Here on earth, us mere mortals both man and woman, there are facts and opinions of fact. Your belief and blind faith in a magical being makes no difference to the above other than as an oath to be truthful for sworn testimony. One can also not use the bible to provide an oath to be truthful in a court of law.
Earth? What is that?
All the world is a stage, and we, men and women, are merely players. That was Shakespeare. I say that man is a manifestation of magic by the fiat of faith, appearing only to the faithful, and only appearing as long as said faith/fiat can be maintained. It is maintained largely by the ability of the minutia of details to grab and hold attention. Politics remains one of the more potent arresters of attention, just as it was in Shakespeare's day.
As a man, YOU are the magical being, not more real than a unicorn to the Being which Knows All and Believes Nothing. As such, you have the experience of drama, just as Shakespeare affirmed. As such, you are a derivative of That Which Knows, far removed from actual knowing, and as faulty in judgment as the judgement/logic that incepts the experience of the drama.
"We know" refers to documented, verifiable facts that can be admissible in a court of law. The reference is based on actual documents filed with the court.
So here you're cognitive dissonance shows obvious. Nothing in a document filed with a court, which has not been litigated yet, can be said to be known. It might be verifiable, in court, but has yet to be verified by any kind of litigation. You have equated a claim, by the FBI, submitted to court, as what is known. As such, you equate the FBI to the great, All Knowing Being sometimes called "God", but which i call Good. So me thinks again you are a little hypocritical.
The cognitive dissonance in your replies are a demonstration that you do not understand the term.
I just showed how you are conflating knowledge, what "we know", with claims the FBI has made in a court filing. That's cognitive dissonance.
For someone who claims to derive their opinions from multiple sources in the informational spectrum, you have demonstrated a repeated reposting of a bath-robed self-proclaimed God posing as an authority to topics they clearly do not understand and whom also promotes mis-characterization of verifiable facts.
I would challenge you to select anything Styx has "mischaracterized", and, characterize it your own way, and we'll see who has more credibility. Meanwhile, you're credibility is running low due to the conflation of claims in a filing with what "we know", which, if we did, we would practically be gods.
I have other sources, but Styx has been quick to the draw, and very on point in much more detail than you will find on your average MSNDNC pony show. Styx opines from Holland, where he lives with his hot wife and new baby child, reporting from one of the rooms in the house. Sometimes he reports in his robe, drinking tea. His listeners have become known as "clankers" in reference to the clank of the teaspoon stirring in the tea cup.
This is where reporting is heading in the future.
Do you still need your reporters to look like FBI agents with suit and tie and nice hair?
Above i included the image of typical, average FBI agent. This is what a person needs to look like for you to listen to their opinion?
Anyway, i have not seen anywhere Styx has called the magical existence of humanity the reality of any kind of God. Can you point to any examples?
It's humorous that you project your hypocrisy on others while claiming to have a deeper understanding of the universe when you can't even acknowledge nor distinguish facts from opinions.
Standards of Weights and Measures is a good place to start to understand what is a fact distinct from an opinion.
Still waiting for an example of hypocrisy. I do have a deeper understanding of the universe, but anyone who has gotten an A in Business Law in Community College can tell you more about the difference between facts and opinions, which you have conflated.
