Valsuelm

There's been about a couple of 'the worst storms the USA east coast has ever seen.' every year for the last few years. It's total BS really. A couple of feet of snow is generally not that big a deal in the northeast. It's not exactly unusual in most places northeast of Maryland. Yay for skiers. The hysteria in the media and governmental decrees of insanity that seem to occur more and more these last few years never really happened a decade or more ago. It's pretty ridiculous really that a winter storm here is making international news. And really, it's not that exceptional a storm. The last really bad winter storm I recall happening was in late December of 2000. That was a massive ice storm that encapsulated states from Oklahoma to New England in ice, and shut things down all over (as it brought power lines down all over). I was actually driving cross country at the time as saw some pretty wild stuff (note they never actually closed the roads back then for any great length of time, if at all; that's a relatively new and disgusting imo phenomenon).

He's been on my list in that regard since the mid 90s.

So being angry and scared justifies evil acts? I've little doubt that some of the people you think are the 'bad guys' are angry and scared. How come their evil deeds aren't justified this way. And the CIA does not have keeping the USA safe as it's priority.... it works for the international bankers (aka 'Wall Street), not for the people of the USA.

Since we've taken that turn. (warning: somewhat explicit lyrics)

Does it make you uncomfortable to call a spade a spade? If you're well grounded in reality, It shouldn't. Efforts to call a spade other than what it is, are efforts at deception and evil in nature.

Where does one get trained to torture people? Didn't realize there was a school for that.

I'm unaware of any site you have to register at. Try this: http://riftworldchronicles.com/movie.mp4

The Portal A short entertaining film (only ~12 mins long). I enjoyed it, recommend it, and wish it was longer.

Well, the last election wasn't a Presidential election. I only voted for local folks as there was nothing national on the ballot in New York, nor will there be this next election. The previous Presidential election, I wrote in Ron Paul. I'm not too keen on Johnson. He's a helluva a lot better than any of the majors I'll give you that, but he's still kind of a slimy politician, and he's naive on monetary policy and international affairs. I actually liked him for a long while, but after he became a Presidential candidate I looked into him a bit more and didn't like what I found, so he didn't deserve my vote. A vote 'against' any candidate by voting for the major party alternative is worse than not voting, voting for someone you believe in that's very unlikely to win, or writing someone in (what I usually do, since the big parties have made sure there's no 'none of the above' option in mine and most states). And this is unfortunately the trap that so many (probably the majority of voters) fall into. I know more people who voted against Bush than voted for Kerry (and vice versa), voted against Obama than voted for Romney (and vice versa), voted against McCain than voted for Obama (and vice versa), etc, and I'll wager that most of the people here that live in the U.S. can say the same. I was guilty of doing this when I was much younger as well, but then I realized all the problems with it. Here's a few: - You legitimize the two party system, basically perpetuating it's solid grip on U.S. politics - Whoever you vote for is going to use your vote to say 'I have the backing of the American people on this' (this being X (usually some hellish thing you wouldn't actually support if asked)). And a lot of other people are going to believe him, because he can point to getting X number of people's votes that all said they wanted him to be President. - By not voting for who you actually want, even though they are unlikely to win, you're perpetuating the inability of candidates outside of the two party system that you actually like to win. I'm gonna stop here, because really, I could spend a few hours writing on all the things wrong with voting for 'the lesser of two evils'. But I'll sum it up this way: For at least the last three U.S. Presidential elections the two major choices could be likened to this: You've got two daughters, you love them both. There's a well dressed guy with a gun to one's head, and an equally well dressed guy with a knife to the others throat. The evil men in nice suits tell you to choose. Which evil do you choose? Which is lesser? The answer is you choose none of the above and find another way. And that's pretty much the difference between the major Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates (and very often Congress and the Senate too, but that varies) these last few elections. The only real difference is the flavor/color/sound/etc of the absolute BS train to hell they're offering. Unfortunately, of the Americans who actually vote (which is a minority of Americans), too many have been duped into thinking that one major party is actually better than the other. On all the major issues they are the same. They both support the wars, they both pander to the banks, they both have been hijacked by internationalists, they both put the people who bought and paid for them above their actual job, they both piss and poop all over the Constitution, they both want to rob you of your hard earned money and spend it on all sorts of things you couldn't find a single American out there with a smidgeon of brain that would support even half of it, they both lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie, all the damn time, and so on. So don't vote for the lesser of two evils. Please. You're just perpetuating the BS if you do. If you want actual meaningful change (not the superficial crap 'change' Obama was peddling), vote for who you believe in, whether it's Gary Johnson or someone else. If there is no such person, write someone in (real, or as a protest vote as I do). If everyone did that, the Democrats and Republicans would become as the Whigs within a decade. If not enough people do that, we're just going to get more of the same as we've been getting.

But on a serious note if you don't vote for Republicans, and I know you won't vote for Democrats, then who would you vote for? This last election, I wrote in Micky Mouse, Daffy Duck, Yosemite Sam (for Sheriff), Goofy, and Bugs Bunny. I had considered Marvin the Martian but he didn't meet the residency requirements. It's too early to tell for certain, but right now it's looking like I'll be voting for them again next election. " Mickey Mouse " Typos happen. And 'Micky' wasn't auto-corrected. Thanks. No I didn't mean your incorrect spelling, I never correct spelling or grammar because my own grammar is atrocious. I just found it funny that you pretended to vote for Disney characters I didn't pretend. I actually voted for them. And that wasn't the first time. Truth be told I prefer Warner Bros' characters to Disney's, however Goofy is just too apt a character to serve in office, and there is no more iconic cartoon character than Mickey.

But on a serious note if you don't vote for Republicans, and I know you won't vote for Democrats, then who would you vote for? This last election, I wrote in Micky Mouse, Daffy Duck, Yosemite Sam (for Sheriff), Goofy, and Bugs Bunny. I had considered Marvin the Martian but he didn't meet the residency requirements. It's too early to tell for certain, but right now it's looking like I'll be voting for them again next election. " Mickey Mouse " Typos happen. And 'Micky' wasn't auto-corrected. Thanks.

But on a serious note if you don't vote for Republicans, and I know you won't vote for Democrats, then who would you vote for? This last election, I wrote in Mickey Mouse, Daffy Duck, Yosemite Sam (for Sheriff), Goofy, and Bugs Bunny. I had considered Marvin the Martian but he didn't meet the residency requirements. It's too early to tell for certain, but right now it's looking like I'll be voting for them again next election.

Well.. we made it to page 4 without any blatant racism. That's something I guess. Yea... black people have a monopoly on acting hysterically. There are plenty of videos out there of white cops (and just people of all colors) acting like hysterical idiots. Nice of you to call him a monkey... The guy was actually calm when he first approached the car, but flipped lunatic when he saw a gun in the glove compartment. Seriously folks, the color of someone's skin matters a lot less than some of you think. More often than not, like in this situation, it doesn't matter at all.

You need to read up on Lincoln if you think Obama is bad about the law. Here is what a lot of the sites you read today would look like if Lincoln were in power: http://www.libertyforlife.com/constitution/politicians/dishonest_abe.htm Here is a less inflammatory version: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/mar/10/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-says-barack-obama-first-president-who-thi/ Lincoln was President during a civil war, what's Obola's excuse? The first link you posted is completely ridiculous, in the second link read Cruz's response, it explains it very well. I'm no fan of Obama, but you repeatedly calling him a childish name like 'Obola' detracts from any argument you make. It's no different than the bitter democrat/socialist who refers to Republicans as 'Repugnacans' or people who identify with the Tea Party as 'Teabaggers'. Ted Cruz is wrong. I've little doubt there are other examples, but somewhat famously in recent times one can look to Obama's immediate predecessor if one wants an example of a President who is guilty of exactly what Ted Cruz claims Obama is guilty of (he's right in that he's guilty, but he's very wrong in that he's the first). Here's one article on it (there are many others out there): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/23/AR2006072300511.html One could start reading through the various Executive orders through the years to no doubt find more examples of Presidents doing exactly what Cruz says Obama has done. There are other places to look as well. I'm not defending what Obama has done. Much of it is solid ground for impeachment. But we past the point before Obama came to office where Congress, the Supreme Court, the mainstream media, and even a majority of the American people would pursue that route. So, the inevitable has been and is happening: The President and the government at large are going to just do whatever they want, Constitution be damned, more and more.

Volourn is correct. If it was common sense for everyone to do what the 'authorities' say no matter what, the entire world would be under totalitarian dictatorship type governments. Exaggerating there. Look, he had every chance to do what the cop asked him to do, like fifteen times. Unlike his friend, he refused to comply. I understand we all have individual rights, but we also have law. The cop said there was a gun in the glove compartment, he was on edge because of that. Then the dude refused to do anything he was asked with a gun in his face. Then the cop tells him if he gets out, he gets shot. So he gets out of the car. News so far states he had a criminal history, shooting at cops among other crimes, and this cop was aware of that. If you want to claim police abuse over a situation like that, give me a break. I've seen way worse. The guy that got choked out was way worse. There's no exaggeration. You just fail to think through to what your line of thinking ultimately leads to, likely as you just don't want to take responsibility or are uncomfortable with those thoughts. Few want to believe they are cowards or don't have what it takes to stand up to tyranny or for what's right when it counts. In many ways your attitude is what allows a great deal of evil to happen in the world. What you purport is common sense is nothing more than cowardice. Yea.. its' common to a degree, but it's not sensible. Sadly it's not surprising that you go on and defend the cowardice of the police in that video and try and blame the victim. No doubt you're one of Milgram's 37.

Volourn is correct. If it was common sense for everyone to do what the 'authorities' say no matter what, the entire world would be under totalitarian dictatorship type governments.

Sure... attack the messenger and not the message. Quick, do it before you even know what he says. Maybe you'll convince others to dismiss what he says without listening as well. While I certainly don't agree with everything he ever says (and actually very vehemently disagree with him on some things), he far more often than not has his facts straight when talking about political issues. I challenge you provide the commentary of someone else that is even half as informative, rational, or insightful on the issues he's discussing. Try actually listening to what the guy says before you dismiss him. If you're dismissive of what he says in the two videos I link I'd say you're dismissive of a great deal of reality. And as far as expecting you to believe him, I doubt you'll even watch. But if you did, I'd be curious to see you debunk the facts Stephen is discussing in those two videos.

Obama did get one thing right, things were generally better in 1999.

So BlackLivesMatter should be WhitePeopleareRacist instead? Either you care that cops are killing people; black people in particular, because otherwise if you're just bothered when its a white guy then you're a racist. I don't think the other incidents are irrefutable incidents of police brutality and cops using deadly force for no reason, there were extenuating circumstances . I made this clear in the various discussions we had. This is different, the guy is unarmed and gets out the car with his hands up and he gets shot..very different story don't you think ? There is no shortage of filmed footage publicly available of police assaulting or even killing unarmed people (black, white, or whatever) for little to no justifiable reason. Unfortunately there's also no shortage of DAs, judges, or juries looking the other way or justifying the unjustifiable. The former is a very serious problem, the latter is much more. Are there situations where the police justifiably use force, or even deadly force? Yes, and if all the facts that were presented are true then the Michael Brown situation was one of them. Most of the situations ever brought up on this forum though are not situations where the police force was justified. The Michael Brown situation really was a manufactured story to further racial division within the US. The facts available from day one were not correctly reported in most of the media. Here are two insightful commentaries I suggest you watch. The first I've linked before elsewhere on this forum, but the second I have not.

This thread might win the 'immature thread of the year award' if there was such a thing.

I'm white, dress in a manner most consider well, and drive a nice car. I've had the experience of police pointing a gun at me at a routine traffic stop. I've also personally seen cops assault and beat down two different people on two different occasions, one was a black guy, the other a white guy. The latter was even filmed by a friend, but the local TV station didn't want anything to do with it (despite the fact that the person who brought it to them was an intern there; it did however help the guy with his lawsuit against the city). This was before the days of Youtube though, so it never got posted to the internet. You can find videos out there of cops assaulting and killing white people too. The issue is rarely racial.

Videos of cops unjustifiably assaulting or even killing people pop up a at least a couple of times a month on average. And those are just the ones made public. Think of all the times this happens when there's no video.... http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-kill-citizens-70-times-rate-first-world-nations/#FzLw3mAbGfiu1yQB.99 http://www.killedbypolice.net/

Most people? You mean people like this?: Seriously, you've fallen for Oby's propaganda. You're thinking exactly what those who made the infographic that he links wants you to think. Polls are some of the most widely used propaganda tools out there in modern times. Are they sometimes useful? Yes. But quite often they are used to manipulate the public's perception of X. One shouldn't ever take any poll seriously without knowing who was polled, the methodology, or all of the questions on the poll.

I'd be interested to see the source(s) for that chart as well as the methodology used in the polls. Regardless, the polls aren't necessarily an indication of western propaganda (or eastern). Not to say there isn't a whole helluva lot of propaganda surrounding the history of World War 2, but a compelling case could be made for each of the nations in that poll in that they contributed the most to victory over Germany. But it really doesn't matter all that much either way, as the reality is that without any of them, that victory would not have happened.

Citizen Four 6/10 If you already know Snowden's story you're not going to learn much, if anything, from this film. It's mostly a film showing Snowden locked up in his hotel room in Hong Kong, and part of the conversation had by him and the reporters he first went to over that first week or so. If that interests you, then I recommend this film. If you are of the mind that Snowden is a bad guy, I recommend this film.