Valsuelm

I generally watch most of Stefan's videos where a caller isn't involved, and I did see the one to which you're referring. Stefan is usually good about contrasting fact from fiction in the modern world, at least on mainstream issues. And yes, Trump is a genius. Hillary's only hope is that the zombies have reached critical mass nationwide. Wo is the U.S. if they have. I actually like some of the call in ones. The Merkel Destroying Europe one I liked, and the Objectivist one I liked. I use an app that converts the videos to audio streams and just listen at work. In lieu of the app, you may be interested in this: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com

Cook clearly hasn't bothered to do their homework (par for the course for a publication such as that). I told you, New York is going to be solid red for the first time since '84. Bold prediction that flies in the face of conventional wisdom I know, but I stand by it. You've got about 6 months now to prepare to write my praises.

Ha! I find some of the things that come out of him intentionally hilarious. The man isn't dumb. Stefan molyneux has a good video outlining all the claims about trump and contrasting them to what he actually said that was quite good. Also quoted the art of the deal where trump talks about his media strategy being to be outrageous so people will talk about you. Free media coverage and people will be caught off guard when you are serious. I generally watch most of Stefan's videos where a caller isn't involved, and I did see the one to which you're referring. Stefan is usually good about contrasting fact from fiction in the modern world, at least on mainstream issues. And yes, Trump is a genius. Hillary's only hope is that the zombies have reached critical mass nationwide. Wo is the U.S. if they have.

Burritos and Enchiladas are where it's at.

Ha! I find some of the things that come out of him intentionally hilarious. The man isn't dumb.

Probably the best of the bunch right here: Who doesn't want free candy? One can always write in candidates too. That's what I often do. Mickey Mouse and Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho are always solid options. I usually put Yosemite Sam for sheriff at the local level. Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck are great if you want to keep different governmental branches at odds with each other. If I lived in the southwest like you, I'd also consider Speedy Gonzales. He's a quick thinker, always has his heart and mind in the right place, and would probably be good at just about anything.

Romanian hacker Guccifer: I breached Clinton server, 'it was easy'

#Trigglypuff mad! Friend makes demands on her behalf (presumably because she's too mad to do it herself?).

An electronica funk masterpiece:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNwNNw0u97Y

That's ass-backwards logic. "The right of a person to ruin a discussion is more valuable than the desire of others to see the discussion un-ruined" is putting the cart before the horse. The principle is what it always is- there's a right (or 'right' since the forums are private property) to freedom of expression within certain rules. If the rules aren't infringed then if you don't like what the other person is saying you need to build a bridge and get over it or buy a pack of cards and deal with it. If the rules don't facilitate constructive discussion, I'd argue the rules are at fault, and saying "well he didn't break any rules" misses the point entirely. Someone running around crying 'zomg the rules here suck! Somebody safe space me!' isn't exactly facilitating constructive discussion. Which nobody was actually doing, but I guess intellectual dishonesty and hostile misrepresentation of viewpoints you disagree with do facilitate constructive discussion in your eyes. Which is... a strange viewpoint, but one you're undeniably entitled to. Do I really have to go through this thread and pull up all the times you and at least one other have complained about the rules here these last few pages? You started this conversation. Yea... not gonna do that. But I'll link this search, where you make about a half dozen posts complaining about the rules. Intellectual consistency and honesty are at the foundation of sanity. Dig yourself deeper underneath that foundation sir, I won't stop you. But I will post on topic!!! This one is for Volourn: (warning, a few naughty words in the following vid)

We already had this discussion before. Oh sweet sweet vampire metaphors.... wherefore art thou? Flying over heads? Of course, of course...

That's ass-backwards logic. "The right of a person to ruin a discussion is more valuable than the desire of others to see the discussion un-ruined" is putting the cart before the horse. The principle is what it always is- there's a right (or 'right' since the forums are private property) to freedom of expression within certain rules. If the rules aren't infringed then if you don't like what the other person is saying you need to build a bridge and get over it or buy a pack of cards and deal with it. If the rules don't facilitate constructive discussion, I'd argue the rules are at fault, and saying "well he didn't break any rules" misses the point entirely. Someone running around crying 'zomg the rules here suck! Somebody safe space me!' isn't exactly facilitating constructive discussion. Congrats on successfully derailing the thread. Worry not though, I'll put it back on track or start another, as the subject matter is too oft amusing and of some import. SJW's are the modern gift that keep on giving.

True story: I consider 1989 to be the best pop album in over 20 years. So do many others who aren't the stereotypical teeny bopper fan.. Eh. I'm more of a Pink guy myself... Pink's great! She's an amazingly talented artist. I especially like this video. But see, I'm a Taylor Swift, Edvard Grieg, Iron Maiden, Slayer, Pink, Pink Floyd, Phish, Billy Joel, Grateful Dead, Alison Krausse, Alan Jackson, Talking Heads, Birthday Massacre, Shakira, Dixie Chicks, Counting Crows, Van Halen, Bob Marley...... and the list goes on and on..... guy myself. Good music is good music.

Splitting threads is generally worse than closing them, and closing a thread should just about never happen (if there's really a too many pages bug, jesus @)#$ did Obsidian buy the worst forum software I've ever seen). At best, interruption and confusion generally results from both. This thread has been effectively hijacked the last few pages, and... well, so what? If someone was intentionally trying to hijack it, repeatedly, then some moderation should probably be done. However, a thread goes off topic just due to the normal course of conversation, there's nothing really wrong with that. As for the Trump problem..... lol.

The 80s were the best. The prevailing culture put a happy positive spin on just about everything, including incredibly dark stuff.

Now there's some wishful thinking. You'll have a better time wishing yourself some millions. I hope you succeed on the latter. The danger of Republicans losing both at this point isn't much more than marginal, the danger of them losing even one isn't much higher than that. While the importation of Democrats has been in high gear for the last decade, for the most part they're just reinforcing already very blue areas. And while that may make a difference in the Presidential campaign, it won't make much of a difference in the locals. In other words, there's very few toss up races. Places that are traditionally red are very likely to vote red this election and places that are traditionally blue are very likely to vote blue this election, for the locals. And if either party has any momentum or is motivated this election, it's the Republicans. Though the big story of this election is just how sick and tired average Joe/Jane are of both of the major parties. Punting the Presidential election would be retarded, and it's not the whole thing works anyways. It's not like they have to make much of a choice where to allocate resources, as it's not like there's any lack of any, for either the RNC or the DNC.

@ Bart Sadly the Eternal September and the AOL invasion is now long in the past. The days of being able to hop on a BBS or the Interwebs and find intelligent conversation almost everywhere you went are so long gone that many here reading this never experienced those halcyon days of yore, nor even know to what I'm referring without perhaps 'googling' it. I feel you on the wanting to have serious discussions without the children or unintelligents constantly making noise. It's a complaint I have as well, however it's not one that really can or should be addressed by mods on a forum such as this. Perhaps on a forum where it's explicitly stated that the purpose of the forum is to have intelligent conversation, but that place is not here. There are some people worth engaging here, despite the nonsense (I think you know this). In general, it's best to just ignore the others. ie: I stopped responding to X a few pages back as he's seemingly incapable of an honest conversation. I have A and B on ignore as I've found them to both be insane and very rarely offer anything of quality to a conversation. I rarely response to Y (who thankfully hasn't yet posted in this thread) because all they spout is unintelligent and uninformed vitriol. But I do look forward to what C, D, and E have to say, because even though I may often disagree with them, they almost always have an informed perspective. Echo chambers are not my thing, and those who prefer them disgust me. And yes, it does suck that the conversation can't be taken to a higher level due to some others here. But, go have those conversations outside this forum. I do. The best we can probably accomplish here is to /shoo and ignore the rabble (with varying degrees of success), as well as carry some conversations into the private realm where those who can't handle a subject for whatever reason are not (something I've done with a few here). Imagine the forum as a neighborhood block party of sorts. You've got a few adults (maybe even a kid or two) capable of intelligent conversation, who are almost invariably outnumbered by some drunks wandering around, total idiots yabbering about nonsense, thin skinned wussies who go out of their way to be offended, kids running around screaming, some fuddy duddies yelling at the kids to get off their lawn, etc. Just converse with those you wish to. Gently /shoo or ignore the others. Don't call the cops (mods in this case) unless you see someone getting murdered, and even then think at least thrice about it because the result of calling them might be worse than not.

I wonder how many others have him on ignore. I would wager he wins the 'most ignored award' on Obsidian forums (at least in recent times).

This is a very good post, I support the last line emphatically My experience as a moderator is that there are some users who have no discretion. My experience as a moderator is that while those folks exist, they are actually quite rare on most forums (4chan, reddit, youtube, et al being notable high profile exceptions). I personally have not seen such on WoT. Also, my response as a moderator to all this would be something along the lines of what Meshuggar posted here, though probably a bit more blunt in it's delivery.

True story: I consider 1989 to be the best pop album in over 20 years. So do many others who aren't the stereotypical teeny bopper fan..

Hillary is only loyal to herself. She'd burn the democratic party in a heartbeat if it benefited her to do so. It currently does not as it comes with millions of at best barely informed mindless zombies (Shadyhands post above is sadly not an exaggeration, the woman could be caught on film raping her dead grandma and most of the people voting for her now would still vote for her) , so it's in her interest (and the interest of those who would anoint her) to play the blue game.