Meshugger

Does the current rumors about Saudi-Arabia acquiring nukes have any merit? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXuJkVPRjNI

^That one was very well made. Awesome!

Yeah, I also don't like his general mannerisms....its something I can't quite put my finger on ? While Rubio is a poor excuse of MKULTRA programming, Cruz is just a good old psycho trying to mimic normal human mannerisms and emotions. It's just your subconsciousness giving you a warning that his body language doesn't match the words that he is saying. Btw, things are going as expected in Pahrump, Nevada; The proud county of several brothels: https://twitter.com/reidepstein/status/701154437201440768/photo/1

Strangely enough, the media seems to omit some interesting parts of Trump's response. Here's the complete one: But the opinions of a pope bear little meaning to leaders world-wide anyway, historically speaking. Should we trust the judgements of Pius XI and Pius XII on Hitler? or should we trust the opinion of pope Gregory IX on naming the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, one of the greatest rulers in Europe only matched by Charlemagne, as the Anti-Christ? You might as well just let the result of a coin-flip to guide you.

...And the bolded part is supposed to make it less appallingly racist... how? No, it was not about the level of racism expressed by him or the newspaper, but rather it was to highlight the absurdity of it all: the guy just applied the same argument to its logical conclusion, but to another target than the native population. He got criminal charges against him for his opinion, while the newspaper did not. As in he might be equal to some, but some are simply more equal to others. A perfect example of an Orwellian society in motion if anything, and they didn't even had to fire a single shot or have the police to bash his skull in. If you have no problem with this, then there's little to discuss really. Although that isn't why he was convicted. Supreme Court said that argument part itself was OK, but because rest of his blog post purposefully left impression for reader that Somalis are what his claim says, so he was purposefully insulting ethnic group in manner that is apt to cause hatred towards said ethnic group and endanger public order. Which of course don't mean that newspaper story wasn't guilty to same although prosecutor general didn't think so, but of course one can always argue that prosecutor general was more politically motivated to go after Halla-aho (who was in that time politician in one of the opposition parties, currently said party is in government) than newspaper with such charge. True enough about the conviction. But dispite the fact Halla-Aho being a dip**** as he always is, it is his own views and should be able to express them as he sees fit and anyone should be able to call upon them. Instead we have a system where the public prosecutor (the state) can press charges on a person (an individual) based on the possible feelings of people who may or may not feel them (public order). That's quite Orwellian because at the same time the state proudly celebrate Finland as being an open, tolerant and free society. Well, maybe for some, it is.

...And the bolded part is supposed to make it less appallingly racist... how? No, it was not about the level of racism expressed by him or the newspaper, but rather it was to highlight the absurdity of it all: the guy just applied the same argument to its logical conclusion, but to another target than the native population. He got criminal charges against him for his opinion, while the newspaper did not. As in he might be equal to some, but some are simply more equal to others. A perfect example of an Orwellian society in motion if anything, and they didn't even had to fire a single shot or have the police to bash his skull in. If you have no problem with this, then there's little to discuss really.

Haven't most civilized (read: European) countries have managed to have laws allowing the same for quite some time without imploding and/or descending into orwellian dystopias? Lets take my country for example, make it out as you will: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jussi_Halla-aho As for my opinion about it, my stance is clear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icqPHsNumuU

I am trying to give "Crime & Punishment" by Dostoyevsky a shot.

Tip from a guy on the internet: Don't focus so much on the conservative and liberal labels of any possible future justice. Rather, focus on character and traits. Do you want that cool, dreamy young kid that just wants to get along and everyone to live in peace? or that grumpy, angry old guy who thinks that most of us are intellectual baffoons and wants most of it all, to just to be left alone. I would select the old guy since he would be less likely to support laws that punish you for not getting along enough with your peers, compared to the dreamy guy who would support such out of his good conscience.

Hey, at least it's something different. I might give this one a try.

Obama stepping down as president to nominate himself as justice in the supreme court would be the funniest bet to make. Speaking as an outsider of America of course.

Dem Nevada: Tie, coin flip win predicted for Clinton Rep Nevada: Trump clear winner South Carolina: Trump and Clinton win with big margin. Thanks. In other news:

So letting the betting begin! South Carolina and Nevada is this week, isn't it? What does your local bookie say?

Fair enough.

You can still read messages from people you put on ignore. For example you can still read posts from Hitler BruceVC (or whoever you ignore) if it seems worth doing so. I admit I use the Ignore list, even though usually its because they're people who post large volumes of what is, to me at least, dribble and I was getting carpal tunnel scrolling past walls of text. I can recommend any of the *chans for some anonymous ****posting. It's an art in itself. Super-fun, it's super-awesome! Here, it's another matter though. Not really. I've used the ignore list before. Not because I can't take criticism or "badthink" but because some people just never post anything worth reading. Might as well read poems on a bathroom wall. Here I sit all broken hearted... came to **** but couldn't because of patriarchy. Snrk! No need to defend yourself. You do what you want do, but before you know it, you will miss something of great wonder!

Ignore list? Oh please, such things are for mental pussies anyway. Heck, even Hitler BruceVC can say something interesting from time to time. Besides, i enjoy a platform were one can exchange ideas in an eloquent manner, even if the very same thing can be summarized more succinctly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icqPHsNumuU

Politicking aside, what's your opinion about the recently deceased Scalia's "most famous" decisions in the supreme court? I am interested in hearing from someone actually practicing law. is there a case you is most interested in discussing? Scalia had a Long career and he authored many controversial opinions... though please keep in mind that while Scalia were peerless in areas o' antitrust n' such, Gromnir has no ear for such stuff. regardless o' whether you liked Scalia or hated him, he were doggedly consistent (with a couple notable and disappointing exceptions) and he were the most entertaining writer on the Court. (edit: we will insert some o' our favorite Scaliaisms from the cases noted) The purpose of Indiana’s nudity law would be violated, I think, if 60,000 fully consenting adults crowded into the Hoosier Dome to display their genitals to one another, even if there were not an offended innocent in the crowd. barnes v. glen theatre inc Displays containing some words -- odious racial epithets, for example -- would be prohibited to proponents of all views. But "fighting words" that do not themselves invoke race, color, creed, religion, or gender -- aspersions upon a person's mother, for example -- would seemingly be usable ad libitum in the placards of those arguing in favor of racial, color, etc. tolerance and equality, but could not be used by that speaker's opponents. One could hold up a sign saying, for example, that all "anti-Catholic [p392] bigots" are misbegotten; but not that all "papists" are, for that would insult and provoke violence "on the basis of religion." St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensbury Rules. r.a.v. v. city of st. paul Like some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence once again, frightening the little children and school attorneys of Center Moriches Union Free School District. Its most recent burial, only last Term, was, to be sure, not fully six feet under: Our decision in Lee v. Weisman conspicuously avoided using the supposed "test" but also declined the invitation to repudiate it. Over the years, however, no fewer than five of the currently sitting Justices have, in their own opinions, personally driven pencils through the creature's heart (the author of today's opinion repeatedly), and a sixth has joined an opinion doing so. ... The secret of the Lemon test's survival, I think, is that it is so easy to kill. It is there to scare us (and our audience) when we wish it to do so, but we can command it to return to the tomb at will. When we wish to strike down a practice it forbids, we invoke it; when we wish to uphold a practice it forbids, we ignore it entirely. Sometimes, we take a middle course, calling its three prongs 'no more than helpful signposts.' Such a docile and useful monster is worth keeping around, at least in a somnolent state; one never knows when one might need him. lamb's chapel v. center moriches union free school district is not necessarily the most influential cases, but search for scalia quotes from the above and you will gets some o' the best Justice zingers o' all-time. HA! Good Fun! ps is no coincidence we chose all First Amendment. Scalia has other great stuff, but... *shrug* Thanks for the musings. I was curious since the media has made such a hoopla about his comments in various cases (like throwing pot-shots to congress being too incompetent to even create any new laws) so i wondered about his competence as a justice of the supreme court from non-lay man's point of view.

Politicking aside, what's your opinion about the recently deceased Scalia's "most famous" decisions in the supreme court? I am interested in hearing from someone actually practicing law.

...which will work as before. Their incompetence on handling the matter will bite their asses in the end. The day when these neocons (=old trotskies) are thrown out cannot be dawned too soon. Btw, lets ask DNC Chair on these strange superdelegates: The best part is at about 2:00. ...all in the name of diversity and inclousivety. Strange how those tenets lead to people being less represented to their interests in the end. How strange.

I'm not asking you that and I'm not trying to catch you ..I just want to know if you like and or respect him? So let me get my point, in London he was fighting extradition to Sweden. He had hundreds of supporters and people who paid his legal fees...then he decided to skip bail and went to hide out in the Ecuadorian embassy. His argument was Sweden would send him to the USA where he would be tortured and suffer indescribable punishment But he really did was Insult the entire Swedish legal system by suggesting they would pander to any American request. He also also called the Swedish legal system liars as the rape charges were just fabrications He insulted the entire USA legal system by telling everyone he would be tortured...can you imagine a reality under the Obama government where such a high profile person would be tortured? And he has made NO effort to actually address the rape charges.... So why would you respect him or take what he says seriously? Look here everyone, this is how it is done. Person A raises a point about an issue, with a character as a source, relevant to the topic at hand, while also trying to highlight the stakes in motion on a greater scale. Person B ignores or downplays the issue and instead engages in moving the topic to the character providing the said information as a direct or indirect measure to discredit him. Wanna find out more? Interested in learning such techniques yourself? Well look no further, because you can find it here (https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm) and much more. What are you waiting for? Get out there, sonny! and make your masters proud!

Bruce I just don't understand where you get the notion this is what Barack Obama is all about. How is a society where an agency of the government is used to undermine political participation of opposing viewpoints fair and equitable? How is a society where veterans are subject to addtional police scrutiny because of political opinions the administration THINKS they MIGHT have fair and equitable? How is a government that asserts it would be perfectly ok to kill it's own citizens with no due process if the leader of that government believes they are participating in terrorisim? How is is fair and equitable for an administration to use executive orders to make changes to laws passed by the legislature and signed by the executive years after the fact? How is is fair and equitable when every shred of electronic communication is being monitored by the NSA? How is it fair of equitable if the government can use the force of law to complel a citizen, as a condition of citizenship, to enter into a private contract with a 3rd party of the governments choosing? There is nothing fair or equitable about that has been going on in the United States the past fifteen years. Hear, hear. Add to that his initial support for every whistleblower being important in a free society pretty much flew out of the window the moment he swore on the Bible.

Seems likely, except the starving to death part. The pattern has been rapid advance followed by consolidation while pulverising rebel counter attacks since the russian intervention, by that measure there should be another advance coming within the next week. I'm sure they'd far prefer rebel surrender/ truce or withdrawal from east Aleppo rather than surrounding them, the SAA is not good at urban fighting and they already could stop most supplies getting into east Aleppo anyway- the supply route along the Castilo Highway is only about 2 km wide and has been for more than a year, easily hit by mortar or artillery let alone easily bombed. Truce talk is also to try and short circuit any thought of direct intervention from the other side due to 'government intransigence'. It looks like Saudi Arabia at least is actually going to go through with intervention though; Al Arabiya is Saudi version of Qatar's Al Jazeera so that comes direct from government. It would at least explain why the rebels were so keen to withdraw from the peace talks despite losing badly on the ground. Another potentially big development is a government attack towards Tabqa, which is at the bottom end of a hydroelectric lake on the Euphrates, half way between Aleppo and Raqqa. If taken it would cut all of ISIS's territory in Aleppo off from its rump holdings, and Raqqa off from the Turkish border. Not going to hold my breath over that happening though it would be very bold if it did. So the Saudis are getting more than ready to throw the first stone to say? even less subtle than i originally thought.

Yeah, it's best to go back pretending that the emperor has some clothes on.

If Aleppo falls back into into Assad's hands, we will might see one of the power players behind this proxy war to spill his cards all over the table. I wonder who that might be...

He supports Trump if I recall correctly. It could very well be Trump vs Sanders this election... Please let it be so!