Gromnir

had an uncharacteristic beavis and butthead moment. am admitting, to our shame, we immediate thought o' olivia wilde. HA! Good Fun!

most o' the casting choices should be good enough if not perfect when converted from radio to netflix. death just got a bit more curvy than the graphic novel iteration, but is hardly a deal breaker. the corinthian? get the corinthian right for tv is gonna be difficult enough w/o a casting choice 'bout whom we are kinda ambivalent. we will need see... which brings us to our other concern that get to dollhouse means a whole lotta material is being covered in ten episodes. 'course is zero chance we don't watch at least the first few episodes regardless o' whatever is the consensus o' reviews and pre-release conjecture. HA! Good Fun!

US police is different than most countries. extreme decentralized. overwhelming majority o' the total US money spent on police is the budgets of municipalities and counties. lots o' municipalities and counties. rural areas will most often be covered by county sheriff's as 'posed to state police. municipalities, however, is where the people is and sadly is also where most law enforcement is needed. am also saddened to need disagree with hurl on a few things, though we agree 'bout training. honest, malc's silly oakley and shaved head stereotype aside, we keep banging the drum on how curiously misguided typical police training is in this country. many cops are your best friend when you are in need o' help, but at first sign o' perceived danger, they do as they is trained to do. blame on some kinda flaw in character o' police complete ignores the reality o' the training such folks is receiving. huge amounts o' money is spent on training and arming cops in a way that presumes every encounter with the public is a potential life and death scenario. have armed cops and suspects who is all believing a situation is gonna explode and is no surprise when such happens. yeah, our heavily armed populace makes policing inherent more dangerous, but police training is encouraging the casual brutality we spoke o' on previous pages o' the thread. as @Guard Dog correct predicts, we aren't gonna make major gun control changes anytime soon, so addressing the police angle is best bet for changing the current inevitability o' lethal blunders. however, total US dollars spent on education alone far exceeds police. education budgets collective (and am just talking public elementary and secondary) is more than 5x as much spent on police. often what happens is a school district, to make a point, will compare their spending to the local city or county police budget while ignoring fact the police o' a few o' the larger police and sheriffs will cover multiple school districts worth o' territory. the education folks doing comparisons will also wanna lump in courts and correction departments. as noted before with oro's misapprehension 'bout the location o' the strictest gun laws producing the least safety, is a few municipalities with overwhelming budgets compared to most o' US police departments, 'cause those high density urban areas is where police is needed most. everybody is channeling vol these days? point out that in places where cops have biggest budgets and most uniformed officers is also places with most crime is not proof police is unnecessary. sure, big cities have tanks and military surplus, but many citizens in this country have police service which amounts to a sheriff department with a handful o' employees covering vast areas o' territory. converse, education dollars is spread about a bit more egalitarian. is not as if kids in montana is relegated to little house on the prairie esque one room schools with nothing more than a school marm, her trusty blackboard, and a dozen or so desks to broaden young minds. that isn't to say police need $115 billion or that the billions spent on police is invested wisely. is any number o' large and urban police departments which defunded partial or complete and found considerable success by investing more heavily in community outreach and counseling. am not a fan o' biden as his single most outstanding quality is he ain't trump, which in any other year would be laughable underwhelming. however, his plan for addressing police has positives. he ain't claiming he will be encouraging or mandating defund, in part 'cause he don't have authority to do so. biden suggest that police departments which voluntarily redirect funds to more preventative aspects o' law enforcement or to the often overlooked mental health aspect o' law enforcement, should be awarded federal funds. HA! Good Fun!

funny, we don't recall addressing such a point. you "bet" what would be our position and then argued against comments you made for us. now you repeat the same error, like the fork. two decades of same shtick, but with rapists and blm instead o' bioware and game features. less funny. HA! Good Fun!

by definition, perversion is unacceptable behaviour. enjoyment o' shades of grey and harlequin romances is perhaps puerile, but is not considered unacceptable by a noteworthy portion o' the population. your blanket generalizations once again makes you appear less than fully coherent and the fact you cannot grasp the problem would be curious but for two decades o' observation o' vol reason. so go ahead and fork the socket... again. HA! Good Fun!

vol, the guy with the fork, is surprised by the result. what is more impressive is you know he will do it again and blame the fork or the electrical company or blm. HA! Good Fun!

y'know, the thing which bothers us 'bout all too many 2nd amendments honks is their lack o' honesty. perhaps is self delusion, and am not sure if such makes better or worse. the framers waxed poetic, but they were much aware how many liberties had a human cost. the tree o' liberty were watered with the blood o patriots... and innocents. our entire justice system is based on the notion it is better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to suffer. cold comfort for the person who is victimized by an individual who would be in prison but for the exclusionary rule. is all kinda liberties we got which make us less safe, but we endure 'cause the cost in human life is outweighed by the value o' freedom. is no way to look at US and world firearms death numbers and conclude an abundance o' guns makes us safer. the founders, whatever their issues, weren't idiots either. the hope were guns would make us safer from tyrants, and so we as a people were willing to suffer the otherwise unnecessary firearm incidents at the hands o' our fellow citizens and ourselves, 'cause US suicide by handgun is also disproportionate high. am not certain why is so hard for the second amendment folks to be honest. as to safety and stringent gun law statistics, am betting you is one o' those folks amazed by maps showing covid spread as being almost identical to 5g tower locations. high population densities tend to result in higher crime and more poverty and, no surprise, increased firearm deaths. this is vol logic with his stoopid mask wacky. out in the sticks where they ain't had covid-19 spread, they also haven't bothered implementing strict mask policies, and yet everybody is fine. for vol, such is proof masks don't work. you are making same mistake with gun laws. and no, guns are not particular hard to aquire, and your ultra-conservative media sources and their cherry picked and edited videos which leave out pertinent information hardly refutes such. similar video evidence no doubt is what has you believing in holocaust denialism. 2nd amendment put limits on just how tough it is to acquire. period. @Guard Dog am personal terrified o' irs even though we are perhaps overpaying a bit just to be on safe side. had one audit a few years ago which went exceeding smooth, but we took huge losses during 2008-2011 and initially the irs guys didn't believe anybody would be so foolish as to metaphorical keep throwing money into an open fire. were a real estate gamble which payed off big in post recession, but am admitting it looked sketchy. irs accepted all our losses and we literal were able to not pay taxes from 2009 through 2018, but we knew things coulda' gone sideways if the irs folks didn't believe Gromnir and our accountant. had a perfectly civil and cordial relation with the irs folks, but if we got an audit letter from them tomorrow, we would get the same sensation o' a thousand bees made o' ice swarming in our stomach. no doubt such a feeling would once again last for the months it would take to clear up the situation. HA! Good Fun! ps our fear o' irs is based on what we assume were your issue. am knowing even if we made a good faith mistake in reliance on advice from a reputable tax professional, we could still be complete and utter screwed.

myth. cities still need recognize second amendment, which by definition means they cannot be particular onerous. the number o' laws regarding concealed carry is infinitesimal compare to auto laws. serious gonna compare vehicle code to conceal carry laws? and no, gunpowder laws were not existing only 'cause o' the danger o' storage. you would like to believe such, but you don't actual know. such laws were specific used as a way to prevent functional use o' firearms in many townships even after invention o' minie ball and then cartridges. many people drive autos every day, and a very small number of people (relative speaking) are injured compared to hours of driving. auto use is a functional necessity in our modern world, and many of us go thousands of hours o' use w/o an accident. compare to gun use. even with safety precautions up the wahzoo, people get injured from gun use. if you could somehow compare hours o' use o' cars to guns, the numbers for gun deaths would be even more startling, which again is no surprise as firearms is designed to injure or kill. tell us people overreact to mass shootings? ok. we agree. now what? such recognition don't change just how deadly is firearms, which is why even in a few european nations where everybody and their grandpa seems to have a hunting rifle or shotgun, they typical has prohibitions on handguns. safer? numbers such as we posted, and you comical misread, make clear firearms don't offer us greater safety. freer? portland suggests the relative extreme US citizen gun possession is not discouraging stormtroopers from coming into states and towns to violate Constitutional rights. HA! Good Fun! ps irony 'bout guns making us freer bit is am beginning to suspect the vast number o' second amendment honks crowing 'bout freedom and guns would only train their arsenals on police if those agents o' tyranny were coming to take guns away from the patriots... and perhaps their booze and/or children... in order o' presumed importance.

you are asking if 4.43 is the total number o' 2017 violent gun deaths in the US? ... and you realize how many car safety measures and laws there is... how many improvements is made to car safety every year? need acquire a driver's license after passing a skills and knowledge test. no driving over 55 mph on highways or over 25 near schools. need wear a seat belt. if one kinda automobile were thousand o' times more likely to result in death than others classes o' autos, would we simple shrug our shoulders and blame drivers... bad drivers kill people, not bad cars? for chrissakes, we got more limits on fireworks than firearms. for near 100 years US firearms prohibitions were unnecessary 'cause the gunpowder ownership and storage were restricted often to a draconian degree. in 2020 we got many laws restricting fireworks, 'cause gunpowder is dangerous... some kid could lose an eye. anybody see the disconnect? oh, and while should be obvious, firearms is a single purpose tool. guns is designed to kill or cause serious bodily injury. we got the second amendment. period. can't do laws for firearms same as cars or fireworks. nevertheless, is ridiculous to compare cars and guns, and the relative dangers they present. HA! Good Fun!

ok, am knowing this is not helping Gromnir's cliff clavin rep, but in the 1970s stanford university went through a similar mascot issue. for near 50 years, the mascot for stanford sports were the indian. no doubt indian don't strike too many as being offensive. 1970s qq? initial, the university suggested a replacement logo which looked much like the one used by calumet baking powder, in case you is curious. anyways, numerous groups o' indigenous people appealed to stanford to change their mascot regardless o' proposed mascot alteration and stanford took serious. am not recalling exact year but somewhere 'tween 72 and 75, the University resolved to change their mascot and logo, but they weren't certain what should be the new mascot. forward-thinking university leadership decided to let the students decide... cast votes. Robber Barons. overwhelming student vote winner were the stanford robber barons. the university leadership decided to step back from being so forward thinking. HA! Good Fun!

you will generalize ill will 'cross cop population in, but 'cause they is paid to be helpful it is literal impossible for them to prove generosity or compassion. you do not recognize such manifest unfairness? *shrug* we already pointed out how is best to treat cops with caution 'cause you don't know if they is broken. given the degree o' harm they can cause, is best to be cautious. however, statements like following makes your naked bias kinda obvious, no? rationalize if it makes you feels better. that said, when you face many o' life's worst crises, the folks you will count on for loyalty and aid is gonna be people such as doctors and lawyers and, yes, cops. perhaps such compulsory friendship ain't something to be scorned. doctors are not your friends. never understood why anyone would think some arrogant, know-it all in scrubs would ever be so. sounds ungrateful and a bit trollish, no? that said, if you is a suspect, then no, cops are not your friends, regardless o' their fashion choices or tonsorial habits. HA! Good Fun! ps you should realize your anecdote is less than helpful as you are the one generalizing. Gromnir is pointing out how cops is people, individual people. you point out how there is also bad cops is repeating what we already conceded.

pointing out cops ain't friends 'cause o' the fact they is bringers o' misfortune, but when confronted with the reality o' help they provide and you dismiss as them being mercenary. if you cannot admit the manifest unfairness, then we are at an impasse. cops is no more or less likely to be your friends than people in any other profession, well, unless you are a drug dealer or purveyor o' kiddie pr0n, or some other kinda criminal who is likely to be on the wrong side o' cops too often to foster friendships. recognize the potential harm a bad cop may deliver 'pon you w/o justification is reasonable, but stereotype the armed and oakley wearing cops is just the kinda thing vol does with antifa and blm. don't be that guy. you can be better than vol. while Gromnir were working as a prosecutor (brief moment in our career) we got to know more than a few cops both state and fed. numerous salt-of-the-earth quality folks. one such cop we knew happened to see us at a hospital. were our day off but she were working. she couldn't help but notice our backpack were moving and commented on such a curiosity. our sister were in the hospital and we were sneaking her dog in for a visit. this woman cop kinda rolled her eyes but from that point on, every few weeks, she would find an excuse to stop by and greet us at work. she would present us with a small stuffed animal and ask us to pass it along to our sister in lieu o' bringing her dog to the hospital. paul just wanted to sit on his porch and drink cheap wine... stare at sunset or stars or whatever. we always referred to cops by last name, except for paul. paul wanted out of the field and were looking forward to being a desk jockey. serious. he wanted nothing more than an eventless 20 years behind a desk after which he could be a full-time porch guy and wine drinker. reminded us o' mr. rogers-- he were not soft, but he were the most mild and even-tempered person you were ever gonna meet. mr. rogers in BDU. etc. such folks weren't exceptions. HA! Good Fun!

'cause all too often they is your only friend. car broken down on the side o' the road literal 100 miles from nowhere and zero cell phone service. a cop, 90 times outta 100, will pull over and offer help when most folks would drive on by with only a guilty glance in the rearview mirror to acknowledge your existence. your crazy neighbor follows vol posts and thinks all blm and antifa folks is supporting murder and mayhem, and you are a minority who looks like you belong to blm and/or antifa. neighbor is shouting obscenities at you and you can see him with a gasoline can and emergency flares as he threatens to set your house on fire. malc doesn't call cops-- they ain't your friends? etc. *shrug* same reasoning for lawyers. why would you ever trust a guy in a three thousand dollar suit and five hundred dollar pair o' loafers? he/she is not your friend. 'course when some dirtbag landlord is trying to evict you for no good reason, or your former boss is blacklisting you and preventing you from being hired anywhere, a lawyer may be your only friend. even more so with criminal charges, you may find yourself unexpected friendless. accused o' some heinous crime none o' your real friends wanna be a part o', but is your lawyer who shows up at 3:00am at jail and fights for you. takes your panic'd calls when sheriff shows up at your home with a warrant and starts taking your property. have heard same silly reasoning for a bunch o' different professions and is typical volish bs. paint all members o' the group with same oversized brush? ridiculous. yeah, cops tend to be a bit broken. we sympathize with battered women and abused children and military vets who had to endure flight-or-flight anxiety on a daily basis for extended periods o' time. 'course cops ain't victims, so fact they is enduring brain busting traumas all too frequent to be healthy is ignored. is hardly a surprise so many cops shatter under the pressures and is yet another reason why cop training and counseling needs be prioritized. that said, collective we sympathize with kids who were abused by parents or schoolmates, and we lament the victims o' domestic abuse, but cops is just monsters and maniacs. military vets perhaps may sympathize a bit? sure, in recent decades, when they first come home, everybody applauds the sacrifice o' those who served in the military, but the addulation don't last long if the vet cannot acclimate to ordinary society. am understanding cop phobia. lord do we understand. am thinking the fear is reasonable 'cause you cannot know if the cop you are dealing with is one o' the hopeless flawed and busted. best to assume you are in danger from cops. assume danger is different than believe as does malc and vol... by now one would assume folks might at least reflect on their position if they sudden find vol is agreeing with 'em. vol ain't always wrong, but lumped together with him is not an enviable place to be. HA! Good Fun!

am recognizing your facetious, but others is more serious. keep in mind there is a number o' well armed populations in the middle east. their experience with national police does not suggest an abundance o' firearms promotes polite and reserved behaviour in the cops, yes? am actual a bit surprised the 'bit bout politeness and well-armed societies persists particular in the US where the presence o' so many firearms leads to the cops being universal armed. furthermore, 'cause well-armed populations make any cop interaction potential deadly, police training is such that they is taught to react before thinking... the training is s'posed to replace hesitation. if a US cop is confronted by an armed suspect who points the weapon at cops or bystanders, the appropriate behaviour for the cop in most such situations is to eliminate the threat by aiming for center mass and firing until there is no more danger. cop training results in the exact opposite o' simmering dow-- insta-boil over is actual result. is just one reason why cop training in general needs be examined and evaluated. regardless, as situation current exists, presence o' so many firearms, particular handguns which may be accessible but inconspicuous in almost every cop interaction with the public, makes cops nervous and twitchy as 'posed to polite and reserved. HA! Good Fun!

short term, there is no way to get rid o' the cop weapons. make certain all the protesters is equal armed makes situation more or less volatile? our issues with firearms is handguns. by every measure we has seen, the number o' firearm deaths from shotguns and rifles in the US every year is far below that o' blunt force weapon. however, in moments such as this, am not confidant peace will be attained by an influx o' ammo and guns. HA! Good Fun!

you are talking 'bout state charges, 'gainst which federal agents will claim immunity. where a fed agent is carrying out duty under color o' fed law, they is immune from state criminal actions. nevertheless, as the dhs agents is acting so complete beyond their authority under the Constitution, a couple State ag and local da have threatened to charge agents with such crimes. HA! Good Fun!

if you are concerned with keeping people safe, the obvious solution is to put additional firearms into the hands of scared and angry people. ... wait, that makes no sense at all. also, am thinking gd is using "polite" wrong. How The U.S. Compares With The Lowest Rates Of Violent Gun Deaths Worldwide Violent gun deaths per 100,000 people in 2017 as to fed police in portland, “Indeed we can think of no better example of the police power, which the Founders denied the national government and reposed in the states, than the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims.”-- J. Rehnquist, us v morrison (2000) keep in mind the dhs secretary is saying his agents is authorized to "go out proactively and arrest individuals," which is a curious way o' admitting his troops is arresting people on the streets o' portland w/o warrants and absent probable cause, and then whisking the suspects away in vans to... someplace, where they is rare ever actual charged with anything, 'cause charging would expose the fed to potential civil rights charges. absent actual charges, it would appear this authoritarian display is all theatre and is about creating fear as 'posed to suppressing crime. from a boston globe piece: "Earlier this year the US Treasury Department imposed sanctions on Nicaragua’s national police and three police commanders. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said he acted because Nicaraguan police were engaged in “a campaign of violent repression.” He said the United States rejects police operations that “seek to silence pro-democracy voices.”" there is no legal authority for fed agents in portland to be acting as they are, particular w/o the o' state and local authorization and in point o' fact, despite explicit rejection by state and local governments which forceful deny the propriety and legality o' the fed presence. this is not one o' those ambiguous, gray-area legal questions which is impenetrable and nebulous. identify the bad guys is not difficult. HA! Good Fun!

the not naming option is less unreasonable than it first appears... at least if you are a conservative and rich white guy. this whole blm thing, from snyder's pov, is gonna blow over, just as it did post michael brown. name the team red tails or something else with any kinda overt ethnic awareness is gonna be divisive. is people all twisted up 'bout protecting confederate flags and statues memorializing the founder o' the kkk. am thinking it is not unreasonable to be recognizing how any choice which satisfies many members o' the washington fanbase will necessarily be a point o' frustration and anger for others. snyder wants the problem to go away, like it always does, before he chooses a name which won't enrage a significant % o' his fanbase 'cause is too sjw or not enough sjw. would be nice if ownership could man-up and take a stand. then again, we would likely be 'mongst those criticizing if they took the "wrong" stand. our vote, btw, is the "k street mob." k street in washington dc is kinda the swirling epicenter o' greasy federal lobbyists. second choice, only possible with dc approval would be swamp thing, though admitted the green color scheme would be too close to philly for comfort. HA! Good Fun!

so we pay you $500 to find youtube or berkeley edu video o' a discussion we already saw in person and described in some detail, a task btw which anybody with firing synapses should be able to accomplish in less than 10 minutes. okie dokie. is ez to see why is so difficult to have a reasonable discussion with you, particularly as you don't seem to recognize the inherent hypocrisy o' your "can't be bothered looking," observation. well, enjoy your tinfoil hats. HA! Good Fun! ps belated recall. am 'mebering how the discussion zor has too low energy to find for self, blix pointed out how fixated were the US on getting iraqi scientists out of the country. once out of iraq, the US believed the scientists became credible. blix made a point 'bout how curious were the US belief that getting scientists out of iraq resulted in intel which were more trustworthy. didn't seem reasonable to blix. blix talk we reference were 2004. 'course, as it turns out, at least one o' the scientists providing eye witness intel 'bout iraqi wmds to the Americans were a liar. german and US intelligence interviewed the guy multiple times... in germany. the t00l were proud he managed to trick the Americans into bringing about regime change. story broke in ~2011 and s'posed the administration discovered the lies in mid 2000s. 'course, as it turns out, the numerous analysts at the cia were never convinced the iraqi were on the up-and-up... and colin powell were s'posed livid when he discovered cia ambivalence 'cause they never bothered to mention their concerns to him. anyways, is kinda amazing how insightful were blix in 2004, so soon after invasion and w/o benefit o' long-term hindsight.

am gonna admit we were surprised when during the democrat presidential candidate debates, multiple senators claimed they were gonna end various evils by executive order. claims were no less unconstitutional than trump's recent census executive order, but were senators o' all people, bold as our neighbor's cat who p00ps in the sandy soil 'round our gardenias every afternoon, making such claims. only one senator from whom we would expect such. and again, we were just as dismayed by lack of pushback from almost any in media or even other candidates regarding what would clear be a violation o' the Constitution. in 2020, if you like gun control, then is ok to violate the Constitution to achieve such an end? some o' our more liberal acquaintances on the boards may not wanna hear it, but to executive order the 2nd amendment to death is no less repugnant at law than is trump sending troops to portland or making undocumented citizens uncountable in the census. there should be similar outrage at similar violations, 'cause if is ok to do one such executive order, it becomes ok to do the others. am almost as concerned 'bout post trump US as we is 'bout another four years o' trump. almost. am hopeful sanity prevails and we pull back from the recent excesses o' more than one President, but am not confident biden wins and simple uses executive orders to end trump orders. will biden reflect on professor yoo's warning 'bout how daca decision could be used and like trump view instead as license? when do we finally say, collective, enough is enough? HA! Good Fun!

hardly a surprise. check out our earlier post with the 911 trump ad. took an unrelated biden recorded response and imply it is 'bout defunding cops. am knowing a few willful ignorant folks hereabout still claim biden supports defund o' cops in spite o' him saying explicit he don't support defund... and no, biden plan to promote redirection o' cop funds is not defund. predictable cherry picking. you know who you are, eh? biden has suggested that those local cop departments which voluntarily redirect funds to programs such as counseling should be awarded additional federal funds. how on earth does such stuff get reinterpreted as biden support o' defund? ackjassery. HA! Good Fun! ps apologies for double

Michael Cohen will be released from prison to home confinement, judge rules HA! Good Fun!

this time it's somebody finally having the courage to stand up to the lawless anarchists who wanna take away your freedom? polarization. keep in mind this kinda disconnect were what we had to contend with regular as a first amendment advocate. we warned any who would listen that belief in the value o' first amendment values were far more important than the text itself. as a minority and catholic, representing white supremacists were unsavory, but we knew enough history to see how recent it were that naacp and lgbt were targets o' suppression. anarchists. moral bankrupt. lawless. we represented white supremacist first amendment claims not as approval o' white supremacists, but 'cause we knew how quickly roles could be reversed and those needing somebody such as Gromnir to advocate for them would be outta luck if the first amendment were not defended from every Government effort to marginalize. wouldn't take much for our evolving society to regress. whenever the Court spoke o' evolving social standards, we shivered 'cause we knew how same reasoning could support regression. we were frequent chided. we were told that of course the naacp would never need fear same kinda animosity and suppression in post 2000 America as it endured in the past century. alarmist nonsense from Gromnir. 2020 and blm is target. serious? when questions o' right and wrong is for all practical purposes determined by the identity and viewpoint o' parties, we has functional abandoned our commitment to Constitutional values. the Constitution offers no protection at all if it don't protect those with whom we passionate disagree. so, like cassandra we warn knowing we will be unheeded. whatever is your viewpoint on race or politics or religion, the dates on calendar will inevitably blur by and eventually the people enforcing Constitution will be people who do not share your point o' view. if the only thing that matters is viewpoint when deciding who deserves to be protected by the Constitution, what protection will it be offering you when is your turn to be the wrong side o' the President or Congress? US needs contend with extreme polarization and myopia approaching obtuse levels o' stoopid. HA! Good Fun!

keep in mind zor is specific avoiding sharing the conclusions o' the report from which he quotes. stuff such as, “Statements by the president, vice president, secretary of state and the national security advisor regarding a possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by the intelligence community, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community.” the report observed what a colossal waste o' time and effort were the report, recognizing how intelligence is not incontestable truth but is in fact a single factor in policy maker decision process. the screw-ups and failures o' intelligence by any number o' individuals were unforgivable, but there were no conspiracy or coordinated plan to cover-up the known absence o' wmds in iraq. the great mistake identified by the report were the same as identified by blix at berkeley in 2004: there were undue cherry-picking by the administration to find support for their curiously certain belief in the presence o' wmds, but no administration malfeasance were identified. *shrug* as we noted, we were in the audience for his berkeley interview/talk with christiane amanpour. obviously am not gonna have perfect recall from 2004, but we got an excellent memory. am knowing video o' the conference in general exists and am 99.9% there is youtube o' at least the interview if not the q&a. zor need be spoon fed is ridiculous. at this point he is being willful obtuse in refusing to simple google. HA! Good Fun!

so you gonna stick with low energy and come up with bs response to excuse? and your quote doesn't suggest conspiracy... 'less you is tinfoil hat wearer. as we noted, blix specific observed how brits and US were reading intelligence and where question marks were implied, the folks were acting as if were exclamation points. fact such happened more than once is not evidence o' a plan or systemic campaign to mislead. blix, your guy, specific noted that the Americans believed what they were selling. your conspiracy theory reasoning is transparent and repetitive. singular quotes not actual representing coordination or planning save what you choose to read into it. you are trying to rationalize from reverse, which is exact the kinda nonsense blix were criticizing the americans o' doing with wmd. you got the conclusion o' conspiracy and as such you read bits and pieces as supporting your conclusion. witch hunter mentality. would be funny if we thought you were kidding, but you are serious. HA! Good Fun!