Valsuelm

Nobody? Okay, let me give you folks a picture of the same musician slightly older, hopefully that will help: First picture I couldn't place him, but the second...

December.

Convenient? When people are shooting at you, you tend to do what is necessary, all other things be damned. That said, most information coming out of Afghanistan these days is dodgy.

Hm, thats news to me, what makes you think that they're drugged up? Would explain a lot though. That was certainly the case with many of the Taliban fighters. The Taliban actually implemented policies that brought Afganistan's Opium output to lows not seen in decades if not centuries. Not long after the U.S./U.K. overthrew them and occupied the nation, Opium output reached record levels. Note that at the time (and possibly today too (I haven't looked it up)) the U.S. and U.K. were the #1 and #2 importers respectively of both 'legal' and 'illegal' opiates in the world.

I guess it depends on what is meant by 'intellectual' really. When I think intellectual, I mean some one who is educated. Most journalists are fairly educated; so I feel it's fair to call them intellectuals. Doesn't mean they're intelligent or have critical thinking skills though. You use the term 'educated' much more loosely than I do, as well as the term 'intellectual'. One of course can in modern times refer to anyone engaged in what's perceived to be a profession that uses one's brain more than one's hands as an 'intellectual'. Nevermind if that person is actually a critically thinking individual or even competent at their job. With this definition you could call an extremely incompetent teacher only half well versed in spreading the brainwash they've been given an 'intellectual', or the most incompetent lawyer you can find an 'intellectual', or everyone in congress an 'intellectual', and so on. The better and more historical definition of the word refers to someone who actually engages in critical thinking, original thought, real logic, reason, etc. I certainly would not call most journalists educated other than the sense that many of them actually went to school, like most of the rest of us. Just going to school doesn't mean you're educated in my book, or in the traditional/historical sense of the word. Have you read many newspapers, magazines, or watched many journalist talking media lately? It's common to find journalistic media that is ridden with grammatical and factual errors, and it seems things are worse than they've ever been with the internet, and the fact that 'Broadcast Journalism'/'Communications' is a very popular major at colleges throughout the U.S., despite the fact that most of those even at the most prestigious universities for said major never actually get hired to work the field they studied. Why is it popular? Well, one reason certainly is that it's a damn easy major relative to many others out there, much like another very popular major: Psychology.

You make the mistake of assuming academics are educated, and that someone who is educated is an academic. They are two different things, except to those who have bought the idea that you need academics to become educated. A trillion dollar industry has been built upon that belief, and it is a false belief.

Yea.. they said the same thing for the U.S. too. And they said it about the Swine Flu, Bird Flu, SARS, et al. Experts, on this topic and others, are generally full of sh*t. Not to say we might not one day (and perhaps sooner than later given how increasingly unhealthy so many in this world are, as well as how chomping at the bit the technocrat eugenicist elites are that run half or more of this world are to see a large chunk of humanity die) see a real pandemic, for anyone paying attention, the 'experts' became the boy who cried wolf some time ago.

RANT TIME!!! It's not surprising considering that the republican party abandoned it's successful capitalist foundation to court stupid, agrarian, unprincipled, and somewhat pro-treason bunch of Judeau-Christian zealots more interested in religious indoctrination than ideological consistency. How can anyone be shocked that intellectuals fled the republicans when they ceased to be the party of reason to become the party of stupid. They're the kind of morons who throw the word socialist at Obama like an insult; only to ignore that the previous republican president actively tried to preserve social security by making it solvent. Doin' a real good job of fighting socialism when during the 'Obama-Care' debate you complain money'll be taken away from medicare. Don't worry though folks because the country is going the same way as the journalist for unsurprising reasons. Nixon's version of the republican party is the Thief 4 of political parties. Like Thief 4 it suffers from a lack of an identity and being a mish-mash of incompatible ideas. Are they capitalists? Hell no. The drug war, gay marriage, social security, and various other positions they take show they haven't the slightest respect for property. Are they the party of small government? If you only listen to their speeches sure, but the illusion of a small-government appeal fails the moment you give even a slight glance at their policy. 1: Hilariously huge military when we're running massive deficits. Any attempts to reign in the financially irresponsible military spending is completely opposed by party leadership. See, their plan to keep America safe is to bankrupt the country while at the same time draw all the heat from the worlds villains by getting involved in everything. 2: Build an extremely expensive wall at the Mexican border. Good to know that the "party of small government" want to waste billions of dollars building and maintaining a wall that won't work, and if it did work would be an economic disaster. Not to mention would give the government a great degree of control over who can leave and when. One of the little details people forget is that the wall could do more than keep Mexicans OUT; it could keep Americans IN. I could go on, but then this post would be waaay too long. The republicans lose with journalist because few smart people would want to be associated with the republicans, and the few who do; do so grudgingly. It seems you bought a whole lot of discount propaganda when it was on sale. The Republican party is no more a party of "..... Judeau-Christian zealots more interested in religious indoctrination" than the Democrat party is a party of intellectuals. You correctly point out that the Republican platform can be shallowly described as essentially a bunch of hypocrites, but so can the Democrats. At most fundamental levels the only difference between the two parties is BS rhetoric they spit out, and there's not even that much of a difference in that anymore. At the end of the day there is very little difference between the two parties. Which, if you educate yourself on why we even have two parties and who funds each of them, would be as surprising as the sun rising in the morning. The idea that your average journalist is an intellectual is amusing. Apparently you don't know many of them, and well... you did buy a whole lot of discount propaganda so you must think those peddling it are intellectuals? The majority are not. They aren't even competent. You should try and keep in mind though, that both parties are made up of a bunch of people, and that while most of the members of each party are whackoloons to put it nicely there are a few sincere, or at least mostly sincere voices in each. So, for example, when the idea of 'small government' is espoused by some and the rest of the party catches on it's only because that idea is a fairly popular one with the people. Most politicians at the national level in each party are criminal psychopathic liars who will say and do anything to remain in power or gain it. As for socialists... the sad reality is that many many Americans are such, both Democrat and Republican, and other. It's a complex subject as to how it happened, but to really really simplify it: Lots of people want small government but don't cut their program or welfare check! Over the last few generations people have become indoctrinated with socialist ideals, disgustingly many to the point they actually think they're more 'civilized' or 'intellectual' for thinking that way (it's a very effective way to brainwash people: fill their heads with BS and at the same time fluff their egos about that BS to the point they think they are better than others for having those ideas. It's also an effective way to divide and conquer.). At the same time they've been told they are evil on the other side of the world. But if you call it a different name in the media over and over and over, 'Socialism' in the west, 'Communism' in the east, people actually buy the idea they are different things. They're no more different than blue and cerulean. [A different subject, but on the same hand: when police or military break out the gear and beat people down in the streets in some parts of the world, great foul is cried! But when it happens in our backyard or in a nation we're officially 'friendly' with it's either ignored or justified.] Cognitive dissonance rules the minds of most in the west.

One source: http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/05/07/Journalist-Surveyed-Democrats-Outnumber-Republicans-4-to-1 A lot of folks say what you say Hurl, yet for many those 'many news sources' are the likes of Bill Mahar, Steve Colbert, John Stewart, etc. And a lot of folks who call themselves independents are just jumping on the bandwagon of being independent, as these days it's increasingly becoming as uncool to be Democrat as it has been to be Republican for the last few decades. They still vote democrat or republican at the end of the day, they still tout most of the BS that is spit out by both parties (such as ISIS), and they don't actually think independently. Sadly.

If you were African and living in one of those countries you might not be so blind to imperialism that they've been subjected to again and again, and think instead it's somehow lofty goodly well intentioned people doing pure goodness out of the kindness of their hearts. While you might get some volunteers that indeed are legitimately wanting to save some people, nations don't operate that way, they just say they do to get folks like yourself to hop on the imperialist bandwagon that's painted with 'humanitarian' colors. The CDC in the U.S. is a pretty dirty organization, and the few thousand boots on the ground aren't there to save lives, they're there for the same reason they've been there in the past: to rape the area of it's resources, oil and other. Yes, there indeed are people in those nations who doubt the intentions of the U.S. and lots of them. They would like the foreigners to gtfo, including those who say they are there to help. You can even see evidence of that in many interviews done with the well intentioned volunteers there (if you watched them). Not everyone is ignorant of history, especially the history of their own back yard, or one that includes the deaths and murders of friends and family.

No. That's something else. It might be depraved indifference, abject stupidity, or something else all together depending on the circumstances. There's usually a world of difference between pulling the trigger and standing by and watching it happen.

Aye. I know many many vets, and some who have seen and done some serious sh*t. The majority of them, of all ages, do not generally want to talk about it, let alone boast about it. That said, I've personally known two 'special forces' snipers. One was a first generation Seal, who never opened his mouth unless he had way too much to drink. Sadly he was an alcoholic (from talking to him I think to try and forget about this **** he'd seen and done), so on a couple of rare occasions he told a story or two. They were ugly, and he was anything but proud of them. Each time he told a story of what he did it ended the same: In his pained words 'I killed people', and then a long swig on the bottle, repeat words repeat swig, repeat, repeat.... he'd walk out the door not wanting to talk to anyone with those words being the last he said with tears in his eyes. One of the toughest guys I've ever met, and not someone I'll ever forget. The second sniper I know was Army special forces who served in Iraq and Afganistan this last decade. Fun guy, and he definitely had some kills, but he was beyond full of ****, telling stories akin to Kyle's. Not a guy who was grounded well in reality, nor does it look like Kyle is from all I've seen and read of him. So there might be something to the 'culture' or atmosphere around special forces snipers these days where you end up with people who are talented yet uber full of themselves and in Lalala land. Or perhaps it's just coincidence. As for why he felt the need to boast? It's a bit complex I think, but the short of it is that in much of the western media folks like him are glorified and turned into heroes (hey, there's a movie coming out!). So he's very proud of being what he is as it's glorified. Must be a good thing right? Nearly everyone is telling him it is. But the reality is he's done some really really ugly sh*t. Stuff that most vets (and all of the grounded ones I've known) are not or would not be proud of. So on one hand you're proud of what you are (a successful sniper) and on the other you are not. The latter is internal and totally doesn't jive with the former. So you end up with some serious cognitive dissonance, the kind that leads to less and less a handle on reality and the kind that tears a lot of people apart. This is part of the story of many a vet to a degree. War is fugly.

Considering the movie is based on the autobiography of a guy who has been proven to have lied in said book, I wouldn't expect too much authenticity. Are you talking about the Jesse Ventura thing? That all got hellish messy. Well.. there's that, and more. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/30/the-complicated-but-unveriable-legacy-of-chris-kyle-the-deadliest-sniper-in-american-history/ The above story mentions just some of the BS Kyle is known to have said and done. If we actually believe Kyle, we have to believe he's a murdering POS (among other not so good things) and I'm not talking about his sniper kills overseas. I think it's safe to say that Kyle is not someone worthy of trust in his stories. American Sniper is going to be far more a work of fiction than an authentic biopic.

Considering the movie is based on the autobiography of a guy who has been proven to have lied in said book, I wouldn't expect too much authenticity.

0:27 - Psycho Killer 5:27 - Stay Hungry 9:33 - Cities 14:48 - Band Introduction 15:45 - I Zimbra 19:53 - Drugs 24:26 - Take Me to the River 30:15 - Crosseyed and Painless 36:56 - Life During Wartime 42:02 - Houses in Motion 48:51 - Born Under Punches 56:56 - The Great Curve December 18, 1980 Rome, Italy Vocals – David Byrne, Dolette MacDonald Guitar – Adrian Belew (of King Crimson), David Byrne, Jerry Harrison Bass – Busta Jones, Tina Weymouth Drums – Chris Frantz Keyboards – Bernie Worrell (of Parliament-Funkadelic), Jerry Harrison Percussion – Steven Scales If you like Talking Heads, crank it up and enjoy!

Yeah, that's never led to any problems ever. Fewer problems than government regulation designed to combat said problems, most of which are imaginary, hypothetical, or really just no one's business except the employer and employee. Ah, it's as if the Gilded Age never happened. Such a paradise we live in. Paradise? No... it's hell in comparison, really. For nearly everyone in the employee/employment market. Some are just ignorantly satisfied with their subjugation and lack of freedoms. 'None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.' of course. The popular history, as I imagine you teach it in schools is that we're so much better off since the age of children working in factories, 'The Jungle', et al. But it really wasn't near that bad for most back in the day, and I could tell you a number of modern horror stories that would not be or are made worse by modern laws that are supposedly there to protect workers. I just heard a new one today in fact. I wouldn't say things were all happy and perfect once upon a time, but I'll take no regulation at all over the nightmare we have now. If there's a happy median, we flew past it long ago. But hey, I would have left Europe to go to the New World once upon a time to escape the bull**** laws and regulations, many in this thread and many now in the New World, would not have. Unfortunately in modern times, there's near no where to run off to, to escape the what for the most part could be called in modern times 'statists' of one form or another, be they communist, monarchist, fascist, a happy combination of, or whatever. Question for all those that think it's soooo much better now in regards to labor laws than it was once upon a time: Can you come up with a scenario where a modern law that is actually on the books that is supposedly designed to protect a worker could in fact harm them or other workers greatly instead? If you cannot, you're either ignorant of the actual laws, lack experience or imagination, or are completely brainwashed. Because real life examples are out there aplenty. And then there's the whole no so small income tax issue....

Yeah, that's never led to any problems ever. Fewer problems than government regulation designed to combat said problems, most of which are imaginary, hypothetical, or really just no one's business except the employer and employee.

Been considering watching this. Good? (absolutely no spoilers please )

I agree. Problem is that if it was a male teacher and a female student, the reaction of most is entirely different. The guy would be ostracized and looking at serious jail time. Most of us wouldn't be saying 'congrats girl for bagging that old tiger'. While it's certainly generally not appropriate for a teacher/professor/instructor of any age to be tagging their student of any age, the age of consent laws in most the U.S.and many other nations are whackaloon, and the punishments for violating them are often down right draconian. Another issue, yet a related one, is that in general, women in the western world face far lighter sentences and conviction rates than males. In some cases they quite literally get away with murder. A decent video discussing that in a broad sense:

Depending on how old you are it's possibly par for the course. In my experience, most women start going nuts by 25 at the latest (many men too). It's usually a function of how anchored one is in reality and how much one is or isn't in denial of X. Once you start down the path of denial it's only downhill into the abyss of insanity. A lot of people tread that path, more than not these days it seems. I'd go so far as to say bat**** crazy is getting to be the norm in the western world. Yeah I hear you, denial is a systemic problem we face in many modern societies. Would you believe me if I told you that there are some people who deny that Al-Qaeda committed 9/11? Two videos for you. The first, short and sweet. Take it's message to heart, mind and soul. Live it: The second, a bit longer and more in depth, yet still the tip of an iceberg. Be warned, you might have to think for yourself:

Depending on how old you are it's possibly par for the course. In my experience, most women start going nuts by 25 at the latest (many men too). It's usually a function of how anchored one is in reality and how much one is or isn't in denial of X. Once you start down the path of denial it's only downhill into the abyss of insanity. A lot of people tread that path, more than not these days it seems. I'd go so far as to say bat**** crazy is getting to be the norm in the western world.

It's already been established that the wanna be big star actress was not harassed. What are we talking about here?

That's called Fascism. It's not the hallmark of a society with a truly free market.