Valsuelm

They do a pretty good job fooling people. Been at it for decades.

He's fat, eats poo, and gets little to no exercise? Like many other westerners these days? He doesn't look unhealthy to you? He has to me for many years. Also, widowmaker.... Did his lifestyle choices ruin his film making? A very plausible theory.

Once a funk upon a time....

There's already a number of schools throughout the nation that have police officers working most or all of their day there. A complete waste of taxpayer money at the very least in most cases, but these folks are very well paid, and generally have very cushy jobs. They occasionally get off their butt to taze a kid or two who might have mouthed off to them, but other than that they sit around a lot. One such school is my old high school. Fortunately for me, I went there before the police state era and the likes of 'no child left behind / communism core' insanity thoroughly engulfed the school. The extreme reaction to school shootings have been around a long time, since the post Columbine era.

Zarif is appealing to a slightly more intelligent audience than Bibi; no props needed. The props work for Bibi because he's telling the latest chapter in a cartoonish tale to an uninformed and ignorant audience with a childish mentality. They also reveal his contempt for those who believe him.

Dishonest propaganda bothers me too. *hug*

Whatever you think of them, banning bump stocks will be even less effective than banning cocaine has been in regards to public safety.

I hope this test is a bad joke. If it isn't it's an excellent example of just how truly unintelligent and uninspired some of those 'teaching' at Harvard really are. Never minding the ridiculous methodology and a complete lack of a neutral appraisement before we get to the nitty gritty, the test reveals itself as being bias before one even takes it.

Is a gun a privilege or a right? According to the Constitution, it's a right. According to the Constitution, there are no 'privileges' in the sense some here are using the word. Only rights. And the idea that your local motor vehicle department is keeping your roads safe by requiring people get licenses to drive cars is as laughable as fishing licenses keeping your waterways safe. Even the most federalist minded of those who fought for and founded the U.S. would balk at the idea that driving is a 'privilege' or that the government can grant such to individuals. Such folks who think so, are slaves. The most powerful shackles of all, are those placed upon minds. 'None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.' - J WvG 'None but ourselves can free our minds.' - B M

You stepped on the slippery slope and fell. No, it's very clear that what kind of arms is not up to debate.

Excellent argument if it was still the early 20th century. If you haven't noticed, the rights of the citizens are very often subordinate to the will of the state. You haven't lived in a truly free country for one day in your entire life.

C-Span is generally where it's at for U.S. politics, as it's one of the best places to get primary source material. Frontline and Nova have had some gems in the past, though it's been a few years I think since they broadcast a well polished one. Their better shows generally have little to nothing to do with politics. Nova has sadly not only become horribly dumbed down in recent years, but it's pushing insano political agendas these days (see recent episode on black holes). I've been wondering if the talent is just gone.... if no new good episodes pop up in the next year or two I'll eventually come to that conclusion and bid the shows a sad farewell.

It's not privately controlled, it's publicly funded, focuses on educational broadcasting. Killing PBS seems far more nefarious to me than wanting to kill off NPR, because NPR is actually liberal leaning where is PBS is very moderate. But even NPR is an important American staple. Well.. it's arguably unconstitutional for the Federal government to be funding such things (and most other things the Federal government funds these days). If states or municipalities want to fund a PBS, NPR, or the like, they're able to do so, and in fact have. Historically a large majority of the funding for some of PBS's most iconic shows came from the private sector and state/local funding. Also... PBS is a bit more subtle than NPR but holy smokes is it a propaganda machine. Arguably a worse one even than NPR due to that subtlety many wouldn't pick up on. It has always been so but in my observations it's become worse as time has gone on. And I've been watching PBS fairly regularly for nearly 40 years. Frontline and Nova are a few of the only shows I still check to see what they're covering (along with Walking Dead for it's coverage of the zombie apocalypse, though the quality of it's coverage is waning: ZombieChowTigers are fake news!). Though I watch less and less as Nova has become incredibly dumbed down overall, and Frontline..... well Frontline is still occasionally good, but too often is just downright blatant bull**** and unintelligently produced at that (see the recent stories on Putin for examples).

Maybe, but as he has France on the brain, just doubting he'll be looking at Russian parades with ICBM launchers. I guess all Mattis et al. have to do is maybe wait a month or two before the plan's forgotten about. Grand Military Parades seems like exactly the sort of meaningless pantomimery Trump wouldn't forget about to me. It's a great way to shout your own importance from the rooftops and would appeal to the typical Trump voter who wants the US to shout its importance from rooftops. And of course you can accuse detractors of being against the troops and anyone who doesn't clap of being traitors as well, another added bonus. The average U.S. voter of pretty much any candidate, couldn't care less about parades, nor are they interested in shouting the importance of the U.S. to the world. On top of that, the latter is especially true of a great many Trump voters, who voted for him largely based on his put the people of the U.S.A first rhetoric. Not his, 'USA is #1 in the world!' rhetoric.

Mate, if you work on retail or a Supermarket 1.50 is a heck of a raise. They will look for every reason on your performance to not give you a raise and the closer you get to the max hourly rate is less the amounts of a raise. They even stop right before it gets to the limit. A ~$6.50/month raise is a pittance by anyone's standards. A $1.50/hour raise is decent by most people's standards, as that works out to about ~$3000/year for a full time employee, vs the $78/year raise $1.50/week gets you. That said, $1.50/week is likely a typo/mistake. An extreme few number of places, if any, are going to give someone a raise that amounts to a few cents an hour. 50 plus years ago a few cent raise would have meant something. In the world in which we now live, not so much. And THAT said. I bought 2 bananas for $.22 tonight. That very well might be the first time since the last millennium that my total at a counter was less than a dollar. Why would you waste gas just to buy 2 bananas? That seems a little...you know Driving the extra ~120ft into and out of the parking lot of the store on my way home no doubt pumped the actual cost of my bananas a little higher. Totally worth it though.. Oh I miss the days when putting a quarter into my gas tank actually took me a few miles. (Yes... I was once a poor college student, and a gallon of gas also once cost less than a $1 in my adult lifetime).

Mate, if you work on retail or a Supermarket 1.50 is a heck of a raise. They will look for every reason on your performance to not give you a raise and the closer you get to the max hourly rate is less the amounts of a raise. They even stop right before it gets to the limit. A ~$6.50/month raise is a pittance by anyone's standards. A $1.50/hour raise is decent by most people's standards, as that works out to about ~$3000/year for a full time employee, vs the $78/year raise $1.50/week gets you. That said, $1.50/week is likely a typo/mistake. An extreme few number of places, if any, are going to give someone a raise that amounts to a few cents an hour. 50 plus years ago a few cent raise would have meant something. In the world in which we now live, not so much. And THAT said. I bought 2 bananas for $.22 tonight. That very well might be the first time since the last millennium that my total at a counter was less than a dollar.

Occasionally judges actually uphold the Constitution. If more did, attempts to pass such laws such as 'Indiana's Freedom of Religion Law', and a great many others would be moot.

Most likely there are republicans who are happy about this turn of the events, but members of GOP in congress and Trump have parroted narrative about how stock market growth shows what economy growing under their leadership and for said narrative big stock market drops isn't best turn of the events. Maybe, but the opposition cannot say that stock drop is Trumps fault without acknowledging that the stock rise was his success Nobody's even blaming him in the first place. Yet. Stick around. Trump aside, it's safe to say that some people somewhere are going to blame President X for stock market crashes as much as stock market risings. There isn't a single President in the last few decades that hasn't had such blame place upon them, and by many.

Well... a great many are deluded to think they live in nations that actually have freedom of speech enshrined. Fact is, that a great many places (and the number is sadly growing) that many wouldn't expect, have laws criminalizing various forms of speech, thought, and the spreading of various ideas in any way. Worldwide it's safe to say that the vast majority of nations have such laws, but many aren't aware that many western nations do as well. Example, that should make people think (whether they do or not is an entirely different matter): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial Laws against 'hate speech' and the like are pure evil, and ironically very arguably expressions of hate themselves.

There's nothing common about common sense? Playing devil's advocate, I don't think that most folks in Congress (or even the President), tweet their own tweets most of the time. They've got staff to do that for them. And no doubt occasionally that staff ****s up in their eyes. This is also probably true of most high profile folks. Really, most people in power or working on gaining it have more important things to do than spend time tweeting, and most have the means to have others do it for them.

He sounds like my boss. Who? Volourn or the Polish President?

Pot calling the kettle black. It's preferable to have these things articulated than not and we are all pot's and kettles at the end of the day, so pots and kettles will have to do the calling. Speak for yourself. I am neither a pot, nor a kettle. 'I'm a HUMAN BEING, God Damn it! My life has VALUE! Well GD.... you can't solve problems without first realizing who and what you are (see above). And do you really think voting is the answer? Truly?