genetic makeup before the Native Americans, disease, starvation or some other force wiped them out.
Also, Native Americans really aren't. They came here from elsewhere, too. "Native" implies they sprang into being here.
We're all invaders here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well - that makes it all ok then
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you go back far enough we're all invaders from Africa.
FIFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Honest question - why do you hate Trump so much?
Because he is a liar, an adulterer, a cheater, and a really despicable human being. But thanks for asking!
I understand why the Deep State hates Trump - are you part of the Deep State?
The fact that you are invoking the deep state throws your mental competency into question. Have you sought professional help?
What is there NOT to like about Trump’s results?
Why do you hate him?
Your post, although hilarious, puts forth the serious question - why do you think it's Ok to lie, steal and cheat? To grab pussies? To short-pay your employees and contractors? To make pathological lies every day?
Why is it "Fake News" and propoganda when non-faux news outlets call out El Cheeto at every turn?
Why do you blame a weird conspiracy for maligning the orange one instead of checking his statements yourself and seeing they are blatant falsehoods?
Do you actually believe that asbestos is non dangerous, and it was a great idea to import more from Russia?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I like the value of my 401k going up.
I do too. Why was it flat last year? Easy to win trade war fucking things up? (You can ask the dumbfuck farmers how well that's working for them...)
I like the idea that less illegal aliens will be entering the US after The Wall is built
When's Mexico paying for it, sucker?
I like Burr and think he is going to prosecute a lot of criminal activity, and soon.
Like locking Hillary up? What happened to all that shit? Only people locked up are the trump morons working for Russia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What is there NOT to like about Trump’s results?
Yeah, Hilary not getting arrested, Mexico not paying for the wall...
You getting sick of winning yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Was it 3.4% that your “friend” lost by?
Best watch out hamilton, Burr sounds just like barr.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That would be insulting to Batman villians. Compared to the Cheetoh, we'd be better off with the Joker in charge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Can you back that up with anything factual?
Trump is not a Russian Agent, and No American actually Conspired with any Russian in the 2016 election.
Why do you hate him? Because you can’t understand him?
Is that it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because he's a corrupt xenophobic racist sociopath with all the morals of a praying mantis and a face like Emperor Palpatine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, the face alone should be disqualifying.
Wait a minute, how about YOUR face? I heard you are FUGLY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We may have to start nicknaming you crybaby Hamilton along with crybaby Jhon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Alreasy a fact there was russian interference in the campaign and people have copped to meeting with and discussing politics with russians. Whether trump himself or his campaign was influenced by russians is unknown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
OMG meeting with AND discussing Politics with Russians?
To the Gulag with them!
I had no idea of the foul criminal acts being perpetrated.
Is it OK to discuss Politics with anyone? How about Chinese? Or relatives? Or at Thanksgiving, with Chinese Relatives, is it OK then? My dad says no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Something about a hotel in moscow, special suit for putin ... and this in return for what?
Inquiring minds want to know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did the last prostitute you hire have to wear the Fran Drescher mask too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Trump is not a Russian Agent"
"No American actually Conspired with any Russian in the 2016 election"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Donny’s still not gonna touch it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Trump is not a Russian Agent, and No American actually Conspired with any Russian in the 2016 election."
You state that as tho it were fact and yet your cohorts refuse to release the document that, as you and others claim, exonerates Donny.
Interesting.
I am beginning to think that the GOP and its various offshoots, is a cult that relies upon faith rather than observation and logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"yet your cohorts refuse to release the document that, as you and others claim, exonerates Donny"
I've mentioned before but this is the thing that intrigues me. The 9/11 report and the Starr report were not only released but published as paperbacks by this time after the respective investigations. Yet, despite cries of innocence we're not allowed to hear more than a general summary of this one. No innocent man withholds evidence of his exoneration, so if the report indeed does show him to be not guilty of collusion, there must be incrimination of something else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This one was an internet meme in circulation before re-tweet by the President.
The response from media outlets is laughably out of touch in their derangement eager to attack for the clicks the drama will generate. In this case Warner Bros misinformed as a result.
Media mass hysteria as a business model slowly training us all to ignore media outright through one overblown drama after another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Amen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whether Trump or someone else created it, the video still used copyrighted music without proper authorization. The copyright holder (i.e., Warner Bros.) had every legal right to DMCA the video.
And before you try some whataboutism: The outcome and my opinion would be the same if a Democrat did the same damn thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What, exactly, was Warner "misinformed" about by those "deranged" "hysteric" mass media phantoms?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Expected to see Hamilton lose his shit... was not disappointed.
Can't blame him after his loverboy Shiva Ayyadurai got his ass kicked by a fake Indian.
Next time, Hamilton, secure the Fran Drescher mask to your face or it won't work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You contribute nothing to the conversation. You are every bit as useless as those you attempt to insult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The point where you know the trolls are getting anal raped is when the people calling them out get called out for animal abuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Pretty sure it's Blue doing his usual "out_of_the_blue isn't going to like this, is he?" sockpuppetry.
He's not going to stop doing it, because he's not baiting Hamilton, he's baiting you. Don't respond; flag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While it can be funny to watch the TD trolls go full hypocrite at times troll-baiting like that should be avoided, as they don't deserve the attention and it's a waste of space to post a comment just to point out how they went on a rant again(you can do plenty of that in direct replies).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe, but as others will point out, why feed them? Baiting is discount feeding; personal amusement for a fraction of the effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]