Gromnir

was in a conversation yesterday with a journalist, an intelligent and educated professional woman in her late thirties. she is an acquaintance and she wanted insights on 4th amendment before she spoke with cops and other lawyers. ... she started talking 'bout "cop mentality" as if it were an objective and universal rule. whether is 'cause people who seek to become cops is inherent flawed, or is the job which changes, "cop mentality" is resulting in an aberrational aggressiveness and detachment to violence. to her, cops tending towards a bit o' the old ultra violent were as unquestionable as sun rising in the east. reasonable person behavior is different from reasonable cop behavior 'cause everybody knows how cops is, right? were a disappointing conversation. we did our best to provide our journalist acquaintance with the info she wanted w/o challenging what we saw as flawed foundational assumptions. nothing we coulda' said woulda' changed what she knew from having seen stories on tv, internet and newspapers. am always cautious 'round cops 'cause we know any one 'o 'em could be be racist or just plain old skool stupid-mean. any cop could be a bad cop, even if most are ordinary folks hoping to earn their paycheck and get home w/o needing to write up an incident report, or god forbid, get shot. our journalist friend no doubt would think our pov is naive to the point o' being dangerous. wth

am in an enviable position as we were one o' the folks criticizing clinton back in 1998 and were displeased with democrat efforts to mislead and misdirect. hypocrisy from a number o' democrats in 98 does not make the lynching comments by the President, or support o' Congressmen such as graham, any less wrong just as democrats making excuses for Presidential lies in 98 does not absolve the current President o' such. recall: clinton were in fact impeached following an investigation by ken starr. as with almost all investigations, ken starr's efforts were not transparent to the public, in spite o' what republicans would have you believe in 2019. probable don't wanna get into republican hypocrisy regarding clinton impeachment in 98, eh? hypocrisy from politicians scrambling to protect their jobs is hardly surprising, and when folks such as nadler, davis, meeks and biden engage in such unfortunate behaviour, they deserve to be called to an accounting. however, recognition o' political hypocrisy doesn't make the accusations being level'd at the current President less true. HA! Good Fun!

HA! Good Fun!

the comments section is almost as illuminating as were the interview. how many fox regulars see the problem in the linked video being chris wallace as 'posed to mick mulvaney? too many. HA! Good Fun!

you are repeating the nonsense from some random comedian with a youtube presence. for instance, as noted, the Alliance source is not some kinda throwaway bit added to make gabbard look bad in spite o' having zero credibility. is an organization which is part o' gmf, which is itself a recognized transatlantic public policy think tank. can find alliance contributions on cspan if you wish. your criticisms o' the nytimes article are kinda general, so am left having to argue for and against you, which is wasteful. is nothing untrue in the nytimes piece and they didn't accuse her o' being a russian asset. not anywhere or anyhow. whether or not you thinks the piece is too shallow to be worth printing, gabbard's criticism o' the nytimes were patent false. she were the one who done wrong and yet you are metaphorical banging trash can lids in defense o' gabbard? oh, and is funny you bring up cnn, 'cause rt used the actual and real cnn response to pushback on bakari sellers' silly comments. ‘How is there NO question?’ EVEN CNN hosts gasp at guest’s claim that Tulsi Gabbard is ‘a Russian puppet’ (VIDEO) is a brave new world where legit news organizations is dismissed out-o-hand and rando bloggers is given more credence 'not 'cause o' their qualifications or their track record o' investigative reporting, but 'cause they says what their audience wants to hear. *shrug* btw, the jacobin article we linked earlier has the depth you crave, and says exact same stuff as nytimes, but more harsh and more detailed. is a magazine article and not a couple column newspaper article, so greater depth is hardly a shock. HA! Good Fun!

grapes of wrath is an often brutal read with an unsatisfactory ending. would not be first book we recommend from steinbeck for a person who has never found appreciation o' a classic works. cannery row could be a steinbeck start point, particular if a person already read of mice and men and didn't find appreciation. similar, while two o' our five favorite authors is hemingway and faulkner, am not gonna recommend starting with their novels. go short stories from both and then maybe find a gateway novel based on which short stories work for the reader. james joyce is our favorite author, and even we don't enjoy reading ulysses. heck, although we have the last paragraph o' the dead memorized word-for-word, am not gonna recommend to somebody who has a case o' classicmalcontentous. HA! Good Fun!

am guessing it kinda depends on what you consider a classic. f. scott fitzgerald is not one o' the more readable authors on a great books list. you recognize the craftsmanship, so we won't belabor. am not a jane austen fan, but she is an easier read than most and in spite o' our personal criticism, she is ubiquitous on great books lists. ick. jack london? no question he is an easy read. oscar wilde's picture of dorian grey is robbed of it's genuine impact by being so well known even 'mongst those who has never voluntarily picked up a book. is simultaneous impeccable crafted and an entertaining read. reverse the foreknowledge problem o' picture and result is that in cold blood by truman capote has more impact on a modern reader precise 'cause you likely don't know events surrounding the murder(s) which is referenced in the "novel." am recommending not doing any research on the book or events referenced before reading. we always found sinclair lewis to be readable. elmer gantry and babbitt is both fantastic, but am suspecting you would find elmer gantry more entertaining. could always watch the movie instead, if only to see fantastic performances by shirley jones and burt lancaster. brave new world, slaughterhouse-five and fahrenheit 451 is often showing up on great books lists, and they seem to be in your wheelhouse. don delillo might be worth a shot. white noise is the novel for which he gets most credit, and it shows prominent on modern classics lists, but you might wanna try end zone or libra instead. updike, as shocking as may seem, has a couple readable books. the witches of eastwick? might not be considered a classic, but is no less worthy than the rabbit books, and Gromnir is a big fan o' the rabbit books. also, dumas books show up on great book and classic lists. his stuff were always written primarily to entertain. dumas were writing at a time when authors were literal paid by the word which led to a curious and playful overabundance o' dialogue. lack o' frugality which would offend most modern authors is curious endearing. am not sure if forever war counts as a classic, but if it does, then surely alfred bester's the stars my destination is on similar lists. author is the guy who first penned the green lantern oath in comics and the book is considered the original cyberpunk novel. no coincidence we mention after dumas 'cause stars has more than a few similarities to the count of monte cristo. and then there is the classic short stories... HA! Good Fun!

political polarization has robbed many o' the capacity to think independent. our friends in rl who see us more or less as a Conservative don't understand our trump animosity. similarly, given our trump dislike, when we do agree with trump on issues such as banning bump stocks or the President's reservations 'bout the quarterly report culture, we get weird stares. in any event, the ostrich impersonations regarding assad are... unfortunate. we expect such transparent abandonment o' reason from iran, russia and the tinfoil-hat brigade, but we nevertheless manage to be disappointed. HA! Good Fun!

*chuckle* your continued read and logic failures is not our problem. reddit conspiracy theories is less compelling than you imagine. have hit exhaustion point with your frequent defense o' the indefensible and pretending your ignorance is conferring some kinda special grant o' knowledge. *shrug* gd had the sense to be conflicted by support o' ktchong, but you go out o' your way to invoke the resident self described "mayor of crazy town"? congrats. @injurai so complaining 'bout new knowledge when new knowledge is not the source in the nytimes piece? what? cherry picks one line from the nyt piece while ignoring the rest? your "news" guy makes it seem like a reveal that laura rosenberger, the director o' alliance for securing democracy, is a former clinton aide. didn't have to do much research to discover this fact 'cause the nyt states, "Laura Rosenberger, a former policy aide to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and director of the Alliance, sees Ms. Gabbard as a potentially useful vector for Russian efforts to sow division within the Democratic Party." alliance for securing democracy is part o' the german marshall fund and does indeed get grant money from US and multiple european nations as well. transatlantic and bipartisan public policy think tank. while looking for criticisms o' the german marshall fund we did find the following: Russia Declares U.S. German Marshall Fund ‘Undesirable’ but yeah, is crazy to suggest russians is talking 'bout gabbard. lunacy. again, the nytimes article weren't accusing gabbard o' any malfeasance. were pointing out just how curious were the criticisms and support o' gabbard from w/i and outside the party. it is strange that the russians talk 'bout her. is weird that white supremacists like her. is creepy that 4-chan gave her the "mommy" appellation. and the reason why the folks on cnn were laughing is 'cause they were laughing AT the guy making the accusation. "that's quite the allegation," says cnn regulars in response. when bakari sellers suggests there is no question gabbard is a russian asset, the cnn moderator stops him and asks, "how is there no question?" so you got one cnn commentator making a wacky accusation which literal nobody on stage actual agreed. proof o' cnn evil? how? couldn't get past minute eight. let us know if we missed something good. HA! Good Fun!

just let us know which one most set you on edge. will add to growing list o' zor dog whistles. HA! Good Fun!

The world’s top economists just made the case for why we still need English majors "There’s no denying that the typical computer science major makes more money shortly after graduation than the typical English major. "Contrary to popular belief, English majors ages 25 to 29 had a lower unemployment rate in 2017 than math and computer science majors. "That early STEM pay premium also fades quickly, according to research by David J. Deming and Kadeem L. Noray from Harvard. After about a decade, STEM majors start exiting their job fields as their skills are no longer the latest and greatest. In contrast, many humanities majors work their way to high-earning management positions. By middle age, average pay looks very similar across many majors. “By age 40, the earnings of people who majored in fields like social science or history have caught up,” wrote David Deming in a recent New York Times op-ed." huh. HA! Good Fun!

sent back to hawaii? alternative: HA! Good Fun!

had to look-up skewwiff, though we kinda guessed correct. am s'posing zounds and gadzooks is having too religious an etymology to make a list such as you share. am gonna note personal affection for the following: lachrymose, lugubrious and brobdingnagian. HA! Good Fun!

guess it depends on your standards. we woulda' happily voted for mccain and kerry, in spite their almost polar opposite politics. both were guys who had a record o' working with those 'cross the aisle. experienced, competent, qualified. most important, we felt confident 'nuff 'bout the character o' each. and mccain were genuine funny too. had the mattis al smith speech so here is mccain's. go to 2:10 o' second video. this were october 2008, a month before the election. not just funny, but gracious and honorable. we can do better. we have had opportunities for better. HA! Good Fun!

is understandable. is why the david duke support makes so many democrats pause. just as ktchong advocating probable ain't enough to discourage gd for reals, his support does add a greasy sheen to gabbard's luster. no doubt will be considered a smear, but the jacobin did an article on gabbard which were comprehensive and scathing. jacobin is kinda lefties version o' the national review in that you got competent writers and the articles is researched, but is serious spin even so. as such is not polar opposite o' breitbart, but is transparent hard left in any event. Tulsi Gabbard Is Not Your Friend do research. in particular check for selves and see what legislation gabbard introduced in Congress as such stuff is easy to track down and says much 'bout who she is political. before rushing to defense o' such legislation, consider how you reacted when it were trump advocating for same stuff. HA! Good Fun!

"What’s most disturbing is Gabbard’s claims mirror those used by conspiracy theorists and war crime denialists, and promoted by the Russian and Syrian media and governments in attempt to undermine allegations of chemical attacks in Syria." guess it were a dog whistle. is not a smear to observe how in spite o' fact gabbard is only polling 1-2% she gets disproportionate attention from rt and official russian sources. particular after russian meddling in 2016, democrats and republicans is understandably a bit sensitive 'bout the appearance o' russian interference. is no accusation, but such russian preoccupation with a fringe candidate is weird. sure, a candidate who is promoting US isolationism is not a shock to be receiving russian support, but a 1-2% candidate? is nothing untrue 'bout recognizing how gabbard is finding support and resonance from such curious sources as white supremacists and evangelical ministers in spite o' being a hindu woman o' color who is espousing a bernie-cloned domestic platform. what? wait, what? add her unwillingness to condemn assad, not to mention her overt support for narendra modi, and many liberal democrats is having a difficult time embracing gabbard as one o' their own. throw in her frequent tucker carlson appearances and her attacks on barack obama and is not a surprise democrats is cautious 'bout embracing gabbard. calling gabbard a russian asset is, in our mind, ridiculous. however, articles such as the ny times piece which highlight just how curious is gabbard's campaign is not smears. perhaps other articles is unfair to gabbard, and the clinton bit were lunatic fringe worthy, but the manner in which gabbard attacks the media and advances conspiracy theories w/o any evidence is far too trump-like for some to ignore, and is another reason more than a few democrats is reluctant to support her. oh, and the "mommy" bit is a weird appellation 4-chan has bestowed 'pon gabbard... which is also weird and wrong. HA! Good Fun!

try and convince us endless foreign wars is bad for america is pointless as Gromnir is only one potential voter, and not even a democrat. lord knows we ain't suggesting gabbard is a russian stooge, but neither did the times in spite o' gabbard claiming she were victimized by that paper. *shrug* sam nunn style democrats is plentiful particular in the 2019 south, so mention american isolationism as a selling point ignores how is simultaneous a negative for more than a few democrats. am not denying gabbard has appeal. all we is saying is she gots some negatives which go a long way in explaining why she doesn't have broader appeal particular 'mongst democrats and we need not conjure up conspiracy theories or media crusades to get to where we is. heck, tell us eight months ago gabbard would be w/i one point o' senators booker and klobuchar and former hud secretary castro and we would tell you to lay off the psychedelics. fact she is even in the conversation is something o' a minor miracle, particular given the ill will she built up with obama loyalists. whatever clinton animosity exists towards gabbard is a mouse fart in the wind compared to the hurricane o' anger she brought 'pon herself with multiple attacks o' obama on freaking fox news. but if we are talking Gromnir, we already noted the assad stuff is for us a genuine "red line." is not just the refusal to condemn assad, but the way she went after obama which bothers us, and as you know, we didn't particular like obama as a President, so ain't as if am being knee-jerk emotional. fact gabbard lambasted obama over the refusal to use "radical islam" label while simultaneous willful ignoring assad behaviours is displaying a fundamental lack o' character which requires some kinda explanation, an explanation she refuses to provide 'cause she invariably deflects when her assad position is addressed. red line. HA! Good Fun!

there may be a conspiracy against her, but am thinking there is possibility for folks to disagree with gabbard sans any undue influences. ms. gabbard has attacked the media, and the nyt in particular, but the times did not call ms. gabbard a russian asset as she claimed. times did note how rt and official russian sources is defending and promoting her. attack media for accurate reporting? is one o' those things which has us a bit sensitive given trump's "enemy of the people" calls. am also believing american isolationism would make foreign powers hate the US no less while simultaneous removing our capacity to respond and prevent mischief and malfeasance. am not gonna get too deep into her curious refusal to condemn assad, but given how strong were her condemnations o' obama's refusal to use "radical islam" label, am seeing a certain 'mount o' hypocrisy. furthermore, much o' the gabbard dislike from democrats significant predates the 2016 election as her frequent fox appearances condemning obama foreign policy were seen as treacherous for a party which were as close tied to their President as republicans is current embracing trump. etc. perhaps most damning, much o' gabbard's domestic policy positions align with bernie sanders, so as long as bernie is running, gabbard is kinda the newer and shiner version o' the more recognizable bernie... which hasn't been an enviable position when it comes to attracting endorsements from progressives. not directed specific at gd, but am gonna need a bit more than thin correlative evidence to convince us that there is some kinda organized campaign to undermine gabbard beyond recognition she is hardly the ideal democrat candidate as expressed earlier in our post. unfair attacks on media and loud protests o' victimization is all too familiar refrains from a certain republican we could mention, so when we see similar in democrats, is no more endearing. HA! Good Fun!

HA! Good Fun!

HA! Good Fun!

lose presidential nomination to obama had to be difficult. the email nonsense, which at best painted her as a bumbling incompetent just shy o' criminal negligence, had to be a bruise to her ego. end political career by losing to trump 'cause she didn't bother to campaign in a handful o' battleground states... when clinton were a senator, with aspirations for bigger and better, is doubtful she imagined her legacy would be as it appears to be in 2019. am agreeing on assessment o' clinton's motive being ego, but am believing her need to respond to political events o' the day is hurting her legacy more than helping. HA! Good Fun!

the problem is misidentifying trump problems. calls for reduced immigration were, for decades, a democrat talking point. push for a reduced fed government is as old as federalists and anti-federalists in US politics. stronger military and even climate change (or at least degree o' response required) is the kinda stuff 'pon which Presidents may differ. etc. so what? fact democrats were ardent anti-immigration for so long didn't make 'em corrupt or evil. the trump problem, beyond the narcissism which drives all his behaviours, is not what he wanted but how he chose to go 'bout achieving. want a border wall were stoopid, but were ultimate only a minor issue until trump declares a fraudulent national emergency to do an end-around on Congress. similar, to attempt an end o' US middle-east military involvement is not vile and many would be in favor o' such. however, trump's cowardly betrayal o' the kurds and his flailing to find solutions to obvious miscalculation regarding his withdrawal o' troops is beyond our expectations and enraged parties on both sides o' the aisle in addition to our allies abroad. etc. starting point for positing a potential overcorrection is the issue. misidentify policy positions as being starting point for overcorrection is myopic and ignorant. the US system o' government, for all its flaws, largely self-corrects, trump is an exception 'cause he ignores rule o' law and spits 'pon the Constitution. overcorrect such flaws is taking a bit o' imagination and reveals initial complaint as ridiculous. the danger is not overcorrection. real danger is that trump actions is new norm. for example, suppose a new President comes into office and believes they can end second amendment via an executive order. this is not an overcorrection o' a genuine problem. if the new President were to lobby Congress to make changes to gun laws and enacted rules for atf which didn't direct affect existing fed legislation, then gun control advocacy by a new administration would not be an actual problem, though would likely be ineffectual. takes a great deal o' effort and debate in committee to get new legislation on divisive issues passed by Congress. our (smallish) fear for the next administration, regardless o' who is in the wh, will be that we see a continuation o' the norms started or advanced by trump. pettiness. divisiveness. extra-legal. unconstitutional. the last two Presidents has changed the culture in washington, and not for the better. trump, and to a lesser degree obama, attacked media and undermined seperation o' powers. just as with trump, democrat senators under obama were willing to turn a blind eye to excesses and frequent enabled a chief executive who were unwilling to play fair. Shocked by Trump aggression against reporters and sources? The blueprint was drawn by Obama. Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees sure, the scale o' what trump has done is orders o' magnitude worse than were obama, but is arguable it were obama who flipped the lid on pandora's box. regardless, am thinking what is most important is electing a chief executive who dedicates self to changing the culture o' the chief executive. impeachment won't fix underlying problems. am marginal less cynical 'bout the democrat candidates than is gd, but not by much. HA! Good Fun!

well, can keep the response vague and generic. trump fails is result o' abandonment o' rule o' law, lack o' respect for Constitution and a transactional pov which ignores morality and ethics as well as a willingness to sow dissension as a political tactic in spite o' obvious dangers o' increased polarization o' the american people. so, pendulum swings and get a moral and ethical chief executive who rededicates to follow rule o' law while maintaining reverence for Constitution as they work to develop bipartisanship and a healing o' political wounds. such a pendulum swing would be welcomed. HA! Good Fun!

fyi: the full al smith dinner speech from mattis is worth listening to.

HA! Good Fun!