Hastur

I have to admit, not because I'm rooting one way or the other, but it's good that this won't turn into an Islam/not Islam discussion. ...And, yeah, stabbing disabled people because you're pissed off at life or whatever it turns out to be is over 9000 on the evil scale.

Apparently, Japan had multiple deaths at a mass stabbing at a home for disabled folks in or around Tokyo. Crazy world these days. ...Or maybe crazy again in areas that had been more or less stable for several decades.

http://nbc4i.com/2016/07/25/19-dead-20-injured-in-stabbing-attack-at-japanese-facility-for-handicapped-people/ World. on. fire!

I hate to take joy in the unhappiness at the Democratic convention, but you can't help but feel it's just desserts for the way they acted about the "chaotic" Republican convention. Politics is politics, but it's absolutely remarkable to see the out and animosity in there. The protests aren't just on the outside of those doors.

Dude, take me in! With your grain, I can brew beer. After everything goes downhill, you're going to need some of that. Get some honey or grapes going and I'll even make some mead/wine. We'll barter with neighboring communities New Vegas style!

I say keep tilting at windmills Guard Dog. It may be that none of this matters. It may be that we've already lost all our battles and just haven't recieved notice yet. Still gotta fight 'em. Now, the important thing is, whether Hillary hearkens our doom or Trump destroys us, we can all sit down with a beer, plop ourselves in front of our computers, and argue and debate about it. By the mass, people will still live their lives. Come November, I'll be in the hot tub with friends fighting over the imminent demise of our country, and I can assure you, that discussion will happen no matter who wins. That debate about our imminent demise will happen no matter who wins in 2020 or 2040. Assuming we're all still alive. ...But, if we're all dead, then there will be no need for debate. Everything will be settled.

Yeah, but Trump believes neither in good manners nor in propriety, so it's a pretty lackluster endorsement on my part. ​ I think we should wait for all the facts in these cases. Don't assume anything. If it is Islamic terrorism, don't skirt the issue. Just level with the population and they'll trust you more. For my part, I was willing to believe the authorities that the Munich shooter was a white nazi nationalist. Maybe it wasn't subtrefuge on their part, but it makes it harder to trust the authorities when they seem more concern with a theoretical backlash against Islam than they do about presenting the facts. If you don't trust the public with the truth, the public probably won't trust you for very long either.

Yeah, but this stuff is small potatoes. In fact, I suspect that this election will be won or lost on some of these side issues that congeal into big ugly furballs. Every time Hillary Clinton does something that reeks of corruption or every time Trump does something that sounds crazy, they're reinforcing ideas that might get through to the very thin marginal voters. With Hillary, she's hurt by her boring and overly scripted message and clearly cynical message. With Trump, he's hurt by his lack of discipline and appeal to our baser instincts. Frankly, it's gotten so bad I've gone from dismayed to a sort of peculiar fascination. We're going to hell in a lady's handbag, my friend, and the flames will look pretty right up until the moment they engulf us. The best thing is to laugh maniacally as we finally go off the rails into all 9 circles of hell combined into one two sided coin with Trump on one side and Clinton on the other. hehe How's that for imagery. I'm telling you, Guard Dog, Johnson might have been a great governor of... New Mexico? I think? But he's not going to win. Nevertheless, he might scare enough people in the two big tent parties to rethink some of their strategy.

Aw, I didn't question your agenda. ...But, since you mention it, I could. Maybe the reason you don't want to acknowledge a segment of the population who seem to have certain tendencies is in order to push your agenda. The thing is, somewhere between saying all Muslims are our mortal enemies and saying that all Muslims are peaceniks who want nothing more than our mutual happiness is to say that there is a small vocal and powerful group within Islam whose central tactic is violence and whose central aim is to create a powerful and world-wide Caliphate. Like Volurn said up above, you don't help the peaceful and good will Muslims by pretending that the sub-group doesn't exist. I believe in good manners to be sure, but I despise political correctness even more fervently. That's not an excuse to be rude, merely realistic.

The 'they were just crazy' argument doesn't make sense to me. If people of a certain background have a greater tendency to go gonzo and become murderous, then you're still going to have other people make the association. If it weren't for the real and demonstrated danger of the Islamic Jihadist extremists, then the so called lone wolves would be lumped in with other run of the mill crazies. At this point, saying that some guy who goes off his rocker and starts killing folk was already inclined to do so sounds increasingly like a poorly crafted apology coming from someone trying to explain away evidence that refutes his central position. Most of the population will eventually turn away from the argument. Not really a slam on you, Lexx. I don't doubt your character or your motive, merely your conclusions. However, to get away from the politics, Germany has still been coming under fire a lot lately. There must be debate about the source, but in the meantime, it's gotta suck for the people there.

Poor Germans are getting some of the heat that France has experienced lately. Not as many deaths, but quite a few attacks. Any deaths are bad, of course, and these attacks in various cities do serve to spread some amount of fear to be sure.

I actually took a gander at that ad for Johnson. I like the understated nature of it. One of the things I hate about this cycle is that it's all about talking loud and nasty. ...And, while Trump might have started it, it's not like Hillary didn't follow suit. That's not a parity argument, by the way. I think the reason our politics right now are even more noise than substance is because of Trump, but his success at capturing attention with the tactic has brought out the worst in everyone. As far as my feelings about Trump, it's simple. While he might be unhinged, I think of his disorders as being personality oriented. There's some evidence that policy-wise he'll be a lot less flamboyant. I'm not sure what he'll do, but I don't think his policies will be as crazy as he talks. I am, however, sure he'll try to do at least something about the border. I'm hoping it's something more pragmatic and effective than the wall idea, but who knows? Otherwise, I think he'll probably pan out a hell of a lot less mad cap gonzo bat**** crazy than he appears. The Gromnir guy up top said something about not having a lot of info on Trump and that's why we should see his taxes. (Also, it's simply because it's convention for some decades now) I agree that Trump should, but it's marginal in this election. We should see them, but there are too many competing issues and taxes are not sexy enough in this cycle. That, and enough people think the IRS is corrupt and incompetent that it muddies the issue. Sure, before anyone says it, the IRS corruption doesn't change the fact that Trump should yield his tax information. It does, however, allow him to muddy the waters. The reason people use parity arguments, which I despise whole heartedly, is because they sometimes work really well to distract voters. This whole campaign on both sides has come down to who can pile on the other candidate better. That's all either of them have. I'd rather have Trump not because I'm convinced his policies will be better and not because I like listening to him talk more but because I firmly believe his Supreme Court nominees will be less dangerous than Hillary Clinton. That's it. If it weren't for that one ​issue, I'd just wash my hands of the whole thing. ...And Guard Dog is right. I probably will vote for Johnson. Why not? It's not like my vote will put Trump over the top or bury Clinton. I'll still tell people I'm voting for Trump, though. I think people try to bully Trump supporters and they can kiss my ass. I recently had some bozo query a room full of people about their votes and I raised my hand for Trump just to see if anyone wanted to be nasty about it. heh The guy next to me looked around and slowly raised his hand too. Comedy. Turns out that we all still got along pretty well, so there's hope for humanity yet.

Last night I threw back a few beers with some friends and we ended up in yet another hot tub steamy debate about politics. I intimated that I was going to vote for Trump and my buddies were aghast. Literally speechless for a few seconds. Not in a mean way. They simply couldn't fathom why I would vote for Trump knowing my temperament and feelings about our orange skinned friend with the bad toupee. It was actually pretty funny. I think the electoral college has some good points, but it has the net result of putting some very large states out of play. People might fundraise in California, but no one cares about campaigning here that much. The state is going to the Democrats. If California goes for a Republican in our current climate, the Democrats lost before they got here. Kind of the same with Texas in reverse. It's always fun to debate presidential politics with people in a state where you truly get the feeling that it doesn't matter anyway. Might just look into the Guard Dog candidate just for the hell of it. ...Or maybe even write in Hurlshot. My vote won't make or break anything. Hurlshot as a protest vote could work. As long as the dude doesn't keep government secrets on his home server, isn't being audited by the IRS (conveniently), and has an authentic birth certificate.

Like either Democrat will lose on a presidential election year to a Republican. If the question is who has a polling advantage in California, It's going to be a rocky year. I don't care whom the big O endorses, but he needn't have done it to cement the election in this state.

At this point, I might actually vote for Crowley. Why not have our demoniacs undiluted? ...And Crowley is the epitome of the anti-PC candidate. The series has gotten to be a drag for me personally, but Sheppard does a great job keeping things freshish.

Well... Trump mocks folks. That's true. He mocked McCain and claimed he wasn't a war hero. He denied that he mocked the disabled reporter, but I think it's clear that he did. He habitually ridicules, harangues, and derides his opponents. He has made a series of questionable comments. However, I still contend that people sometimes go overboard with their comments regarding anything from religion to race and that even over the top comments can be forgiven. The problem with Trump isn't that he makes some provocative comments. The problem is that he's a meanspirited bully. It's politics. Get used to mean spirited people. Some of the 'enlightened' people around here act quite snarky about opposing views. The term racism has become so diluted that it ceases to mean anything any more. For example, my wife and I took her family to the Reagan library in Simi Valley earlier this month. My father in law, noticing that the placards for the Vatican exhibit were all in both English and Spanish started complaining loudly about the illegal immigrants who won't learn English and flaunt the laws of our land. It then, as it often does, went to a discussion of Mexican illegal immigration in general. Now, a lot of people who don't know him would claim he's a horrible racist based on that one fact. However, apart from the fact that I am, myself, Hispanic, my father in law has plenty of Mexican friends. Yeah yeah, I know "some of his best friends are Mexican!" "Racist code!" Shut up and listen for a second. The man lives in southern California. Some of his dearest friends are ​Mexican. Not only that, but I don't disagree with him that illegal immigration is a problem in the United States. We should know who is coming and going in our country. The howls I hear from the Europeans about terrible racist people in the US who want to define and enforce our immigration laws are laughable. I'm for taking in immigrants, but following the proscribed process as detailed in the law. Also, when people immigrate here for the purposes of staying permanently, they should obey the laws, honor their new country, and swear allegiance to the constitution. Anyone who has a problem with that and thinks it's racist is a fool.

What are they going to do about it? Shoot someone? This made me laugh. Seriously, I'm not one of those people who claims that someone who is an ass before he puts on a badge (or an armed forces uniform) is a saint after he does. There are plenty of terrible cops and I think some unsavory personality types can sometimes be drawn towards police work. However, I think they get short shrift sometimes. Half the people want to put them on a pedestal and a good number of people want to pretend their enemy number one. Cops provide an important function in society. By the mass, I don't think they're out to get people. Most of the ones I know personally have somewhat jaded views of race, and that includes cops of all colors and ethnicities. However, I don't believe the statistics back up the idea that they're more likely to shoot black people than white. If take everything in the aggregate, from % of population, % of criminal behavior and the like, I think it's pretty dangerous to be a white guy involved in an altercation with the police. However, I do believe that black people are targeted more often for stops than white people and I've read that police are more likely to resort to physical coercion sooner in the form of punching or cuffing. However, shooting? A white cop stopping a seedy looking white guy is just as likely to shoot him if he makes a sudden move and there is evidence to suggest maybe even slightly more likely. I'm not going to arse myself to look up internet statistics at the moment, but if I run across any of the info I'll post it here.

I hate him as a politician, but if he were making his statements as a private citizen, I imagine I would be a little more understanding. I've known all manner of people to make questionable remarks. If someone makes an off color comment, you remonstrate with him. You don't write him off. The breathtaking panic some people have about Trump rises beyond laughable, transcends the ridiculous, and surpasses sublime. Dude's not Hitler. Not even close to Mussolini. Hell, he's not up there with Rob Ford, for crying out loud. He's a yutz with ridiculous looking hair and a limited vocabulary. His danger isn't in that he'll act out in evil ways. His danger is that he's kind of like your crazy uncle who spouts off about everything every Thanksgiving and ends up pissing off everyone at the table. Good Lord, some people act like he's the second coming of Pol Pot. More like he acts like he's smoked a little too much pot.

Okay, first things first, leave my tinfoil hat out of this. However, to be clear, I didn't say the media had a conspiracy going against Trump. I said they hate him and they were campaigning against him. I don't see how a rational person can see the coverage and not come to the conclusion that Donald Trump is treated harshly. Hell, since a lot of the coverage uses his own words and he's not exactly a politician, most folks would say he deserved it. Fair enough. And, while the media goes easier on Hillary, they've roughed her up from time to time also. Now, as for the bet. I wish I hadn't made it. (damn it!) ...But I did. Soooo, let's have ground rules. I said that I thought Trump would win if the average of polls put him as far down as a couple of points behind Clinton. Actually, I think I said within a couple of points, so let's call it +/-. Let's define average as the Real Clear Politics Average. Let's define couple as two. hehe Now, if I remember it right, it was a reciprocating bet. That means someone else has to pony up to activate it. On my end, I think I said something to the effect of Clinton being at zero or some such. I'm going to allow for this reading: If the RCP average of polls has Clinton even or ahead, which is to say the average has it literally at 0 or greater either tied or in Hillary Clinton's favor, some other poor yutz will have to do something. I'll leave the exact wager to the other person to define. I said I'd take a picture of myself in a dress and call myself a bitch. Assuming we have any takers, we'll define dress as any garment closed at the waist but open below the pelvis without two distinct pant legs. It can be to the length of my choosing. Depending on the terms, I'm willing to don a tinfoil hat also, but I want to hear out the payoff on the other side before I agree to that. Finally, there are two more things we must do. First of all, the moderators have to agree that this bet is acceptable and doesn't break any sort of forum rules or propriety. Frankly, I think it's just a goofy sort of thing and doesn't harm anyone, but I'll accept their ruling. Lastly, there must be a trusted third party who will keep our real identities in holding before the election. I'll commit if all these conditions are met. Hello, I'm new around here. Let me introduce myself. My name is Hastur, and I've got a wad of money right about where my mouth is. :D

If Dems think this is Hillary's to lose, they're in for a rude awakening. Yeah, I do give Hillary a slight edge. Perhaps a smidgen (to use an Obamian term) of an advantage over Trump. ...However, the vote against Brexit had a smidgen of advantage over the stay faction and we saw how that ended. Frankly, despite the howls and cat calls of the members here (what a surprise) Brexit would win again if brought to a vote. The media hatred of Trump dwarfs the way the mainstream media trivialized the Brexit movement. This isn't going to be easy for Hillary. ...And, even better, the fools who think that Hillary is looking out for them or even cares about them in any way are woefully misguided. Sure, if you want to own your jaded and cynical outlook, I'm all for you supporting Hillary. Fair enough. If you really believe she cares about your plight... okay. Can't argue about religion. (and to think people say I'm crazy for being Christian. There's a hell of a lot more evidence of divine providence than Hillary Clinton cares about the little guy.) This is the internet and I'll make a pact. If the average of polls are within a couple of percent points on the night before the election and Hillary Clinton wins, I'll come in here and eat crow using my real life name. Fair enough. I'll even take a picture of myself wearing a dress calling myself a bitch. What will you pledge if Hillary loses assuming it's tied in the average of polls? I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. What say you?

Two questions then, since you seem in the know about this stuff: That one terrible cop who killed the guy in? Georgia, I think, who was running from him... Clearly, that just seemed like murder on its face, but the victim was fleeing as I recall. He was clearly liable for prosecution and I believe he was prosecuted and found guilty. If I remember it right. So the running angle didn't work as a defense. Also, the cop who shot some sort of mental health worker/therapist recently. I can't remember where, but the cop shot the person who was helping someone on the ground. I guess it was a patient and he had his hands and legs up. Is he subject to criminal prosecution? If he honestly thought that the worker was hurting the patient, he can be reprimanded, but can he be criminally prosecuted? I think people lump some of this stuff together too much. The cop who shot the guy in Minnesota was apparently panicking, not being malicious. I think he was also Hispanic, which makes it a little less juicy to the media. If a white cop kills someone, it's in the headline. If the cop is non-white, it's buried or sometimes even not stated. Kind of like George Zimmerman was 'white' and then 'white Hispanic.' People wonder why the media is losing more and more credibility with the American public. Anyhow, incompetence or mistakes seem to be in a different category than outright abuse of power as far as I'm concerned and I can't believe that the law would treat them the same. That's why we have charges ranging from manslaughter to first degree murder with aggravating circumstances, right?

If only that's all they did. I have my suspicions about what happened while we were passed out. As far as the whole thing about Hillary's corruption, it's amazing the lengths to which people will go to defend her. First of all, take out the counter attack. If the best you can muster is that the other guy is corrupt, it's not a serious defense. If we removed the parity argument, which is not only weak, but insulting to both parties, the first party for making such a pathetic argument and the second in that someone actually thinks he'll be fooled by the first party. The Clinton's are in their own category of corruption. There is no parity in American politics today in the aggregate of kind, degree, and sheer chutzpah. Bush's bad decisions? Obama's mad power grab? Those are normal political and ideological machinations. The Clinton foundation, speaking fees, subterfuge, obstruction, and personal gain? The Clintons are a universe in and of themselves. The richest part was someone up there somewhere complaining about Bush and being a war monger. Yeah, our Nobel peace prize winning president has been a complete peacenik. Clinton herself was one of the main drivers of the Libyan adventure, and that didn't pan out exactly like we'd hoped. Go ahead and bash Trump. The media and loud voices in our society have driven Trump supporters under ground in most cases, especially younger ones, but the upshot is that he has a sizeable group who supports him silently and with increased fervor. He might lose open support and the promotion of his candidacy that such support entails, but he'll still get a lot of votes from that crowd. For myself, I can say that the left hardens my resolve for Trump when they make desperate attacks on him, when protestors try to shut down his rallies, and when the media blames Trump supporters for violent riots against the candidate. No, I don't like Trump. I would be in the 85% of Republicans who support him, but I think he's a loud mouthed oaf who brags too much, uses divisive language, and cheapens the discourse in American politics. He could be a disaster for the country. However, Hillary Clinton will undoubtedly be a disaster for the country. I'll take my chances with the prospects of disaster rather than march gleefully towards the certainty of it.

The carbonation isn't a problem as long as you're willing to fill up the bottles and make sure there isn't a lot of air. Yeast is faculatively anaerobic, so the little bastards will use air if they can, and so you have to deny them O2, especially in late stage stuff like bottling. The real trick is mead, since it will create bombs. The stuff ferments for a long time. I've bottled the beer, bottled some of the mead, four 750mL with cork and then a bunch of 12-20 ounces with O2 absorbent caps, but I put two gallons of mead the gallon carboys as secondary fermenters and let them settle out. I don't mind drinking the young mead, but if you want to give it as a gift, you should really let it clear and rack it off the lees. I do love brewing, but it's actually a lot of work. More on the front end for beer. More on the back end for mead. If you ever give it another try, I'll post a couple of recipes that I've enjoyed. Both for beer and mead.

I don't mind alternate rules as long as they're associated with higher difficulty settings. I don't like toggles in the general sense. The game should be the game that Paizo made. When the devs start accomodating the 'bragging rights' crowd (and I know how much some of them hate the accuracy of that phrase), then they leave themselves open to harsh criticism from other players. Frankly, I don't think I'd have a hard time finishing with this particular remedy, but I do resent the fact that it solves a problem the vast majority of us mortal users don't have. Blessings work just fine the way they're made. Do I hate the extra love Acid Arrow gets? No. Do I hate the nerfbat taken to the candle card? No. It's all good. However, I think the basic game should be as it is written in the rules. Everything else should be a simple matter of the difficulty slider bar.

I might be the new guy, but I'll take a poke in the dark and say that I'm probably one of the few token Republicans in this forum. I'll comment on Hillary Clinton. First of all, I don't completely disagree with Comey. I'm not a laywer. I don't even play one on T.V. But some of my Satan worshipping laywer friends tell me that a lot of prosecutors wouldn't have touched the Clinton case because of the precedent and standards associated with it. Sure, but Comey is also the guy who sent Martha Sterwart up the river, don't forget. What for? For the original offense for which she was investigated? Nope. For obstruction of justice. I find it hard to believe, knowing the general arrogance and conceit of most attorneys, that an up and coming prosecutor wouldn't be happy to take on the Clinton case not only for negligence, which is explicitly stated in the statute, but for obstruction based on her destroying evidence if nothing else. I'm not embittered about all this. I think Comey did a huge amount of damage to Clinton with people who can actually vote in the United States. Her trustworthiness numbers have gotten worse and they were dismal already. However, I do lose patience with people pretending that Comey, in making his extremely controversial decision, exonerated Clinton. He delivered a scathing indictment and, if it werent' for the fact that she's running against a terrible candidate, she would be sunk. Anyhow, all good. I think Trump might actually win this one, and considering his nasty reputation, most of which is rightfully earned, that's remarkable.