Gromnir

not strange given the time. is impossible to communicate the difference 'tween pre and post bork SCOTUS appointments. relative apolitical. qualifications and character o' the nominee were subject to review, but not philosophy or imagined politics. of course republicans would choose a nominee who they believed would make republican agenda more successful. of course democrats would choose a nominee more sympathetic to their aims. senators reviewed character and competency and politics were almost irrelevant... as hard as that is to believe nowadays. bork were qualified. bork were not having character issues making him unsuitable. shoulda' been a slam dunk. HA! Good Fun!

the money disappeared. and jpl is federally funded... through a contract from nasa. 40 years. 40 years o' tech and experience advancements since 1981 and you are comparing as equivalencies? once nasa were sidelined and were no longer a national endeavour it still managed to produce advances in spite o' obstacles. spacex has a long way to go to come anywhere near replicating results o' nasa. HA! Good Fun!

why does this point not resonate more? not only did nasa do first, but they did forty years ago. previous image link is busted am thinking you are giving those nasa guys far less credit than they deserve. shoulders o' giants and all that. HA! Good Fun!

@Guard Dog one point we tangential spoke to but is possible gd and others is unaware, so am gonna address brief. questions which come before the Court is ordinarily novel in at least some important way. the democrats and more liberal media has done a fantastic job o' selling Americans on the notion that acb on the Court is a death knell for roe, griswold, obergefell and even loving. is not an unjustified position as multiple Justices has expressed a desire to overturn and so too does acb based on past articles. HOWEVER, and this is a big however, the affordable care act is what the democrats were hitting hard during the acb hearings, and is far less clear acb would vote to strike down obamacare based on the case coming before the Court. while it is true acb criticized the roberts decision upholding the aca, the current case is dealing with a novel legal question only tangential related to the previous aca case. the current aca case deals with a question o' law acb has addressed previous and her previous decisions actual suggest she would vote to preserve the aca insofar as the current case is concerned. 'cause people do not know the law, politicians may spin issues such as acb and her threat to the aca. am thinking mcconnell efforts to get acb on the Court will backfire. as we noted previous, getting acb sworn in before the election means is no longer a voting issue, so no motivation to get apathetic conservatives to vote. however, the fear democrats managed to drum up insofar as the aca being in danger during a pandemic may just result in one and possibly a couple republican senators losing their seats. long term the acb appointment may be a gain for conservatives, but if republicans lose the senate, it will be at least in part 'cause democrats adept used the hearings to create a whole lotta anger 'bout doomed roe and aca and the truth is the aca is looking anything but doomed from our pov. HA! Good Fun!

chicken or egg? intuitive we tend to think the professor reverses. look at the civil war and the medical advancements which came out of the conflict. you don't sudden decide to halt medical advancements in the hope o' preventing future wars or those who might die 'cause o' medical advancements. we ought to limit biomedical advancements until we attain world peace 'cause is possible such advancements will lead to bioweapons? idiotic suggestion. basics o' icbm technology existed before the so-called space race and the military involvement in such the only reason the US invested so heavily in peaceful applications o' space exploration is because o' the competition with the ussr. it were the military funding which accompanied kennedy's promise to beat the soviets to the moon which made the apollo missions possible. is not as if icbm tech and advancement woulda' stopped or been undermined by absence o' a space race, but all those peacetime applications resulting from nasa's and the soviet efforts to reach the moon woulda' been lost or retarded. will need to read further, but after an admitted all too brief and unfair look, daniel deudney appears to have complete reversed the typical/ordinary progression. oh, and while am knowing gd favors privatization o' space exploration, am disagreeing whole hearted. but for obama choices to defund nasa, we would likely already have returned to the moon and would be much further along in our goal o' reaching mars, and would be literal dozens and possible hundreds o' ordinary life altering technologies resulting from the need to overcome the scientific hurdles preventing us from safe returning to moon and then going to mars. so many wasted opportunities. any President who cuts nasa budget instant gains our derision and scorn. ... the threat o' possible and future terraforming technology used in wartime applications is so utter remote and divorced from current 2020 reality as to beggar the imagination. any sorta serious consideration o' terraforming planets w/i the solar system is skipping so many intermediate steps as to make the suggestion comic.. but since am talking comic... moon hoaxers and those who wanna cut nasa budgets is on our list HA! Good Fun!

am knowing is a terrible analogy, but for us, umbrella academy season 1were more like justice league and umbrella season 2 were closer to guardians of the galaxy... well, with all the dad stuff, am s'posing were more like guardians of the galaxy 2. heck, season 1 o' umbrella were even filmed darker-- more blue and grey. season 2 were far more sunny and silly than season one, and considering the ridiculous collection o' characters assembled, trying to be dead serious felt like a disconnect for season 1. HA! Good Fun!

back in may we got a heads up from our financial guy that we had just bought silver... lots and lots o' silver. ... had a moment o' confusion followed by horror. why on earth would we buy silver? silver bounces all over the place 'but it doesn't bounce a whole lot. is tough to make money with silver, and apparently we had bought a sh!7 ton o' silver. costs somewhere 'tween eight and twelve dollars simply to get silver out o' the ground, so we had an order to buy silver up to X dollars if silver dropped below $11.80. X in this case were not a small number. back in may, silver dropped to $11.70. sudden, Gromnir is a silver baron? exaggeration? not by much. *groan* silver has been all over the place since may, but it did go up considerable. with how f'd the markets is thanks to lack o' stimulus and election uncertainty, we decided we needed more cash, so we called our financial guy and told him to sell all our silver at $XX.30. that number were hit today. first world problems but you got no idea what a relief it is gonna be to not look at silver prices obsessive every day... since may have spent at least 30 minutes every day dedicated to checking silver price and trends. all the talk o' watermelon had us jones for a watermelon fizz. 'cause am old, we almost always have ginger ale on hand. combine our frozen watermelon, ginger ale and lime juice. am understanding gin is a staple in such a combination but we do not consume alcohol as a beverage. yummy. HA! Good Fun!

predictability in a Justice is a good thing. if issue A shows up in Case B and a Justice decided yea on issue A previous, why would we think it is a good thing for the Justice to be unreliable and for us to have no idea how they will decide issue A in the future? lack o' predictability o' a Justice or judge? how is that a good thing. sure, in most cases before the Court, Justices is s'posed to be deciding novel issues o' law. just because politicians and media misrepresents an issue as being well established do not make it so. predictable is less concrete if is a novel question. that said, am baffled at implication that unpredictability in a Justice or judge is a positive. bork. all comes back to bork. know what a nominee were likely to decide on pivotal questions o' law were not considered a bad thing before bork. scalia was better known for sec and transactional stuff before being on the Court, nevertheless, we had a good idea o' how he would decide on a wide range o' 1st and 4th amendment cases previous to his senate approval. good. is good to know a Justice is reliable. the thing is, bork made it obvious that having opinions which polarize is bad for a nominee. any appellate judge with SCOTUS aspirations stopped having opinions beyond their actual Court decisions, and even then, the silliness 'bout not being able to speak to an issue w/o knowing specific facts o' a case is idiotic. acb would have been absolute useless as a law school professor if she couldn't come to conclusions based on hypotheticals. am thinking too many folks confuse ideological extreme with predictable. ginsburg v. alito? why those two for most predictable? most ideological extreme members o' the Court, even with ginsburg, were sotomayor and thomas. the thing is, on pivotal cases, thomas is extreme likely to go solo with a concurrence or dissent. most predictable Justices current (scalia were extreme predictable before his death) is, in our opinion, kagan and kavanaugh. kagan has an extreme well developed legal philosophy and a large body o' scholarly and judicial work which makes her decisions predictable. predictable is good. 'course Justices need show their work. how a Justice arrives at a decision and the minutiae o' such decisions is just as important as is predictability. kavanaugh, for example, has been near as predictable as were scalia, but unfortunately legal philosophy guides kavanaugh a bit less than scalia or even thomas. kavanaugh is a political creature akin to rehnquist... who were also extreme predictable. there is a few Court pairs which is extreme dependable, but the exceptions to seeming rule is what gets attention. roberts and kavanaugh have a better than 90% chance o' deciding same, but as am sure gd is aware, roberts went against type in a few high-profile cases this last term. converse, sotomayor and ginsburg were lockstep almost as often as kavanaugh and roberts... almost. however, on the high profile cases there were no disagreement 'tween ginsburg and sotomayor. dunno. am thinking borking messed up everything. ginsburg, btw, were the last Justice to clear state that roe v. wade were decided based on unsupported legal reasoning before being admitted to the Court. ironic? HA! Good Fun! ps so is clear, how predictable a Justice decides liberal or conservative is Not The Same as is how predictable is the Justices' decisions. sotomayor is most likely to decide liberal on so-called liberal scale. kagan, a s'posed liberal Justice, is less likely than sotomayor to decide predictable along the funky liberal v. conservative breakdown, but her decisions is amazing consistent given even a passing awareness o' kagan's philosophy and her past decisions. probable is no more clear.

watermelon may be frozen but texture will change drastic. suggestion: puree melon (remove all seeds) and then freeze in ice cube trays. throw the frozen cubes/balls o' watermelon in a ziploc bag and store in the freezer almost indefinite. watermelon rind is underutilized and may be pickled and/or preserved. deep-fried watermelon rind is also surprising tasty, but we would not recommend trying to deep fry watermelon rind which has been previous frozen. HA! Good Fun! ps (edit) forgot to mention seed removal... though one assumes such would be self-evident. bad to assume.

Judge rejects Justice Dept. bid to short circuit defamation case brought by woman who accused Trump of rape "In a 59-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan wrote that Trump did not qualify as a federal “employee” under federal law, nor was he acting “within the scope of his employment” when he denied during interviews in 2019 that he had raped journalist E. Jean Carroll more than two decades ago in a New York City department store." ruling is no surprise. however, am gonna observe how acb's most notorious fed case ruling had her decide that the government could not be sued 'cause a guard's repeated rape o' a female prisoner fell outside the guard's scope o' employment. trump just added a justice to the Court who has already shown her hand as to how she will vote if this case gets SCOTUS review. ps/follow up last observation 'bout the aryan invasion stuff which we admitted know virtual nothing and what knowledge we do have is decades old and came as maybe five minutes during an undergrad humanities course somewhere 'tween covering gilgamesh and the iliad. am not claiming expertise and am barely aware o' the theory. evidence o' invasion is a result o' common sense, genetics and aforementioned language commonalities. archeological evidence o' aryan invasion has been kinda undermined. is no historical record neither. limit to same evidence would make donald trump and stephen miller claims 'o an invasion o' the US southern border by peoples from central and south america over recent decades equal plausible. afterall, recent decades has seen considerable influx o' peoples from south and central america into existing populations particular in the south and western US resulting in observable genetic and language changes. am not gonna be a hypocrite... which brings us back to why am confident acb finds 'gainst trump in a a imagined future SCOTUS case addressing the defamation claims o' ms. e. jean carroll. HA! Good Fun!

Times Square Billboards With Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner Stir Skirmish ... y'know the lincoln project has gotta be slack-jawed that javanka is providing them with so much free publicity and extra exposure. the trump couple turns a times square billboard into a national and even international story? as government officials and public figures they have a worse chance o' succeeding in a defamation case 'gainst lincoln project than we do o' winning the 2021 miss america contest-- am thinking we would score ok in the interview portion but now that the swimsuit portion has been removed, we got no shot at victory. more amusing is the following: "The couple might be greeted warmly in some parts of the city, said Joe Borelli, a councilman from Staten Island — which voted for the president in 2016. Mr. Borelli said he has no insight into “polite society” but noted that Ms. Trump and Mr. Kushner “are always welcome on Staten Island.”" folks unfamiliar with ny may not get the joke. an example o' a staten island high society event would be the local knights of columbus holding a barbecue/monte carlo night to raise money for a neighborhood catholic church, the society of st. vincent de paul, or maybe even a new scoreboard for the baseball field/complex where little league games is held. the idea o' jared and ivanka voluntarily spending time in staten island 'cause is the only place in ny where they is still welcomed is funny and absurd. if trump loses in november, am almost gonna miss 'em. almost. HA! Good Fun!

has been a long time since we had any exposure to this, so am hopeful somebody more knowledgeable corrects what we assume will be multiple errors. aryan migration/invasion is kinda an explanation for the linguistic commonalities 'tween european, middle-eastern and asian languages, and we are talking 'bout hypothesized events more than 1200 bc. is more o' a semantics issue than anything. if you migrate into places where folks already is having established cultures, then some modern and socially conscious persons, absent any evidence, will wanna call it an invasion. is not a complete unreasonable assumption, but again, is no evidence the migrations o' persons from europe to asia were "invasions." there may even have been bloody conflicts 'tween the foreigners and the indigenous peoples, but labeling such insular conflicts as an invasion is requiring a bit o' a leap 'tween what is known (extreme little) and what some hypothesize. HA! Good Fun! ps am a bit amused by the recognition that ordinary 6th graders in CA should be able to provide a far better explanation than am personal able to offer bruce.

@Aarik D is kinda like Gromnir kryptonite. oh sure, we may have made a crack or two 'bout ska, (am not made o' stone dammit,) but aarik is just so adorably positive that any attempt to give him a hard time woulda' been analogous to kicking a puppy. as such am unable to interact with aarik normal. am glad aarik is back. we will wait. we will be patient. eventually aarik will slip up and mock the special olympics or suggest ketchup is a perfect acceptable condiment for hot dogs. have been here for decades. we can wait for our moment. mostly kidding. mostly. wb. HA! Good Fun!

literal the best news we has heard in days. am knowing it weren't too long ago CA were still using multi-choice for high school and middle-school content standards for history. idiotic. congrats to CA for abandoning obvious stoopid. HA! Good Fun!

we only posted content standards... one sec. we read the intro material as well as the analysis portions. there were a paragraph in the intro which kinda/sorta expresses your desire. "However, the State Board hopes that during their years of formal schooling, students will learn to distinguish the important from the unimportant, to recognize vital connections between the present and the past, and to appreciate universal historical themes and dilemmas." *shrug* HA! Good Fun!

apologies for double, but this is maybe a bigger thing than many realize. the state don't tell @Hurlshot how to teach subjects, but the powers that be make certain he knows there is dozens (hundreds?) o' topics which need be covered during a school year, topics which will be addressed at some point with mindless standardized tests even if hurl does not. hurl has freedom to teach what and how he wishes, but he will be evaluated based on how his students test and the test will cover an extreme number o' topics. hurl doesn't need teach peloponnesian war, but if he does not and there is a couple peloponnesian war questions on the standardized test... well, who cares? one or two questions? no biggie. the thing is, there is many dozens o' such topics and if hurl doesn't teach the right answers to questions he knows could be on the test, his students may test poor even if they is whizbang junior historians. students testing poorly hurts the school and the school is gonna blame who? perhaps would be better for hurl to describe standards, but am guessing many non americans, and many americans, likely do not know what standards look like and just how much virtual territory is covered. grade 6 content standards 6.1 Students describe what is known through archaeological studies of the early physical and cultural development of humankind from the Paleolithic era to the agricultural revolution. 1. Describe the hunter-gatherer societies, including the development of tools and the use of fire. 2. Identify the locations of human communities that populated the major regions of the world and describe how humans adapted to a variety of environments. 3. Discuss the climatic changes and human modifications of the physical environment that gave rise to the domestication of plants and animals and new sources of clothing and shelter. 23 California Department of Education Created May 18, 2000 24 GRADE SIX 6.2 Students analyze the geographic, political, economic, religious, and social structures of the early civilizations of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Kush. 1. Locate and describe the major river systems and discuss the physical settings that supported permanent settlement and early civilizations. 2. Trace the development of agricultural techniques that permitted the production of economic surplus and the emergence of cities as centers of culture and power. 3. Understand the relationship between religion and the social and political order in Mesopotamia and Egypt. 4. Know the significance of Hammurabi’s Code. 5. Discuss the main features of Egyptian art and architecture. 6. Describe the role of Egyptian trade in the eastern Mediterranean and Nile valley. 7. Understand the significance of Queen Hatshepsut and Ramses the Great. 8. Identify the location of the Kush civilization and describe its political, commercial, and cultural relations with Egypt. 9. Trace the evolution of language and its written forms. 6.3 Students analyze the geographic, political, economic, religious, and social structures of the Ancient Hebrews. 1. Describe the origins and significance of Judaism as the first monotheistic religion based on the concept of one God who sets down moral laws for humanity. 2. Identify the sources of the ethical teachings and central beliefs of Judaism (the Hebrew Bible, the Commentaries): belief in God, observance of law, practice of the concepts of righteousness and justice, and importance of study; and describe how the ideas of the Hebrew traditions are reflected in the moral and ethical traditions of Western civilization. 3. Explain the significance of Abraham, Moses, Naomi, Ruth, David, and Yohanan ben Zaccai in the development of the Jewish religion. 4. Discuss the locations of the settlements and movements of Hebrew peoples, including the Exodus and their movement to and from Egypt, and outline the significance of the Exodus to the Jewish and other people. 5. Discuss how Judaism survived and developed despite the continuing dispersion of much of the Jewish population from Jerusalem and the rest of Israel after the destruction of the second Temple in A.D. 70. California Department of Education Created May 18, 2000 GRADE SIX 25 6.4 Students analyze the geographic, political, economic, religious, and social structures of the early civilizations of Ancient Greece. 1. Discuss the connections between geography and the development of city-states in the region of the Aegean Sea, including patterns of trade and commerce among Greek city-states and within the wider Mediterranean region. 2. Trace the transition from tyranny and oligarchy to early democratic forms of government and back to dictatorship in ancient Greece, including the significance of the invention of the idea of citizenship (e.g., from Pericles’ Funeral Oration). 3. State the key differences between Athenian, or direct, democracy and representative democracy. 4. Explain the significance of Greek mythology to the everyday life of people in the region and how Greek literature continues to permeate our literature and language today, drawing from Greek mythology and epics, such as Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, and from Aesop’s Fables. 5. Outline the founding, expansion, and political organization of the Persian Empire. 6. Compare and contrast life in Athens and Sparta, with emphasis on their roles in the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars. 7. Trace the rise of Alexander the Great and the spread of Greek culture eastward and into Egypt. 8. Describe the enduring contributions of important Greek figures in the arts and sciences (e.g., Hypatia, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, Thucydides). 6.5 Students analyze the geographic, political, economic, religious, and social structures of the early civilizations of India. 1. Locate and describe the major river system and discuss the physical setting that supported the rise of this civilization. 2. Discuss the significance of the Aryan invasions. 3. Explain the major beliefs and practices of Brahmanism in India and how they evolved into early Hinduism. 4. Outline the social structure of the caste system. 5. Know the life and moral teachings of Buddha and how Buddhism spread in India, Ceylon, and Central Asia. 6. Describe the growth of the Maurya empire and the political and moral achievements of the emperor Asoka. 7. Discuss important aesthetic and intellectual traditions (e.g., Sanskrit literature, including the Bhagavad Gita; medicine; metallurgy; and mathematics, including HinduArabic numerals and the zero). California Department of Education Created May 18, 2000 26 GRADE SIX 6.6 Students analyze the geographic, political, economic, religious, and social structures of the early civilizations of China. 1. Locate and describe the origins of Chinese civilization in the Huang-He Valley during the Shang Dynasty. 2. Explain the geographic features of China that made governance and the spread of ideas and goods difficult and served to isolate the country from the rest of the world. 3. Know about the life of Confucius and the fundamental teachings of Confucianism and Taoism. 4. Identify the political and cultural problems prevalent in the time of Confucius and how he sought to solve them. 5. List the policies and achievements of the emperor Shi Huangdi in unifying northern China under the Qin Dynasty. 6. Detail the political contributions of the Han Dynasty to the development of the imperial bureaucratic state and the expansion of the empire. 7. Cite the significance of the trans-Eurasian “silk roads” in the period of the Han Dynasty and Roman Empire and their locations. 8. Describe the diffusion of Buddhism northward to China during the Han Dynasty. 6.7 Students analyze the geographic, political, economic, religious, and social structures during the development of Rome. 1. Identify the location and describe the rise of the Roman Republic, including the importance of such mythical and historical figures as Aeneas, Romulus and Remus, Cincinnatus, Julius Caesar, and Cicero. 2. Describe the government of the Roman Republic and its significance (e.g., written constitution and tripartite government, checks and balances, civic duty). 3. Identify the location of and the political and geographic reasons for the growth of Roman territories and expansion of the empire, including how the empire fostered economic growth through the use of currency and trade routes. 4. Discuss the influence of Julius Caesar and Augustus in Rome’s transition from republic to empire. 5. Trace the migration of Jews around the Mediterranean region and the effects of their conflict with the Romans, including the Romans’ restrictions on their right to live in Jerusalem. 6. Note the origins of Christianity in the Jewish Messianic prophecies, the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as described in the New Testament, and the contribution of St. Paul the Apostle to the definition and spread of Christian beliefs (e.g., belief in the Trinity, resurrection, salvation). 7. Describe the circumstances that led to the spread of Christianity in Europe and other Roman territories. 8. Discuss the legacies of Roman art and architecture, technology and science, literature, language, and law. HA! Good Fun!

more bs we never suggested US were blameless leading up to iraq invasion. opposite. have criticized the cherry picking o' intelligence by politicians o' available evidence, which were a blix complaint. we complained that the wh criminal mislead 'bout the numbers which would be needed to affect regime change. we criticized the bumbling incompetence and obtuseness o' multiple individuals in the bush administration, and we still do. however, to claim the administration knew 'bout absence o' wmds and lied 'bout such is false. that were your claim and is what inspired the blix stuff--blix made clear he didn't believe US lied 'bout iraqi wmds but he did say US were too certain in spite o' insufficient and often contradictory data. the senate report you quoted out of context, doing same nonsense you accuse us o' doing and same idiocy which bush administration did to convince selves 'o the need to invade iraq, would be amusing save for fact is utter predictable and is your one-trick pony. and is kinda obvious you used simile to distract from reality. we would argue further on the johnson interview, but absolute nobody is listening anymore and you are a lost cause. contrary to your silly gotcha narrative, which even johnson didn't claim or agree to, anybody reading the transcript can see the questions and context. were like, "asking a series of questions about car mechanics" before hitting johnson with aleppo? not even close. three questions, not all on the same focused subject, and one o' which had johnson reference regime change. gotcha? *chuckle* as is your typical response, you make a claim which you no doubt believe, and depend on the absence o' anybody interested enough to bother checking your claims, sources, graphs or quotes. HA! Good Fun!

fair enough. perhaps is a quibble, but am thinking is worth stressing how the epidemiologists is emphatic that the vaccine is not a cure. fauci and others are worried that far too americans (we can't speak to south africans) is confused 'bout how the vaccine will protect a population from covid-19. even after old people and healthcare workers start getting the vaccine, will be a considerable 'mount o' time 'fore we see a return to normal and that time may increase if too many people either refuse to take the vaccine or discontinue covid-19 protocols mistaken believing that the vaccine = safety. the vaccine is not a solution in the short term if people continue to behave ignorant. perhaps a quibble, but is what we do. HA! Good Fun!

wasn't our prediction. zor were claiming sanctions were gonna be laughed off by russia 'cause o' their vast currency reserves. in response we quoted a harvard economist who said if russia didn't take drastic measures, they could be bankrupt in 6-18 months, and that sanctions would make all that much more difficult for russia to avoid such a fate. 'course russia took severe austerity measures, but fact remains we were referencing the opinions o' a harvard economist to refute zor's belief sanctions were a non issue. btw, johnson admitted in a follow-up interview that he simply forgot aleppo, and didn't make any claim o' gotcha. additional, johnson made numerous other foreign affairs blunders during the campaign. regardless, is best not to take zor claims at face value. HA! Good Fun!

*sigh* what you actual said were, johnson flub hardly occurs 'cause previous string o' questions has been similar to queries 'bout car mechanics and then he get hit with microbes. first question had johnson literal respond 'bout regime change. and why on earth do you feel need to reimagine the questions when those questions are there for all to see? is no need to try and invent a simile when exact words and context is available. question 1) "GEIST: That’s a good place to start. For people who don’t know a lot about you and haven’t had a chance to hear and learn about where you stand on the issues, what is the lane for the Johnson-Weld ticket between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton? What do you bring that’s different from those two? "JOHNSON: Well, I think there’s a big six-lane highway down the middle that encompasses 60 percent of Americans. And broadly speaking, fiscally conservative, socially inclusive, skeptical when it comes to our military intervention. Skeptical when it comes to our going in and supporting regime changes that have not resulted in a more safe world — free markets. "So I think that that encompasses about 60 percent of the electorate and I think that the two-party system has really, really got to the fringes on both sides." again, since appears lost on zor, johnson specific identifies regime change in response to what is a "who are you," question. question 2) "BARNICLE: Which of those candidates of the two-party system — Republican candidate, Democratic candidate — do you draw the most votes from? "JOHNSON: You know, in all of these polls it’s just, remarkably, 50-50. Amazingly, I think, though, that with the exception of just a few polls it’s more votes from Hillary. "BARNICLE: Do you — "JOHNSON: But I think — I think when it ends up it will really be 50-50." second question asks candidate from which party johnson is drawing more voters. question 3) "BARNICLE: But do you worry about the Nader effect in 2000? "JOHNSON: I don’t worry one bit about it. I really do think that the two-party system is broken. I don’t think Democrats are able to balance a checkbook these days. That’s it’s all about bigger government and higher taxes. And then Republicans with, I think, the social agenda. Look, whatever your social inclinations are just don’t force it on me. And I think the Republican Party has gotten really extreme in that category." question three is no more than a follow-up to question two. ... and then aleppo no bs. no reimagine. you are comic exposing self with this silliness and nobody here requires a reimagining o' questions when questions and full context is readily available and discernable. were interviewer hitting johnson with question after question on tax reform and then sudden drops a query 'bout some obscure hamlet nobody save those with a subscription to foreign affairs is aware? were like, "asking a series of questions about car mechanics" before hitting johnson with aleppo? is gotcha only 'cause you misremembered or read somewheres on reddit that it were a gotcha w/o bothering to do the incidental research needed to see actual questions and context. trend. if this were a gotcha it were the worst gotcha setup we ever seen. heck, if you need explain how it were a gotcha, then it likely weren't. as @Hurlshot surmises, am suspecting johnson just didn't know aleppo from ankara. after all, once syria were mentioned, johnson responded as follows: "JOHNSON: Well, with regard to Syria, I do think that it’s a mess. I think that the only way that we deal with Syria is to join hands with Russia to diplomatically bring that at an end. But when we’ve aligned ourselves with — when we’ve supported the opposition of the Free Syrian Army — the Free Syrian Army is also coupled with the Islamists. "And then the fact that we’re also supporting the Kurds and this is — it’s just — it’s just a mess. And that this is the result of regime change that we end up supporting. And, inevitably, these regime changes have led a less-safe world." again johnson mentions regime change in response to first actual question. he were aware and conscious o' regime change topic and am suspecting he were prepared to talk 'bout syria... had a clear prepared response for syria. johnson simple didn't know or recognize the significance o' aleppo. try and imagine a gotcha outta this is mild amusing. hang on so tenacious to gotcha narrative when is utter unsupportable from actual questions and context is laughable... and predictable. HA! Good Fun! ps "hans blix berkeley"

am appreciating and agreeing with the sentiment o' the video o' spencer cox and chris peterson, but am wondering if such a video gets made if the race in question were anything but a forgone conclusion. if race were nail bitter close and the candidates nevertheless kept civil and admirable our applause would be a bit more energetic. while am not as rabid as gd, am admitting to a healthy degree o' cynicism when it comes to american political battles. HA! Good Fun!

*chuckle* get yourself caught with shorts 'round your ankles and you retreat to old standbys? predictable. terrible part is just as you misrepresent your past fails, you try to misrepresent the interview in spite o' fact folks can see clear what actual occurred. hardly a gotcha question and nothing at all like you described. we posted in context, unlike somebody... a gotcha after three previous questions one o' which has johnson mention regime change? you can't possibly be continuing to push the gotcha' schtick given the reality... but here you are. thank you. did johnson recognize general mideast conflict issue once SYRIA were supplied? sure. can only imagine the fallout if johnson continued to stumble and bumble after mention o' syria. oh and low energy zor is not gonna once again cowardly retreat from his blix misrepresentation. can't even be bothered to literal google "hans blix berkeley"? amazing. HA! Good Fun!

ordo ab chao say in latin makes sound legit... more legit. HA! Good Fun!

... make excuses for dallas is not our mo. that said, the dallas offense is not dependent on rb or receivers or even qb the way it depends on the ol, and the dallas ol is in tatters. zac martin and brandon knight is out after having already lost tyron smith and joe looney... and looney were starter after perennial pro bowl center travis frederick retired. 'cause dak prescott were kinda limited in what he could do, the offense were kept extreme vanilla, which were ok just so long as the ol were absolute dominant. sure, all nfl teams need good ol play, but dallas were even more reliant on their production from superior ol, and your ol is a mess. defense, on the other hand... all too reminiscent o' keystone cops footage. as hard as it is to believe, we feel bad for dallas at the moment. extreme late edit to avoid the double-post: this week were one o' the fugliest weeks o' football we are able to recollect with an inordinate number o' games decided by poor or stoopid play. ordinarily we loathe bad football even if scores suggest games were close. even so, am gonna admit the weekend were one o' the more entertaining collection o' games we may recall from the past +3 years. weird. HA! Good Fun!

bs GEIST: Joining us now, the Libertarian candidate for president, former Republican governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico. Governor, good to have you with us. JOHNSON: Great to be with you. There was a — there was a super PAC that did an ad — Abe Lincoln ad, and it’s now had close to 20 million views — BRZEZINSKI: My goodness. JOHNSON: — in 12 days. GEIST: Wow, which is really — BRZEZINSKI: What does that tell you? JOHNSON: Well, I think that there’s — I don’t know. Maybe a — maybe a little spice needs to get added to the two-person race that’s currently going on. BRZEZINSKI: Maybe a little less — GEIST: Right. BRZEZINSKI: — by me. GEIST: That’s a good place to start. For people who don’t know a lot about you and haven’t had a chance to hear and learn about where you stand on the issues, what is the lane for the Johnson-Weld ticket between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton? What do you bring that’s different from those two? JOHNSON: Well, I think there’s a big six-lane highway down the middle that encompasses 60 percent of Americans. And broadly speaking, fiscally conservative, socially inclusive, skeptical when it comes to our military intervention. Skeptical when it comes to our going in and supporting regime changes that have not resulted in a more safe world — free markets. So I think that that encompasses about 60 percent of the electorate and I think that the two-party system has really, really got to the fringes on both sides. BRZEZINSKI: Mike? BARNICLE: Which of those candidates of the two-party system — Republican candidate, Democratic candidate — do you draw the most votes from? JOHNSON: You know, in all of these polls it’s just, remarkably, 50-50. Amazingly, I think, though, that with the exception of just a few polls it’s more votes from Hillary. BARNICLE: Do you — JOHNSON: But I think — I think when it ends up it will really be 50-50. BARNICLE: But do you worry about the Nader effect in 2000? JOHNSON: I don’t worry one bit about it. I really do think that the two-party system is broken. I don’t think Democrats are able to balance a checkbook these days. That’s it’s all about bigger government and higher taxes. And then Republicans with, I think, the social agenda. Look, whatever your social inclinations are just don’t force it on me. And I think the Republican Party has gotten really extreme in that category. BARNICLE: What would you do, if you were elected, about Aleppo? JOHNSON: About? BARNICLE: Aleppo. JOHNSON: And what is Aleppo? BARNICLE: You’re kidding. JOHNSON: No. BARNICLE: Aleppo is in Syria. It’s the — it’s the epicenter of the refugee crisis. JOHNSON: OK, got it, got it. BARNICLE: OK. https://time.com/4483779/gary-johnson-aleppo-transcript/ were a question right near start o' interview and johnson had specific identified regime change stance moments earlier. so, bs. oh, and before obama and trump, most folks recognized the President's domestic influence were largely limited to shaping the national agenda. foreign affairs were the crux o' Presidential power and influence. fact gary johnson didn't recognize were meaningful. am disagreeing with @Hurlshot conclusions precise 'cause we agree with him 'bout what were revealed by the flub. HA! Good Fun!