Valsuelm

How can you be familiar with the rule yet not familiar with it's history? Look up it's history, and that should tell you all you need to know.

I find you adorable in how tightly you stick to the extreme right's story. "Hillary is a criminal!" Cried the right, "where's the charges?" asked everyone else. "The wall will work!" cried the right, "But how will it be paid for and what laws will we have to suspend to build it?" asked everyone else "The election is rigged!" Cried the right, "Ok, then how is Trump the GOP frontrunner, and Sanders still in range to take the election from Hillary?" asked everyone else. You can rationalize a lot of things, but I sincerely doubt that Hillary being a "criminal" will every come to pass. And for a constitutionalist, you seem to ignore "Innocent until Proven Guilty" being a tenant of the Constitution (as established in Coffin v United States), and just blithely run around declaring guilt without evidence (beyond the rhetoric that has been spouted by those on the right since they realized Hillary was the presumptive nominee in last May) Calling Hillary criminal is not exclusively the purview of 'the right'. Saying elections are rigged is not exclusively the purview of 'the right'. 'Far', 'moderate', or 'close'. In fact, people on both sides of your polarized world do both, especially in regards to the latter. 'Criminal' has more meanings than just those in regards to illegality. Insofar as those particular meanings go however, being a criminal is not reliant on being convicted in a court of law that one is such, in fact the most successful criminals usually never even see a court of law. Your comments on the wall are strawman bunk as well as fly in the face of reality. Insofar as 'innocent until proven guilty'. That applies to legal prosecution, and I'm all for it, Hillary is no exception. However, a fundamental problem is that she hasn't been (and more than likely won't be) indicted. She isn't any kind of notable exception. There's an entire class of 'above the law' people out there, that get away with all sorts of things all the time if you haven't noticed. And if you really haven't noticed, your head is very deep in that sand. Unpolarize yourself, expand your vocabulary, and get your facts straight.

The entire video I find offensive, he clearly has an issue with Transgender community and he refers to them as " somethings " We know you are offended extremely easily. No need to remind us.

The democratic race will only get interesting if Sanders starts publicly and vehemently calling out the DNC and Hillary for rigging the election, as well as calling her out for the criminal that she is. It can also become interesting if Sanders continues to run for President even if he doesn't get the nomination. An independent Sanders, along with an independent Trump, together with the two party stooges, all running for President, would make a really interesting election. As well as very probably see the end of the ~160 year duopoly on the White House, something the U.S. desperately needs, and a whole helluva lot of people want. I don't see Sanders doing it though. Wish he would, and I've no doubt most of his supporters do too, but I don't think he has the balls. Hope I'm wrong.

I love how people comment on things that they fairly obviously haven't watched.

Wearing a wig and a dress does not make you transgender. edit: Or rather I should say there is much more to it than that. This specific case, where someone is videotaping others in the bathroom, has nothing to do with transgender rights. If he was in the men's room videotaping it would be just as serious a crime. Satire Hurlshot, satire.... The title of the video and the opening story is just a lead in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SlZ6n4iRZM

On this too you are wrong. While the Chinese did indeed build a wall over 2000 years ago, the majority of what is today considered the 'Great Wall of China' was built during the 14th-17th centuries, under the Ming Dynasty. There have been walls built all over throughout history, and in modern times. They vary in their efficaciousness. Fact is that there's currently already a wall along much of the U.S. border with Mexico, and there was supposed to be an expansion of it, however that (along with enforcement of much of the border in general) has been quashed under the Obama administration. There are currently walls all over, one is somewhat famously between Israel and the West Bank (which is expanding as we speak). I could go on. Truly, you have no idea what you are talking about. Frankly, I do not think you are capable of serious debate with anyone. Serious debates require honesty and an ample level of knowledge on a subject. You are too dishonest with yourself, and have never so far as I've ever seen demonstrated an ample level of knowledge on anything you've ever discussed on these forums. Again and again people point out where you're wrong, and again and again you pretend it doesn't happen.

As far as I know (and I welcome correction on this point), there's no such thing as an illegal citizen in the US. Naturalized citizens would have to be denaturalized to be deportable and citizens by birth can only renounce their citizenship, not be denaturalized. Legally at least (I know they're are cases where the courts have due to judicial error deported people). You are pretty much correct. Put simply, they aren't 'illegal citizens', they are illegal aliens. It's one of many things Bruce has wrong. He's often like a 3rd grader who hasn't been paying attention to the math teacher telling an astrophysicist how to go about their calculations, then having the audacity to double down when the astrophysicist nicely explains why he's wrong. Calling me a 3 rd grader is rich coming from you Vals, you the guy who believe 9/11 was committed by the USA to itself And you call me uninformed Yes Bruce, you are generally uninformed about near everything you ever talk about, as for the most part all you ever do is parrot the talking points of propaganda source X. Parroting something, talking point or thought process given to you, is not being informed. Also, cognitive dissonance, the natural result of swallowing the diet of pure B.S. you yum up so often, is not a positive asset. I easily spent over ~200 hours researching 9/11 some years back, watching footage, interviews, documentaries directly/indirectly related to the event, reading all sorts of stuff, and re-watching much of what I'd already seen. I even had the opportunity to speak with people who were in the buildings as well as that were in the military responding to the event that day (I've lived very close to a military installation that was directly involved in that event). I've spent much more than that ~200 hours contemplating all that I took in. The truth in regards to that event is a very ugly and hard pill to swallow. It is a pill that most people will not want to swallow, and most will ignore. The truth is also quite complex. It is not as simple as '9/11 was committed by the USA to itself'. This is not something I wish to discuss with you, as frankly it would be a waste of my time. You are probably the most close minded person and one of the least truly informed people on this forum (at least of the folks who post here regularly). Ironically, and even somewhat tragically for yourself, you believe the opposite. You have my sincere pity.

Search for "Marco Rubio Pasta". So it's not just a local joke...

Hard day ended by few drinks mate? I wish. :D To be honest I just got lost in thought thinking about how EVERYONE likes to imagine themselves as smart, how the world has more than a handful of stupid people who are blissfully unaware of their own intelligence, I honestly struggle to name people I know who will admit to their own modest intelligence, and then I caught myself questioning "how does one know if they're smart?" I mean I've been called smart by friends, family, acquaintances, employers, teachers, professors, but surely that's everyone right? You do something right, go about something the correct way or give a correct answer and the go-to compliment as a sign of appreciation is "you're smart," so it's really rather meaningless. So then I thought "sadly not as simple as just asking people, OR IS IT" and joked about how hilariously stupid it sounds to ask people that question, and decided it sounds even more hilarious if it's asked to a group of strangers. On the interbutts. Laughed pretty hard to myself at the idea, debated posting this or not so as to spare you guys from such a stupid thread, then decided to do it just cause I wanted to see what on earth people would respond with as it sounded like a hilariously awkward topic. I must say the responses didn't disappoint. Wish I could use alcohol as an excuse, sadly I just act like this even without something screwing with my head. :D Intelligence is many things, one of them is a relative thing. 'Smart' usually refers to it in a relative manner. i.e.: In some rooms Kim Kardasian is no doubt the smartest person in the room, moron that she is when compared to the society at large, and a testament to just how even more moronic many are that she's as popular as she is for what she does. The average IQ is 100. That's enough to function in society in most respects, more than enough to post on forums, but it is not smart, especially when compared to the population as a whole (alas). I'll wager a bundle that you are at least a 110 (meaning you're smarter than at least 75% of the people out there), just for asking yourself that question in the manner you did. Note: Being smarter than most can be a very frustrating venture if you have any scruples, or a boon if you're evil and have none. If you went to public school, you very probably took a sanctioned I.Q. test at at least one point (most private schools also administer them at some point(s)). Your parents should have had the opportunity to find out what that I.Q. was. Ask them perhaps, and mayhap they can tell you. That said, I.Q. is not the end all be all of intelligence, it has it's limits, but it also has it's uses. An observation I have made that is that most people have the potential to be smarter than they are, but they chose to be ignorant (for all sorts of reasons) which undermines their intelligence potential and often even pushes them into insanity land in the long run. Ignorance is a choice, so more often than not, is sanity. Stay away from alcohol, it will stymie your brain power, and it's never a good excuse for anything, fun though it temporarily may be (former bartender here) . Edit: I just remembered that it was you who made this post. I change my above bet to I'd bet my life you're at the very least a 110, and I'll bet a bundle you're above 125 (that's smarter than 95% of the people out there). Insight like that is not common, which you may have already noticed. I don't know what your life situation is, but don't waste your time in retail unless you absolutely have to, and if you do have to, work to get out of it asap. You've more potential than most. Truly.

She's not an idiot, but she is thoroughly insane. Sometimes these two different things have the same result.

No one who ever got to the White House was dumb. Though some were certainly smarter than others, every single President we've ever had has had above average intelligence. Only idiots of average intelligence or less call President X dumb.

Retail sucks and doesn't pay well. Get a job in a restaurant, serving or bartending, you'll make more than double the money even at a bad gig. If you insist on retail, at least work at a place when you're apt to learn something (ie: Auto parts store, liquor store, some other specialized good store where knowledge is required to be good at what you do), a grocery store isn't that place. Of course, if there are other higher paying jobs in the area, go for them. Again, retail sucks, and pays ****.

Na... I've seen that shape before. It looks like he's just having a bad go with the gender bender drugs that are designed to augment his breasts.

As far as I know (and I welcome correction on this point), there's no such thing as an illegal citizen in the US. Naturalized citizens would have to be denaturalized to be deportable and citizens by birth can only renounce their citizenship, not be denaturalized. Legally at least (I know they're are cases where the courts have due to judicial error deported people). You are pretty much correct. Put simply, they aren't 'illegal citizens', they are illegal aliens. It's one of many things Bruce has wrong. He's often like a 3rd grader who hasn't been paying attention to the math teacher telling an astrophysicist how to go about their calculations, then having the audacity to double down when the astrophysicist nicely explains why he's wrong.

Is Bruce from a family of bankers? That would actually make oodles of sense. He even has a family member in prison for some sort of Wall Street scandal. No not Wall Street scandal, inside trading. But his actions were condemned unequivocally by all, no one made excuses. You can work in the financial sector and be ethical and not break the law But yes Vals many members of my family are involved in the financial sector but that has got nothing to do with my real concern about this suggestion to break-up the banks or implement restructuring in the financial sector in the USA You ask what has not been implemented before from Trump or Sanders....many things they suggest are radical and never been implemented before..in fact conventional wisdom is vociferously against most of these idea....lets see Sanders : Restructuring of the financial sector in the USA : Never been done before X Sanders : Extreme taxing of the wealthiest Americans : Never been done before X Trump : We will bulld a wall between the USA and Mexico : Never been done before X Trump : We will deport all 11 million illegal, mostly Latino's, citizens : Never been done before Trump : We block all Muslims coming to the USA: Never been done before X I can on and on if you want but I think you get my point All Xs have been done before. As for the only one that isn't X'd: Deporting people happens all the time. The sheer # of illegals to be deported indeed has not happened. Though it is quite doable. That said, I don't see it happening, even if Trump is in office. What may happen however is the disincentive as well as difficulty to come here illegally may be increased, which would be a very good thing. As for 'conventional wisdom' being 'vociferously against most of these idea'. Mainstream media propaganda /= conventional wisdom, and the voting polls are telling a different story. Neverminding that 'conventional wisdom' regarding anything isn't exactly always firmly grounded in reality or a good thing. Also, what's your sudden aversion to 'never been done before'? Gay marriage was never legal before, once upon a time women were never allowed to vote before. You're all for those things, and others that were 'never been done before'. 'Never been done before', is never a reason to not do something in and of itself.

Ha! I actually know a black lesbian chick who supports Trump, vehemently even. She hasn't been to a rally yet, but I don't expect her to have any problems if she attends one.

Is Bruce from a family of bankers? That would actually make oodles of sense.

Both Trump and Sanders are anti-established in there own political leanings and views, these views despite having populist support are dangerous and concerning as both candidates offer some ideas and solutions that have never been implemented before or just make no economic sense I wont go into everything I disagree with Trump about but lets take Sanders, he wants to break-up the banks and large global Investment banks based in the USA. This is a terrible idea and makes no economic sense, see the link below http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2016/04/04-four-questions-to-ask-before-breaking-up-banks-klein?utm_campaign=Brookings+Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=28095032&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_eaSQSi7KF2_PHOJtPRh_mm68CJ3x6M1IEQ9QWWb83Fvo_c453O_hhUBJIWTl5CQk_LHX0RmsCj_b8ZkeHQzTjqPit8w&_hsmi=28095032 It's actually a really good idea and makes tons of sense. The re-implementation of Glass-Steagall as well as other legislation to similar effect is something that Sanders has very right. It's very arguable that the repeal of Glass-Steagall is the worst thing that happened during the Clinton years. As for not being implemented before? I've seen nothing Trump proposed economically that hasn't been implemented before. As for Sanders, while there may be some specific things that haven't been implemented before in the U.S., I've not seen him propose anything that isn't already common elsewhere.

I dunno about exciting. My prediction of what's going to happen if the election isn't tampered with (an extremely unlikely proposition that it won't be tampered with in at least some districts, in particular in NYC): In short it will be Trump and Sanders winning the primaries. *Note, what the delegates (and especially super delegates) do is another story, as the fix is definitely in there. This prediction, based on my own ears to the ground as well as discussion with some folks actually in the RNC and DNC machines here, is only what's going to happen in the voting booth. And Trump will carry the state by a large margin in the general election if he's the nominee, especially if Hillary is the nominee (any other Republican will lose the state; only Trump can win it for the reds (for this reason alone the establishment RNC should be behind Trump, if they were actually serious about winning the general (they are not)). The anti-Hillary sentiment is very strong here among pretty much all Democrat demographics (she would not win a Senate seat here today), excepting for the sit at home female baby boomer demographic (who think she can do no wrong, and want a female president all else be damned), and possibly the Obamaphone crowd demographic (who are a wildcard of sorts for the democrat primary (It's unclear if they even know who Sanders is, though they often skip primary voting so may not impact it all that much), and also where any election fraud is most like to happen).

This entire thing is BS to a large degree. If it wasn't, the documents would be publicly available.

Avellone actually has stated numerous times that he is not a fan of 'romances' in games.

Yes. It was left in because the delegates from the southern states made it clear they would not sign without it. To tell the truth I doubt the majority of delegates there those days saw it as any kind of moral wrong because it was so prevalent in the world at that time. And Meshugger is correct, it did not stop after the civil war. Or before even when it was illegal to buy slaves not born in the Americas. But as for the slaves in the US at the time I figure that is a fraction of the number that became free men in 1865. And many of those in 1787 were born elsewhere and might have returned if given the opportunity to do so. I used to have a much more romantic view of the CSA and often argued that slavery was not the root cause of the secession and the war. Perhaps I did not want to admit my ancestors would be willing to go to war solely to keep their fellow humans in chains. That they had loftier and more noble ends like States Rights in mind. But as I read and learned more I realize this is not so and the truth is just as ugly underneath as it looks on the surface. I was guilty of the very thing I ridicule in others, and in books and movies: revising history to suit modern mores. To be fair though, the south's entire economy was dependent on slave labour at the time. Abolition meant the loss of a ton of wealth in the form of "property" and increased business costs due to having to pay workers. Wars have been fought in modern times over less. Not to mention that the U,S. Civil War (or War of Northern Aggression) was fought for a variety of reasons. It can be argued it was about ending slavery, it can be argued it was about states rights, it can be argued it was about 'preserving the Union', it can be argued it was about freedom. All are true, and there are other reasons that can be argued as well. Only the ignorant or evil folks who would fool the ignorant simplify it all to say it's only about one or the other or something else entirely. Over 3 million people actually fought in the war, the better part of a million died in it. Many more than that participated in some way if not directly on a battlefield somewhere, and many many more than that had their lives seriously affected in some manner. Each and every person who fought in the war fought for their own reasons. They include what's mentioned above, and they no doubt include other reasons as well. There was good and evil on both sides of the war, and the end result had both good points and very bad ones as well.