Valsuelm

Come now, you know better. What's to be gained from playing willfully ignorant? That's one of the primary cards in the deck of of evil used by both politicians and criminals to get what they want, get away with X, further agenda X, and so on.... A *lot* can be gained by playing ignorant, willful or not. It's even a legitimate rhetorical strategy, of neutral (not necessarily evil) persuasion, when dealing with those who are less intelligent than the speaker. If you're talking to someone who can't understand concept X (for whatever reason: too dumb, too ignorant themselves, not informed enough, etc), and want to get a point across, dumbing down your words, or pretending to be as dumb/ignorant/uninformed as the listener(s) in order to relate to them (or make them think you relate to them) is often the successful way to go. Sad (usually; not necessarily sad when dealing with children for example) but true. Why is Obama doing it here? Well, a much longer essay (that I'd rather not spend time writing) could be written on that. I trust you're astute enough though to see why yourself. Just don't make the mistake of thinking he's trying to solve the widely perceived problem(s). Or make the mistake of thinking that Obama (and most other politicians) doesn't do it all the time. The example you give is certainly not a break in the norm for him.

This particular situation was actually handled relatively well by the local police and DA. The policeman was arrested and charged. Ultimately he plead guilty. Sentencing has yet to occur, so it's unknown yet if the judge will give him a pass or not.

Agreeing 100% with your idols is never healthy. Neverminding that one should not make intellectual idols of musicians or artists (or very arguably anyone at all), agreed that it is never healthy to agree with anyone 100%. That said, I'd wager a medium sum that Waters was pro 'Brexit'. He's actually a relatively politically conscience person, and is more awake than most of his contemporaries. He also has a history of criticism of consolidated power and corruption (The EU is the modern 'poster boy' for consolidating power and corruption). There's more than a few songs penned by him on the subject. One of the best albums ever made in my opinion being essentially one big song on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TKuG1GlwPs

You knowledge and/or understanding of history is grossly lacking.... While I'm not going to spend much time schooling you, you should at least look up the history of the nations which you mention before you write about them. It wouldn't take you long to realize that more than half of the nations you specifically mention effectively existed prior to the 19th century, some by number of centuries. Oh, and Poland didn't exist in the 19th century, but it did prior to.... and then again after it largely essentially during the in between 'world wars' period as a vassal state of the British Empire.... which played no small part of the reason that 'WW2' even happened. And that's less than 1% of what I could tell you which would thoroughly crush that idea you have.... That idea being that you think 'nationalism' is all bad and stuff. It generally isn't (that is unless one is an anarchist and thinks all forms are governance are illegitimate (which is a legitimate philosophical at least argument, if arguably not a pragmatic one), but that isn't you). You're buying into the modern popular propaganda of some blue blood 'globalist' minded folks that wish to squash the sovereignty of folks everywhere in order to further enrich themselves and consolidate more power for themselves. Or, buying into similar propaganda from those that would see the world ruled via Marxist ideals. Effectively both of those general schools of evil, insane, or deluded thought go down the same road, strange as that may seem to some, and hard as it unfortunately seems to be for many to grasp. One could say that the last laugh down this road is on the Marxists, if one didn't realize that this road will see the world burn....

We didn't need a second thread on a very obviously horribad movie, that could very well win the 'Never should have been made' award of the decade. First thread.

If one thinks/thought Hillary was ever in danger of being prosecuted by the Federal government, no matter what she did, one is/was naive.

If Bernie endorses Hillary, which is extremely likely (my money has been on it for months), it's all the proof any rationally thinking and even partially politically informed person needs that he is absolutely not a man of principle. Neverminding all the other arguable evidence there is out there that he isn't at this point.... Bernie actually has (or rather at this point: had) a significant amount of rationally thinking at least partially informed folks in his corner....

Ha! So was Hitler...and so were Theodore Roosevelt, and George Washington, and James K. Polk, and Robert E. Lee, and... Ha! Ha!

Who's the bigger nitwit, Trump Bruce or (we) the people who keep engaging with and/or insulting him? There's a saying that applies here: 'Fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me.' Many here are way past twice...

No doubt, that is the plan and hope of some.

Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated, as while you may see the obvious, it's clear to some that others do not.

Good question, not necessarily easily answered, but one worthy of the attempt at answering. As it is the 4th weekend, I'm limited on time, but would like to engage this in full in the coming days. A question for you though: What about Trump makes you think that "we are looking at a huge expansion of federal power and a continuation of the erosion of the separation of powers between the executive & legislature"? While I would agree that the unbolded is pretty much a given under Trump, or really almost anyone else (including Johnson, or even a retrospectively potential Ron Paul), I'm mostly interested your take on the underlined and bolded. As for the unbolded, to a very large degree that is out of the President's hands, especially at this late stage of the game. Congress has abdicated much if not most of their power to the executive and judicial branches over the last ~100 years. Worse than that, they've abdicated much if not most of that power to a giant unelected bureaucracy. A thoroughly corrupt bureaucracy that is somewhat beholden to the executive (and even to the legislative in some cases) for sure, but I think we'd both agree that bureaucracy should not be in the first place. It is what it is however. And as much as I'd like to see this be an election issue, it is not an issue on the minds of most Americans. Most Americans, red or blue (especially blue), accept the alphabet soup as a given at this point, rather than something that's very existence should be challenged. For the unbolded in my quote of yours to be properly addressed, we need good leadership in Congress far more than we need good leadership in the White House, as that is where this battle needs to be fought. Again though, I'm far more interested in why you think 'we are looking at a huge expansion of federal power' under Trump.

GD, that question you asked me sometimes is framed a different way because some folks think I'm biased on certain topics but its normally from people who dont really respect the principle of debate so I wouldnt really be too concerned about responding But with you its different as I do appreciate your efforts you put into our debates ....I have learnt a lot from you. For example I have changed my view on gun control primarily on the way you made your point But of course on topics like this we differ but thats fine and normal So if it was Trump I would be convinced he had something to hide because I dont think much of his integrity But I wouldn't assume the FBI was incompetent and if they decided to not charge him I would assume it was because of lack of evidence. Thats the difference, I trust the FBI to do there job and if there was real evidence against her they would have charged her I dont see the system as rigged You really don't see an issue where the Presidential Candidate... the ONLY viable Presidential Candidate of a major political party is being investigated for criminal conduct by a DOJ controlled by that same candidate's political party? But the FBI are the ones who have decided not to charge her....surly we not saying the FBI is under the influence of the Democrats and they not doing there job properly? First of all the FBI has decided nothing of the sort. And they can't charge her. All they can do is recommend a charge to the United States Attorney General. Who just had a "secret" meeting with Bill Clinton which no reporters or photographers were allowed to see. Do you REALLY think they were talking about their grandchildren? Now even of all of this is as dirty as it looks it does not mean Hillary Clinton will not be the 45th President of these United States. When your choices are between a corrupt and petty ex Senator and a billionaire blowhard who says the stupidest things imaginable you are screwed no matter what. Or you could stand by principles and support Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. I like Gary Johnson, he was on CNN State of the Union today But the news presenters ask the strangest questions or rather questions that are predictable, so the lady interviewing Johnson say " do you think Trump is a racist " How do you think he answered That is what annoys me about him. If I had been sitting in for him on Townhall last week I would have handled ALL of those questions very differently. Most of what they are asking are just using him as a catspaw to attack Trump. For the most part he should reject the premise of the questions. They all seem to built around the notion that nothing happens unless the federal government does it and that is simply not true. Gary is a shill. I'm sincerely surprised you haven't realized this yet. He is not the answer.

Has anyone ever told you you have this wonderful habit of stating absurdly bold claims as fact and then not bothering to reinforce that idea with any evidence whatsoever? I mean you don't even live in the USA, the media is *insanely* biased in favor of Clinton, and yet you consider yourself in a good enough position to deduce that most of her critics surrounding this email scandal are "mostly people that don't like her." You feeling guilty LK? Yes I would be also if I was you. After all you have misread and been wrong about Hilary from day one, you were one of those that made absurd and belligerent comments like " Hilary will NEVER be president, its not possible. Anyone who thinks she may actually be president is utterly uninformed " Try to see it this way "The Clinton administration is inexorably coming like a slow-moving locomotive " Please ****ing quote me when I said Hillary will never be president. **** me man, let's double that down: please quote ANYONE here saying Hillary will never be President, because I'm super curious if your claim has ANY basis whatsoever or if you've completely invented this stance. I distinctly recall saying anyone that thinks she's trustworthy is blind as all hell, I do not recall for the life of me that I said she has no chance. I wish she has no chance, but she's far too much money backing her. Seriously though Bruce, do you pride yourself on being mentally retarded? I'm saying it again: please quote me, because I'm 99% sure you are falsely recollecting things I've said such as "It's obvious as hell Hillary subverted the law" or "you'd have to be blind to think Hillary is trustworthy" and somehow your brain has magically re-aligned this into me thinking she has zero chance of being president...? The only possible chance I ever said something along those lines would've been months ago. I'm seriously very very curious where the HELL you're getting this from. And guilty for what? For sake of argument, let's assume I did say she'll never be president. I should feel guilty for making that claim? I should feel guilty for being wrong? Let me connect the dots in that misfiring brain of yours for you: I believe you are trying to state people should feel guilty for accusing her of wrongdoing. If the point is that people accusing her of wrongdoing should be something we feel guilty about, well one, lol no it's not because hell yes people have a right to demand an investigation and potential trial, and two she has not been absolved of any guilt yet and you are already celebrating and calling it as if the FBI themselves publically announced her innocence and their opinion that we should all buy her a brand new car as an apology. None of that ****ing happened: they interviewed her under shady pretenses (not the FBI itself, but Bill's talk with Loretta is hella shady) and we must wait and see what comes of it. You are quoting an article with blatantly obvious bias, as even the wording they choose is clearly chosen to make the issue seem as non-controversial as possible (example, they call it "a discussion of her email arrangements" instead of a criminal investigation into her email scandal, call it a "voluntary interview" instead of "questioning," and then even PR as to why she won't comment further). Dude, no joke, you seriously worry me sometimes. The post you just wrote? Delusional. No joke, no hyperbole, no exaggeration: your post I'm quoting is 100% delusional. You've somehow convinced yourself that Hillary is hereby innocent and cased closed, that I've stated Hillary has no chance of winning, and what's more you have this childish attitude like you've "won" over Hillary's opponents. Dude it's a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION!!! It's THE ELECTION FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!! If tomorrow there were some breaking story where Bernie smuggled 90% of campaign donations into Putin's Swiss Bank account, damned right me and every other damned American has an interest in seeing that matter investigated, because I want to know and understand the candidates I can vote for, lest I vote for someone I don't actually want. There is no "well hot damn, he's the candidate I stuck my claim in! I better childishly defend him to the death and immediately denounce anyone that dares claim that investigation is warranted" like you seem to think, because that would be childish and arguing in bad faith. This is serious business, and you're treating it like the Dallas Cowboys vs. the San Francisco 49ers. Grow the **** up or shut the **** up and don't bother us with your god awful uneducated opinions about politics. Bruce, for the love of God and for my sanity, please educate yourself for once in your life. It is PAINFUL to read this delusional **** from you and to see you argue politics so childishly. And before you say it: I'm not saying supporting Hillary makes you uneducated, I'm not saying supporting Hillary makes you childish. I'm saying you and your last ~3 posts make it crystal clear how little influence other's dissenting opinions have on your brain, and how you only seem to consult yourself on matters and even use your own confirmation bias to draw new conclusions completely out of left field, such as "Longknife said Hillary can never win." If the voice in your head told you that, kindly ask that voice to quote me, because I got news for you: Bruce's Mind Voice #2 might be full of it. You may as well have directed those 5 paragraphs at your wall. It would have potentially yielded more fruitful results.

Saw these guys live some years back in Tuscon before they were headlining. I was there working with another band at a stadium music festival. Some good acts were there, but Muse stole the show and made me a fan. Prior to them hitting the stage, I'd barely known of them. Absolutely amazing live band. If you get a chance, see them. Also, this Blu-Ray is awesome.

I'd wager Air has spent some serious time listening to Genesis. The melody immediately reminded me of Banks's work on 'Firth of Fifth'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw89pFrOGw0

Paulson should be in jail, for a long long long long time..... The guy is the purest form of scum. His endorsement of anyone or anything should raise any astute person's eyebrows and cause them to concernedly question. If the guy said I should eat my favorite ice cream that I've been eating for years, I'd have second thoughts about ever doing it again.