.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
Valsuelm
-
Posts
405 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Valsuelm
-
-
-
Vaguely wonder what caused it and if it's what ruined his filmmaking.
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....
-
1
-
-
Yes, let us honor our veterans by giving them low paying yard duty jobs at the huge number of schools we have across the country. *skeptical*
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 should have brought along a model of an F-16 as a prop. Or not, Bibi's prop usage is always cringe inducing.
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.
-
Honestly, I think it's the military style, assault style, assault weapon descriptors that don't really mean anything but are always included anyway. I never realized how much it bothers me until now.
Dishonest propaganda bothers me too.
*hug*
-
2
-
-
I don't know what it is exactly ...
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.
-
-
After a 30 minute perusal of the nations top newspapers and media outlets it seems gun control is the only solution everyone is talking about. Ironically had he rammed a car into 17 kids at a bus stop not one would be talking about banning cars... but whatever. In light of the turn in the conversation here is what everyone who wants that needs to do to make their "dream" a reality:
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
-
@smjames. The second amendment has two clauses:
- A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, this is called a prefatory clause. They are used four other times in the Constitution. The purpose it to explain what follows
- the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall no be infringed. That is the operative clause
The Constitution uses the words The People a number of times. In the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The 4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
9th amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In no other case is the use of the words The People presumed to mean anything other than an individual right. Yet somehow they tell us in the 2nd Amendment it does not. It is completely clear, the right to keep and bear arms IS and individual right. Now... what KIND of arms is up to debate.
You stepped on the slippery slope and fell.
No, it's very clear that what kind of arms is not up to debate.
-
Gun control is all about, and only about seizing the private property of people who have done no wrong, committed no crime. And there is no such thing as "limited" restrictions.Each restriction is a segue into another, and another, and another. And the people who advocate most strongly for it don't have to worry about being the victim of a crime. Or the forbearance of wildlife. And they don't lose a moment of sleep over the deaths of children that are not theirs except in how they can be exploited. It's not about saving lives, it's about controlling the livestock. And they will never have complete control over an armed population. My firearms killed no one yesterday. And absent some attack on y home or person never, ever will. no one has any standing to demand I give them up. Or any other thing I own. Not my home, my dog, my computer, book, none of it. The rights of the citizen are no subordinate to the will of the state. They day they are we no longer live in a free country. If they want them, they will have to come and take them.
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.
-
I don't watch Frontline, and haven't watched Nova since I was a kid. But I thought it was always an important channel amongst plenty of other trash and propaganda.
I've become more of a C-Span guy myself, but I must admit I don't really use traditional broadcasting at all anymore.
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.
-
1
-
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/373434-trump-proposes-eliminating-federal-funding-for-pbs-npr
I forget, what is the GOP's obsession with killing PBS ?
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).
-
'better than the bastille day parade' would be NK and former Soviet Russia tier displays of 'military might'.
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.
-
Why would you waste gas just to buy 2 bananas? That seems a little...you know
A ~$6.50/month raise is a pittance by anyone's standards.
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.I have a hard time believing Paul Ryan would tweet that out. That would be tremendously tone deaf. $1.50 a week is a pittance.
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.
bananas
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).
-
1
-
-
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.I have a hard time believing Paul Ryan would tweet that out. That would be tremendously tone deaf. $1.50 a week is a pittance.
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
Are we sure this isn't what the GOP want? There is a lot of profit to be made by shorting stocks, dipping the market and buying low. I'm sure there are people who saw this coming and have been offloading for a while now. Some people really love recessions.
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.
-
L0L LOGIC. Does this to 'protect' international reputation... yet the act of doing this hurts said rep. BRILLIANT.
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.
-
Jesus. I thought he had some semblance of common sense.
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.
-
L0L LOGIC. Does this to 'protect' international reputation... yet the act of doing this hurts said rep. BRILLIANT.
He sounds like my boss.
Who? Volourn or the Polish President?
-
-
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!
Voting isn't the answer huh? Well Val, what do you suggest?
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?
-
1
-
alternative facts
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
They do a pretty good job fooling people. Been at it for decades.