Valsuelm

SCG took the video down yesterday evening as it contained a factual error, and he's concerned with journalistic integrity. I think it would have been better to leave it up as there was only one error amongst many facts presented, and just add a note in the video with a correction but the guy behind SCG decided to take it down all together. He generally very good at researching the facts and ideas he presents on whatever subject he talks about, and along with his videos always sources very well whats in them on his website. He's stated he's going to put up another video on the subject at some point (could be days or a couple weeks knowing him). There's a short video giving a somewhat ambiguous reason as to why the video was taken down, but the specific reason is discussed on their facebook page and loosely in the comments of that video. In essence he cited a news story from some months back (I forget the date) that was somewhat rendered obsolete by things that happened since that story broke, which he wasn't aware of when he made the video. He was tying Reid directly and concretely to the Bundy situation, and provided evidence. One aspect of that evidence turned out to be outdated info. Reid is still tied to the Bundy situation through other things that have been mentioned by multiple news sources, albeit more loosely. I'll post the updated video when it's released. As for what our local pharaoh accused me of.... either he fails at reading comprehension of suffers from polarization such as I mentioned in this post in another thread. I do not make accusations of corruption or incompetence based on my disagreements with someone, but based on there actually being evidence of corruption or incompetence. Pharaoh assumes much and/or fails to understand what I wrote in order to make those accusations. He doesn't even know who on the Supreme Court I consider corrupt, who I consider incompetent, didn't bother to ask (it wasn't pertinent to my point to get specific), yet divines that I must disagree with them since I laid that charge. Truth be told, I follow the Supreme Court quite a bit and read a number of their rulings and opinions each year, at one point or another I've agreed and disagreed with everyone on that bench, yet I don't consider them all corrupt or incompetent. Perhaps pharaoh needs to add something to the sand he has his head in to help him divine better, maybe we should stick a crystal ball down there with him.

Well.. there are parallels. If it wasn't for modern technology (phone cameras, and the internet to spread the word fast so supporters could show up as well as keep the government from having a monopoly on the information of what's going on) things would likely have gone far differently out in the Nevada desert last week. The Branch Davidian event in Waco is definitely something worth reading/watching up on. Also, go look up the events that transpired at Ruby Ridge if you're unfamiliar with that. I can't recall the name of it but there's a very good documentary out there with interviews with the survivors of that situation as well as with numerous folks involved. Both are examples of great atrocities and beyond serious overreaches of power by the Federal government that resulted in great tragedy and multiple deaths.

If what the video Valsuem posted checks out this isn't so much the government as corrupt officials utilizing the government to make their fortunes (although to be honest this isn't something new in the US) It seems that the levels of corruption and their blatant disregard for public opinion are beginning to anger people. Whether their fears jump to the irrational; and fear always does, its undeniable that the US government has been growing corrupt for a long time now and the public seem to be beginning to understand what this means. The fact that it was posted by an account called "StormCloudsGathering" should give you some clue as to their biases. As Wals put it, they're among those running around pretending that we're all just about to get stomped. You would learn much from watching the videos there, and more if you actually researched what the guy on that channel ever talks about. But, keep on with your head in the sand. I hear it's good for psionics and divination to skip the stick and make your body the divination rod. No doubt that's how you knew what SCG was all about before ever watching or reading what SCG produces.

What kind of time commitment are we talking?

I don't think he has the face to carry a mustache. Eh.... He surprisingly can carry one quite well. https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/show_picture.pl?l=english&cat=pics&c=pf&q=putin+moustache&h=597&w=600&th=158&tw=160&fn=1366178722_putin_moustache_07.jpg&fs=88.8%20k&el=boss_pics_1&tu=http:%2F%2Fts4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DHN.608005491913196503%26pid%3D15.1%26H%3D158%26W%3D160&rl=NONE&u=http:%2F%2Fwww.xoxma.lv%2Fraznoe%2F27147-usy-dlya-putina-14-foto.html&udata=e87f4dd4caadca418941c997306e46da&rid=NGLNTRRPSKLT&oiu=http:%2F%2Fwww.xoxma.lv%2Fuploads%2Fposts%2F2013-04%2F1366178722_putin_moustache_07.jpg

Well, It's taken me a few decades on planet earth, but I guess I finally found someone who disputes what the generally accepted definition of a 'personal attack' is. Anon. I'll agree that in general debates are best when facts, ideas, views, etc are discussed. However, not all ideas, views, opinions, etc. are equal. More importantly though, it doesn't serve a discussion to be repeating the same thing over and over and over again, especially if it's erroneous. ie: The charge that there are 'pro-Russia' 'Russia is the good guy' people here. It's been pointed out more than once now that there aren't (at least no vocal folks) and the challenge has been issued to those making this charge (you, Tagaziel, Mor, (maybe others I forget)) to prove that there are by furnishing a quote or two, but it's ignored and the erroneous charge continues (at least from Tagaziel). If someone keeps blah blah blahing saying nothing constructive and something erroneous over and over, eventually, someone who generally does post constructive things is going to either call them out directly on it, or poke fun of them and jokingly suggest they go elsewhere for a better audience (as 213374U did to Tagaziel; Tagaziel's posts indeed would likely find more effect over at RT (assuming there are 'pro Russia' people there)). I say things that some folks don't agree with, so do others. I, and others, don't keep repeating them over and over and over again at the people who don't agree with me though (as some in the forum do), and I don't make erroneous charges at other posters, nor do most people here. It's really tiresome to see the repetitiveness of some of the posters here, and it detracts from the discussion being had. Why some feel compelled to do this I'm not sure. Perhaps that's all they know to say, or perhaps they think by repeating it over and over it'll make it true or somehow magically convince someone who wasn't swayed by the same argument the first time. I imagine the why depends on the person.

The Finnish people are in danger of not seeing Miley Cyrus and Justin Timberlake as well. Poor innocent bystanders are going to be the hardest hit by those tough sanctions on Russia. An aside: Is there a nation on earth where there aren't 'reality TV shows' and crap like 'blah blah has talent'? This cow diarrhea seems to be everywhere.

Huh? I don't know what you've been reading but definitely not these boards. Maybe try posting your butthurt on RT.ru for effect? DOES NOT COMPUTE I see no personal attack. What is relevance of saying " someone is butthurt" when you disagree with what they are saying? This is a personal attack, I can give other examples around other posts but its not necessary There's nothing necessarily personal about saying someone is 'butthurt'. Stop being butthurt because someone called someone you agree with all the time 'butthurt'. In case there's anything lost in translation: 'butthurt' is synonymous with 'whining'. While I'm sure there's some unusual situation where it might be considered a personal attack, the vast majority of the time when someone tells someone to 'stop whining', it's not a personal attack. I've been told to 'stop whining' a few times in my life and even been called 'butthurt' by some internetdweebs on forums elsewhere, I never considered it a personal attack. Here's an example of a personal attack: "Your momma is a @)#*$#@". (I don't mean your momma personally BruceVC ... this is just a generic example ). Or even worse: 'You're bossy!!' While Tagaziel seems to have been somewhat sarcastic in his remarks, he was indeed whining, albeit sarcastically (I think... maybe....). Given he's like a broken record in most of what he says (he stated nothing in his post he hasn't before, numerous times), and continues to make the erroneous charge that there are numerous 'pro-russia' folks here who insist Russia is the 'good guy', the 'butthurt' comment was apt.

Personal attack? What was said: Huh? I don't know what you've been reading but definitely not these boards. Maybe try posting your butthurt on RT.ru for effect? DOES NOT COMPUTE I see no personal attack.

Teenwolf has gotten involved! And he's pro Russian! http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/ukrainian-troop-defections-escalate-tensions-in-eastern-ukraine/2014/04/16/4d36b1b6-c532-11e3-b574-f8748871856a_story.html Alas Teenwolf. I thought you were one of the good guys. But you cannot be since BruceVC, Mor, Walsingham, Tagaziel, et all convinced me that Russia is evil incarnate on earth. Putin: Listen son. You're going to be able to do a lot of things the other guys aren't. Teenwolf: Oh yeah, like chase cars, and bite the mailman? Putin: No, better than that. Topple governments, piss on Obama, and have your way with Ukrainian women. Teenwolf: Aaaaaoooooooowwwwoooooooooooooooooooo!

A decent video that gives a pretty good synopsis of why what went down at the Bundy Ranch went down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFiosLqjoQQ In general, StormCloudsGathering videos are usually right on.

I mentioned before that some things have been litigated in regards to Federal jurisdiction in state lands, and indeed many if not most of those cases involve 'National Parks'. The U.S. Supreme Court is known to at times make things up as well as flat out ignore various aspects of the U.S. Constitution. The above case is a good example of them doing just that and pretending part of the Constitution isn't there. They don't even justify it well (they never do). The Hughes court is probably the most egregious offender in this regard. The 'New Deal', much of which was/is unconstitutional, and which some have argued more than anything else has sent the U.S. into the downward spiral towards a fascist communist state, was rubber stamped by the corrupt Hughes court. As I mentioned elsewhere on this forum, corruption is and has been rampant in the judicial branch of the Federal government for quite some time. While what the SCOTUS rules can be legally binding and set precedent, it cannot change what the Constitution says, which is there for anyone who can read and comprehend. For those who can think for themselves they'll see obvious evidence of corruption in the ruling you link (especially if they research other rulings linked within your link and the players in the court for those rulings), for those who suffer from reading comprehension fail or prefer to let the SCOTUS do their thinking for them they'll imagine that A1 S6 C17 of the U.S. Constitution doesn't matter at all ever, because that's what the SCOTUS pretended with this ruling. Now, in real terms, what the SCOTUS says does of course matter. However, despite their corruption, they have been known to change their minds (in particular when different people are on the bench), especially when great public pressure is on them (ie: Infamously in Brown vs. The Board of Education). Regardless of whether they change their minds or not the Constitution says what it says and there never has been a definitive ruling on A1 S6 C17, as no state has directly challenged the Federal government on those grounds over all the land it claims within state borders. Note that no state legislation or Constitution can give the Federal Government more power than they already have, legally. Has this been done in practice? Yes, especially since the 17th Amendment was passed. And it's one of the reasons the U.S. is in the )*#$@ situation it's in these days. Realistically I definitely do not see the modern Supreme Court siding with the states on this, even though to not do so is akin to saying 2 + 2 = 2. (Truly, some rulings, if read, are comical in their nonsensicality, even if they couldn't be more serious or tragic.) Every current member on it is generally largely what amounts to a federalist, a couple of them are arguably the most corrupt members the court has ever had on it, and one arguably it's most incompetent. Nevertheless the States have the right to challenge and there's a growing movement for this to occur (as I mentioned already, Utah is in the process of doing so). It's a fight more than worth fighting, and it's a fight that's part of a greater goal: to reign in the Federal government in a peaceful manner. All that said, I very likely won't bother to respond to you again unless you can exhibit some more intelligent thought. Some of what you say is relatively well articulated and adds to the discussion, but it's interspersed with nonsensical crap a federalist politician or Bloomberg might say about what you think the 2nd amendment is and "The idea that the Constitutional language providing for the establishment of the District of Columbia would limit the federal government's power to take jurisdiction over any other land was such a hilariously dumb one that I had to look up whether it had actually been litigated before." ........ 'Hilariously dumb?'... only if you're into an expansive federal government, and/or don't give a hoot about states rights/sovereignty which most of those who crafted the Constitution were not and did, same for the large majority of the original 13 states. You come off as a Tory, not as anyone who has a good understanding or appreciation of what made the U.S. what it was, still is to an extent (at least in terms relative to the rest of the world), and could be again: The land of the free.

Saying federal jurisdiction over the state land was codified in the Nevada Constitution isn't really true and there's only one place that even begins to touch on this, and it's a very very long stretch to say that it says this even there. Read it. http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Const/NvConst.html#Art14 The state borders are clearly defined in the document, never is federal jurisdiction clearly defined, and it's Unconstitutional anyways by U.S. Constitution standards to cede land to federal jurisdiction outside of specific boundaries spelled out clearly in the US Constitution (I linked in a previous post). It's an interesting read, especially if one takes into consideration the time and circumstances surrounding Nevada's addition to the Union, and compares it to the Constitution of the various states that preceded Nevada's joining the U.S.. Congress attempted to compel Nevada to do a number of things Congress has zero right to compel a new state to do, of course this was during the U.S. Civil War, aka The War of Northern Aggression when congress was doing all sorts of things it had zero right to be doing. The spelled out threat of federal force is amusing in the context of the times, and also disconcerting if one values self determination in the same context.

You are under the wrong impression that Russia has any interest in deescalating the situation, as oppose to acting on their old threats, in pattern that we all seen but wanted to ignore. Yes, Russia wants what is arguably it's most important geographic neighbor to remain unstable and plunge into civil war. They also want World War 3 as fast as possible. They are doing everything in their power to escalate the situation. Putin is a card carrying demon from the 7th level of hell. Everything he and Russia does is pure evil. It is clear to me now. The end times are nigh! You, BruceVC, Tagaziel, et al have shown me the light!

I hope you're joking. Bad joke if you are. If you're not, add your name, along with Tagaziel's and JadedWolf's in bold next to BruceVC's in my post, as what I said went way over your head. Add my name in bold? Look, what you 'nerds' don't seem to realise is that you do not want a world in which your official servants make up their own minds unilaterally about what can and cannot be shared with everyone else. The key thing is that I'm not anti-democratic. Democracy means no witch-burnings. It's rule of law. Not rule by the gun or the mob. What you fools seem to be in favour of is what I like to call the 'upskirt' version of democracy. It's the lazy, self-hating weirdo's idea of how government should work. democracy is hard work. You have to pay attention, not rely on white knights cantering around governmentg agencies feeding you what you need to know in the nick of time like a bloody fairy tale. Yea... way over your head went what I said. Also, check your etymology for 'democracy'. In actuality it does indeed mean 'rule by the mob'.

Thanks. So are you saying that Snowden being tried, fairly or not, would actually be healthy for the US as a whole? That's an interesting (and hopeful!) idea, but I'm not sure I believe it. I haven't really followed the Manning case—did his conviction have much impact with the average Joe? Also, I'm curious that you say that charges of treason against Snowden wouldn't really hold in a fair trial. Do you have any precedent you are basing this opinion on? I was under the impression that there is no whistleblower protection under US law. Is there something in the Constitution that could be used to leave him in the clear? Yea, barring something unforeseen and highly unusual (which is always a possibility) I think that a Snowden trial would be a good thing for the U.S. fair or not. If it was unfair and he was railroaded it would serve to wake a lot more people up to how bad things are (a great many people have a positive opinion of Snowden did here, and not just the usual suspects.. ie: I know more people in the military that approve of what he did than don't (I know a lot of people in the military)), and if he actually got a fair trial (I'd be pleasantly surprised if he did) that would serve to show some real hope that getting out of the slow but steadily moving quagmire to a communist fascist police state we're in over here might actually be navigable within the system. It's doubtful we'll see Snowden ever stand trial though. As for Manning. Though what he did is well known amongst many, he's not as well known as Snowden, in the U.S. or abroad. For those who've paid attention to his case, which is a sizable amount of people (and no doubt Snowden did), what's become of him is somewhat mysterious and definitely shady. Evidence suggests Manning has been put through hell and then some, very possibly tortured. A problem in the US that most won't recognize (most are entirely naive as to how the legal system works here) is that we allow the military to 'try it's own', and there's an entirely separate set of laws for those in the military than for everyone else when they go to trial. This has allowed the government to hide aspects of what's become of Manning. Regardless, I just used Manning as one example of what can befall a whistle blower if the government gets ahold of them, there are others who have suffered what most would consider less harsh fates, but they've suffered nonetheless. Not a US citizen but Julian Assange's situation is of course married to Manning's case. Manning is just probably the most famous relatively recent example. Other recent examples in the US include Julia Davis, William Binney, Sibel Edmonds, and Russ Tice to name but a few. And then there's Michael Hastings, though his death occurred after Snowden fled. In regards to if the charges of treason would hold in a fair trial or not, I don't know. I'd have to see all of the evidence and hear the defense. It's not a clear cut case by any means from what I've seen. If Snowden can make the case that he fled the US in order to make sure the evidence he had got out and/or that he fled in fear of his life, and the government can't prove Snowden aided foreign governments to the detriment of the people of the U.S. then yes, he could win his trial. There are various whistle blower protection acts in the US, if one of them applies to Snowden I do not know, but I doubt one would be applied as most of the whistleblower acts I'm aware of are very flimsy protections by themselves at the end of the day. Of paramount importance in regards to what Snowden did is this: Everyone in the military, all elected officials serving in the federal government, most if not all police in the US, most if not all elected officials serving in state and local governments, every judge in the US at the federal level, most if not all judges serving lower court levels, and a great many (but not all) federal employees all swear a legally binding oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Snowden revealed premeditated and rampant abuses of power in violation of the US Constitution on a number of levels (The 4th amendment violations probably being the biggest and of greatest concern) against the people of the US and much of the rest of the world (and not to say that the folks of the rest of the world don't matter, they do, but it's the violation against the US citizens that justifies what Snowden did), there is no lawful law that can prevent him from doing that. Not revealing that he knew these violations were going on would be treason in many people's eye, and a violation of his oath (if he took it, I don't think he did). Anon. In a fair trial it would really come down to 'Can the prosecution prove that what Snowden did aided foreign governments to the detriment of the people of the US'. I've seen nothing that says he has, though I'm not saying he has not. I'd have to hear the governments case. So far all it's given us is hot air.

Punishing criminals is a good thing. Revealing criminality is a good thing. What Snowden did was criminal. You work it out, sparky. AFAIK, there is very little room to argue that Snowden couldn't be tried for treason and espionage under US law. Whether he's a criminal or not would depend on the verdict. I have no idea how extenuating or aggravating circumstances (if any) would apply to the case, and maybe Enoch or Gromnir could share their expertise. Now, what happens if exposing criminality is also a criminal offense? I remember reading that, in the intelligence community, analysts and operators often cannot discuss certain matters with their immediate superiors because of how the mindboggling clearances game is set up. This madness reaches the highest levels of the hierarchy, with four-star officers not being allowed to know about the tools their subordinates use. So if you can't discuss stuff with someone whose job is to supervise and coordinate your work... is there any hope of revealing wrongdoing by a state actor without breaking the law? When was the last time Congress uncovered and acted against secret illegal government initiatives? Honest question, btw. They don't have Snowden so they can't try him. But they do have the NSA ringleaders, and nothing has been done about it. What is up with that? It really would depend on what court of law he was in and how corrupt the judge was. In the U.S. there are probably more corrupt federal judges than not these days. It's a major problem most aren't aware of, as most think of the executive and legislative when they think corruption in U.S. politics, but the judicial branch, especially at the federal level is really really bad. It's one of the major reasons the Federal government has gotten away with so much that it has. Time and time again it finds a corrupt judge to rubberstamp something as legal that in absolute no way is, why? because so many laymen think the legal system here is infallible. It most certainly isn't. Not at the local level and certainly not at the federal level. Snowden's case is a simple one on most levels. The complications come in when one considers that he actually fled to and where to. For the purposes of the legal argument let's accept that what Snowden is to alleged to have done at face value. I personally have suspected that there's a little more than meets the eye with the Snowden case but we'll ignore that as there is no proof of this I know of in the public domain. If we ignore his flight to another nation, Snowden is indeed a hero of sorts, or at least not a traitor. He exposed and offered proof of government agents violating the Constitutional rights of every American. In legal terms the Constitution trumps any and all laws about espionage or anything else. So Snowden was very much in the right for what he did, when one doesn't consider the fact that he fled to another nation. His lawyers could argue as some have done that Snowden fled to avoid Bradley Manning's fate, which would be a very good defense if he was tried outside of military jurisdiction. The modern federal government would no doubt want to try him in mostly secret though and claim 'classified' and 'national defense issues' on the majority of evidence submitted. I'm not sure they'd get away with it though if Snowden was here in the U.S. as the number of people here who think what Snowden did was not only not wrong but a morale imperative is not small, and if they saw Snowden get anything but a fair trial there would be political hell to pay if not more, which is something the more reasonable folks who want to burn Snowden at the stake would want to avoid, as they'd realize that Snowden's supporters would then want to burn them at the stake even more than they already want to. Snowden not getting a fair trial or having some dubious meeting with death would serve to push a large number of U.S. citizens closer to the idea that their government is out of control, and push those already convinced it is out of control closer to the point they will take action. There are of course many people thinking Snowden is a traitor, and because he fled the U.S. there is a possible argument for that, but so long as the judge in his case allowed his defense team to actually defend him there are a number of good defenses his legal team could offer a jury as to why he fled. Most of those saying Snowden is a traitor though are completely ignorant of our Constitutional Law here though, and I haven't seen many reasonable arguments out there as to why Snowden is a traitor. I certainly haven't seen one on this forum.

I hope you're joking. Bad joke if you are. If you're not, add your name, along with Tagaziel's and JadedWolf's in bold next to BruceVC's in my post, as what I said went way over your head.

Dude you must really have trouble reading... Who here has said that Russia is the good guy. Oby might have, but I'm not sure even he has (over half of what he posts is in Russian, a language I don't read. He could be describing in detail his alien abduction experience for all I know.). In the polarized minds of BruceVC, et al you're either with the U.S./NATO/EU on whatever issue we're talking about or you're against it (in this case you're with Russia). The possibility of an unbiased, unpolarized, objective observer wouldn't cross their minds as they themselves cannot be fully objective, are heavily biased, and very polarized. There were even some posts a bit ago by some stating that everyone is biased all the time. Which of course isn't true, but in the minds of those who are biased just about all the time, it has to be, because they can't imagine the world in any other way, and they think everyone else must suffer the same limitations they do. True empathy is lost on them. They lack either the courage, imagination, intelligence, or some combination thereof to put themselves in the shoes of 'the other side' or a dimension outside of the two sides of the polarized world they're in. In doing so they also have to ignore evidence that challenges their polarized world view, and that the 'other side' might be in the right. They can't even entertain the idea that they might be wrong, or worse, that that which they are so opposed to could be right. Hence the broken record aspect of some of this discussion. It's the same in other threads. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle Consider the validity of the above quote and juxtapose that with the denial and ignorance by some of so much that has been said in this thread. Especially when the idea that what happened on 9/11 might not have been what has been told to the world through official channels was floated. Some folks cannot even entertain a thought or a line of thinking, knee jerk vehement denial is the reaction as their precious world view is threatened. An aside: Polarized people cannot bring themselves to think outside of the polarized box they are in, as to do so would shatter their box and their world. In general, the people that have the courage to do that are in the minority. To step outside the box means thinking for oneself and realizing that they've believed lies while in the box, and most foreboding, accepting responsibility and possible culpability in the deeds one supported while one was polarized. Thinking for oneself takes actual effort and homework. It's much easier to believe one of the 'sides' in any given argument and let those who craft the vernacular for the polarized argument (whatever it is) do their thinking for them.

No one has suggested in this thread that guns be used as a primary means of influences over one's government. That's an argument I've never before seen or heard anywhere. You guys are reaching really far right now if you have to argue against that argument that has never been made here, and probably hasn't ever been made in a serious manner anywhere ever. What has been suggested numerous times on these forums, as well as elsewhere is that guns are a means to influence or remove one's government if necessary. A means of last resort in the eyes of most that would ever think to use it. It is the primary and fundamental reason for the 2nd amendment in the US. Anyone deluding themselves otherwise has never read the federalist papers, anti-federalist papers, or the various essays written by the folks who wrote the U.S. Constitution which spells out in no uncertain terms why that amendment (as well as pretty much everything else in the Constitution) is there. The Bundy situation is really interesting on many levels and serves as an excellent example to prove a number of points. That guns can be effectively used to influence government action, that using them as an effective way to influence government action doesn't mean that bloodshed need occur, that environmental issues are sometimes (I'd say more often than not) hijacked and used as an excuse to push some agenda that has little to nothing to do with those issues, that yet again mainstream media ignores corruption of those in the highest levels of U.S. government (Reid is as dirty as they come, and this is not the first time he's been implicated in abuse of power or corruption, in a better world he'd be in jail for past offenses already and impeached for the offense in regards to Bundy's situation), and that the number of people willing to put their lives on the line in the U.S. to defend freedom is significant (and I'm not talking of those in the military). Of course, those who identify themselves as environmentalists or can't let go of the idea that guns have no place in the hands of the public (except maybe for sporting, if that), likely won't be able to see these solid examples for what they are, and will instead argue against imaginary arguments that have never been made by anyone ever anywhere (except maybe as a bad joke). They will also ignore the fact that it was the government who showed up armed to the teeth first.

By your own account it very nearly turned a legal conflict into one where people got shot. Cow grazing is not worth killing anybody over. It's not about cow grazing.... ... and tell that to the numerous government agents that every day bear arms, threaten physical violence, employ physical violence, threaten death, and sometimes murder all in the name of government, to enforce their or it's will. In this situation an estimate 200 armed government agents with guns and other military gear showed up to corral some cows. This isn't a case of the chicken and the egg, the federal government initiated the threat of violence here.

Know that their way is best way? Such a person knows squat, diddly, poop, and is full of themselves to an extreme degree. 'Hubris' doesn't fully describe it, but it goes a long way in doing so, 'Stupidity' is probably the best word for the rest of the way. Really and truly, if you really think you 'know' your way is the best way, you know close to nothing. The only thing you've 'proved' is how ignorant and full of yourself you are. Yet again. You are quite good at offering us all proof of this quite often. Oh, and congrats again on being a subject of your government, thinking it is your government who provides the quality of life to the folks under it's rule. You are such a good serf. Such a good subject. Your superior comrades, king, or queen are no doubt happy to have you as such a loyal subordinate. Really, if you think there's a scale that can quantify what is the best culture you're either naive, ignorant, full of yourself, stupid, some combination of, or all of the above. Here's probably the best scale I can think of out there in regards to what is the best nation to live in: The suicide rate by nation. As obviously if it's such a great place to live for everyone, no one would kill themselves. In no way would I say that even the above is any kind of great indicator of what is the best culture. Though it's certainly more relevant I'd say that the links you provided. And in regards to those links. By one of them I live in the #1 culture, and while there are few other places on earth I'd consider living in, I wouldn't say my culture's way is necessarily the best way (especially in 2014 USA), and it certainly isn't for everyone. Of the supposed top ten nations on that list, exactly half of them I would move the hell out of as fast as possible if I was there as their governments are way too fascist and/or communist for me. Of your other list, the top 4, absolutely no way would I want to live there, for the same reason. Sweden? Australia? Nice places to visit sure, great people, I have friends in both places.. but their laws and government are way too oppressive, corrupt, and inept. Unless of course you are a happy good loyal subordinate serf who bathes in socialism and the 'glory' (*cough* *choke* *gag**vomit*) of their queen. Seriously. What's good for one person is not good for another. One man's trash is another man's treasure. #@*( anyone who would forcibly impose their nation/culture's way of life on anyone else, especially if they do it under the false auspices of 'we're doing it for your own good because our way is better'. There's a special place in hell reserved for such folks.

Piers was shut down despite CNN's best efforts because of his abysmal ratings, and no other reason. The NRA and 'right wing' had nothing to do with it other than they, along with most everyone else wasn't watching him.

I don't think you understand what spurious actually means. But seeing how you can't seem to distinguish between "perpetuate" and "perpetrate", this shouldn't come as a surprise. I wonder if you actually do this sort of thing on purpose, like oby's occasionally mangled grammar. If that's the case, props for the low key trolling. I'll start off by saying that I'm not terribly interested in 9/11 conspiracy theories and don't really follow the latest trends. Regardless, the first four points are circular logic, "this is the truth because it's the official accepted version and the official version is the true one". The fifth point has some merit, but if you dig a bit into the official 9/11 findings, you can see the conclusions fail to address some relevant issues. Not in my opinion, but in that of people in the know. It's probably not realistic to expect a final report that squashes all possible doubts, but that's not a blank check for sloppiness. The fifth point is, by far, the one that best proves just how uninformed and biased you are. The NSA has openly admitted to colluding with big tech firms to organize a massive, automated illegal surveillance ring. This is not a conspiracy theory, it's a full-fledged, straight up, no-nonsense, billion dollar conspiracy that was exposed only because an insider blew the whistle. Start by reading up on XKEYSCORE and PRISM and go from there. This stuff isn't even secret, it's on the NYT and Wikipedia, for Pete's sake. None of this means that every conspiracy theory out there is to be believed. But it means you should be careful with what sources you choose to trust and that you should be mindful of attempts to dismiss claims or questions solely by virtue of them being labelled "conspiracy theories" regardless of their merit. Thanks for the correction on "perpetuate" and "perpetrate". That was an unintentional mistake, I have no issues with you correcting me on any perceived incorrect usage of words. But spurious is valid in my post, your view is false and incorrect Ah.. more of your Your ignorance rises to a special level BruceVC. I'll give you this, of all the people I've ever run across on a forum anywhere, your indignant armor to reality is the thickest. In media you'd be akin to Piers Morgan, hubris, haughty holier than thou attitude, and all. Pretty much no matter what anyone ever writes your viewpoint is near impervious. And to address your first quotebox above, you really just show how much you let other people do your thinking for you. I'll leave the 9/11 issue at this for you as it's a good litmus test in regards to actual knowledge of the event. Until you (or anyone else who swallows whole and faithful the official conspiracy theory on 9/11) can write at least a couple of paragraphs about the significance of Building Seven during that event, citing actual facts about it, and why it is significant on the number of levels that it is, especially in relation to the official narrative, you truly have not done your homework and allowed others to do your thinking for you.