Gromnir

if you are willing to threaten violence 'gainst the otherwise innocent agents of government legal seeking to deprive you of your guns, as you have implied more than once, then am gonna continue to ignore your claims o' emotional indifference. HA! Good Fun!

as an aside, gd acts as if private property is special. it ain't. never has been, and for good reason. if the government takes your property, they need pay you. that's it. is all kinda fundamental rights in this nation, and we protect such rights more than does most western nations. speech, religion, interstate travel, and marriage is 'mong the short list o' protected fundamental rights. private property is not a fundamental right, and thank goodness. gd has a diseased animal which could threaten the health and safety o' hundreds, thousands or even millions o' people? government can't take and dispose o' the animal? if gd agrees that government can take in our diseased animal situation, then... perhaps the government is building a dam which is necessary due to climate change... will prevent thousands o' homes from being flooded. gd owns land which government needs to build dam. ... we were gonna list more, but why? takes little imagination to come up with compelling reasons for government to take private property. the thing is, the government has never needed a compelling reason. no government would function if every tax had to be providing a compelling State interest. any person need sell property to pay tax would have an ironclad defense 'gainst government taking. government can't take your liberties and your fundamental rights, but money and personal property is not even on the fuzzy grey border o' such rights. that said, gd is hardly alone when it comes to his love o' his guns sure, gd would feel bad 'bout killing his rabid dog, but we can't even imagine how heartbroken he would be if he need give up his arsenal. is a large number o' americans who has owned firearms and hunted since before they had a bicycle. firearms ownership is as much a part o' their national identity as is hating commies (not that most americans has ever met a commie) and drinking beer... and we all know what happened when the government tried to take away american's beer. 'course forcible taking would never happen as would be a logistical nightmare and thoroughly impractical. such a threat is a hobgoblin meant to scare folks. government would offer to buy guns which would get many off the street. if gd is a registered gun owner and refuses to surrender, then government could fine him into submission. why try and break down his door if they can empty his bank account, turn off his utilities and break his will? gd needs to go to work sometime, eh? not anymore if he wanna keep his guns. no doubt there would be extreme enhancement added to any crime committed with a firearm. sneer at such if you wish, but it worked very well with the assault weapons ban. practical overnight you saw and end to gang members and drug dealers using such weapons save in rare circumstances. sure, there would be a few holdouts up in appalachia and the rockies and in swamps n' holler 'cross the nation, but most folks who ain't complete off the grid would eventual need surrender their weapons, and in spite o' big talk, am doubting there would be much violence. 'course there would also be a handful o' criminals and wouldbe mass shooters who would find a way to acquire firearms when needed... would create a very lucrative opportunity for criminals to supply firearms. "the one hand giveth; the other taketh away." HA! Good Fun!

no, this is not reasonable, and thank goodness the Court has rare indulged in such reductions. founders couldn't possible contemplate the modern airport, so Constitutional interstate travel liberties don't apply to air travel and limits on free speech limits for planes and airports is okie dokie for similar reasons? the Court's historical analysis in heller were curious, but even so, the "in common use at the time," approach were specific rejected, albeit via dicta. HA! Good Fun!

am personal not a gun honk, but the semantics is kinda important. for example, 'ccording to the washington post, there has been 165 mass shootings in the US... since august 1, 1966. this year, which is admitted high for fatalities from mass shootings, has resulted in 51 deaths so far. that is compared to near approx. 9k deaths from firearms to date and it ignores the additional 22k deaths one expects will be resulting from firearm suicides each year (have explained more than once how suicide is first and foremost an act o' convenience, as difficult as that may be for some to believe.) is semantics to question which numbers is more relevant to gun control debate? is semantics to point out hypocrisy o' focusing on mass shootings? simple define "mass shooting" is gonna serious change debate. how many fatalities? do we ignore gang and drug related crimes? how 'bout domestic violence incidents? we see a post 'bove suggesting there has been 250 mass shootings thus far this year. how does that mesh with washington post and stanford and other sources? does it matter? rand suggests mass shooting events has yearly peaks and valleys, but averages haven't changed much over last few decades. what has changed has been reporting and definitions. does that even matter though? perhaps you believe even 1 mass shooting per year is too many? and speaking o' semantics, maybe we should change to mass killing instead o' mass shooting? bombings is disturbing popular in russia and a few other eastern european nations. put tight controls on guns don't appear to end mass murders in many countries. heck, trucks has become more popular as a weapon o' choice for mass killings in recent years. semantics is also important 'cause o' that annoying second amendment. what is the kinda weapon a person would/should have access to to support the founder's notion o' "a well-regulated militia." saturday night special or ar-15 seems more appropriate? maybe you thinks such considerations is silly considering the 2nd amendment were from before the US had a standing army and the whole point o' the 2nd amendment is m00t in 2019? ok, but then how are you gonna get rid o' the 2nd amendment? semantics aside, how are you gonna get numbers for constitutional convention or amendment repeal. Congress wouldn't even pass bump stock legislation for chrissakes. semantics is kinda important for this one. for example, have no idea what folks mean by "assault weapon" 'til they explain... and even then is clear folks don't always know what they is talking 'bout. 'ccording to the cdc, 178 kids died from the flu last year and is every reason to believe many o' those deaths were avoidable. far more kids died from flu than mass shootings. am not suggesting mass shooting and flu death preventions is mutual exclusive, but the outrage over shootings far exceeds the flu stuff... and the flu deaths is, from a practical pov, far easier to prevent. our personal weapon o' choice for home defense is something along the lines of it is more accurate and reliable in the hands o' Gromnir who has limited handgun training but has been in multiple high pressure situations and is aware that our crappy handgun marksmanship would become even worse in a life-or-death situation, life-or-death and probable in the dark with us shaking off sleep. kids get ahold o' the bat somehow and am far less concerned 'bout accidental fatalities. it never jams. as an aside, on average, more people is killed yearly with blunt force weapons than die in mass shootings... and the numbers ain't even close. legal issues aside, am in favor o' more than a few suggested gun control options, but unfortunate, the semantics is unavoidable and is core to the gun control debate in this country. HA! Good Fun! ps for those who believe we never say anything positive 'bout trump, am recognizing that while the law may be iffy, the ATF ban on bump stocks is a good thing. trump administration did not wait for Congress and did not listen to protests o' the nra, protests which we still find mind boggling. ATF rule will be litigated, but am suspecting if the ban fails, Congress will functional be forced to take action. good on trump for doing what common sense shoulda' made an obvious choice for folks in washington.

population and access. you are kinda wrong on firearms access, at least for most americans. like it or not, firearms restrictions were still largely community-based in 1920 and they were frequent draconian. yeah, in texas and rural kentucky you could walk into a firearms store and purchase your own personal armory, but then you gotta wonder what your young mass killer would do with such weapons. likely didn't own personal transportation and places such as the el paso walmart didn't exist. so our young killer knows that there is lots o' dirty italians in new york, but if he is from new york he needs travel to purchase his weapons and chances are he is doing such travel by train 'cause even buses is still kinda rare and is unlikely to get killer where he wants to go w/o considerable efforts. start with recognition you got less than 1/4 of current population, so these lightning strike quality occurrences o' a person broken enough to do such horror is less common. add awareness that personal access to mass media would also be reduced. other than the guy in vegas, most o' these clowns is making a political statement o' some kind. so let's assume our 1920s nativist new yorker manages to get his guns back to nyc w/o anybody tipping off the cops, which is gonna be problematic 'cause unless you are wealthy, the notion o' 1920s privacy is the stuff o' myth. but ok, you get back to ny and you keep your weapons stockpile secret from family and neighbors/roomates/whatever. you head down to the hudson river ferry intent on doing harm to immigrants, but what 'bout your message? send your manifesto to the ny times and new york herald. what is chances your manifesto gets printed even in part? etc. so smaller nation with more limited access to media, transportation and, for many people, weapons. sad reality is that the likely target o' the 1920s mass killer would be the italian or irish family down the street or on the edge of town and how likely would it be that such events happened more than once w/o much news coverage? too often? as an aside, and only tangential related, lizzie borden were a nativist. most likely reason why she killed family in 1892 were 'cause she were angry at her father for not moving away from all the dirty irish and portuguese immigrants living nearby. lizzie attempted to purchase poison the day before she used the hatchet on her family. on the day o' the murders, she called for a doctor, but rather than send for the irish-catholic doctor who lived next door, or the catholic french-canadian who lived diagonal from the bordens, the family's irish servant were sent into town to fetch a proper yankee doctor. turns out her bigotry were kinda well-known and hardly abnormal for the times. the original suspect for the murders were a portuguese immigrant. HA! Good Fun!

does it count as alt-right if 30% o' voters agree with a vast majority ' the nut job's venom? this most recent high-profile mass killer were raging 'gainst immigrants of color for taking American jobs and he were angry at corporations for giving American jobs to immigrants. thanks to second amendment, unlike his european "comrades" who were helpless 'gainst the immigrant flood, americans 'could take matters into their own hands and force necessary population control by killing off the immigrant flood. the killer were afeared o' the US becoming homogenous democratic party and he didn't want the fake media to blame trump for his murders 'cause he were embracing his curious notions before trump became President. etc. other than the killer's second amendment solution o' killing immigrants en masse, we wouldn't be shocked to hear the killer's words being parroted by a majority increasingly mainstream trump supporters. however, the willingness to kill 'cause o' misguided notions is a massive difference 'tween the el paso killer and trump's core supporters. thank God. am not suggesting the evils o' the killer is shared by the core supporters. however, the manufactured fear which inspired the killer appears to be anything other than alt. the notion o' immigrants taking the jobs o' real Americans and eroding cultural foundations has been the nightmare beast conjured by more than just a few skeevy politicians over the past couple hundred years. heck, nativism and fundamentalism were arguable even more widespread in the 1920s than today. the killer's manifesto reads as stoopid and twisted, reaching asinine conclusions thanks to a paucity o' anything but fear... but the fear is not alt. the fear is increasing mainstream.

we don't "assume" fantasy plots is dumb. likewise, simple 'cause we like fantasy, we do not ignore dumbness o' the typical fantasy plot. motivations and conflicts beyond human experience? magic as a crutch? if steinbeck added a villain to grapes o' wrath, an omnipresent evil at the core o' the suffering the joads faced, we would call it "dumb." if tolkien's eagles repeatedly saved the joads from obstacles, we would call it "dumb." am not assuming dumb. am seeing dumb. also, am not gonna get into the tolkien stuff further than to note how if you is recognizing complex psych in lotr, it is gonna be imagined. tolkien were creating english myth to fill a seeming void. is high concept. is catholic allegory, albeit less brutal than cs lewis' works. is tediously plot-driven. is a frequent punishing read given the absence o' dialogue and the surfeit o' tortured prose. sure, you can jung and freud lotr to death same as you may do with prose edda or the odyssey, but the psych is not gonna be particular complex and is gonna be largely incidental. oh, and please note for tolkien the actual climax o' lotr occurs with the scouring o' the shire. "dumb" is being generous. even so, we recognize the sacred quality o' lotr, so am not gonna try and change hearts and minds beyond this post. we tilt at the same windmill every couple o' years on these boards and am knowing the futility o' the effort. regardless, dumb is ok for fantasy. dumb is ok 'cause plot is typical not as important as is other elements. HA! Good Fun!

the typical fantasy plot is stoopid. is no way to express truths 'bout the human condition if situations and motives is so utter beyond ordinary human experience as to render 'em inaccessible. in an attempt to be original, many a (bad) fantasy author will stretch suspension o' disbelief like some boardwalk vendor making saltwater taffy. the faceless evil, which is often the ultimate antagonist, wants power and dominion over all, or some equal implausible and unrelatable motive. "magic" inartful fills in any gap o' logic or reason the reader may face. typical reader is numb to the inanity as such is the norm as 'posed to the exception. the thing is, it don't matter that the typical plot is stoopid. it is character and setting which need be evocative in a fantasy story. if character and setting is compelling, then other than internal coherence and a respectful nod to mystery/detective elements, plot may be eye-roll fodder w/o the story failing. there needs be a reason for a hero to do heroic things, even if is an anti-hero. plot provides reason for the characters to be compelling, but otherwise, plot is a secondary concern... at best. have mentioned previous that one o' the reasons we believe fantasy written for kids is usual better than fantasy geared towards adults is when writing for children, the author voluntarily and consciously strips away pretension. kids ain't gonna get the allegory in philip pullman's works. sure, pullman has such stuff in dark materials, but the plot can only be as complex and convoluted as a pre-teen is able to understand. writer needs keep the attention o' a young person and as such the author is gonna maintain focus w/o dozens o' pov characters flashing forwards and backwards as they simultaneous fight Evil and whatever is the author's metaphor dujour. hobbit or lotr? if most is honest, when asked which were the more enjoyable read, they is gonna answer hobbit. hell, tolkien actual made an effort to develop an accessible prose style with the hobbit. ordinary fantasy plot is dumb. so what? but once again, hard sci fi is deserving a different category from fantasy and star wars kinda sci fi insofar as importance o' plot. as such is unfair to make generalizations 'bout sci fi and fantasy. HA! Good Fun!

do a board search for "seth rich." is more than a few folks who should feel embarrassed 'bout their posts on the subject. HA! Good Fun!

agreed, but anybody other than joe mantegna doing anthony salerno seems wrong. also, we thought michael shannon woulda' been ideal for the role o' frank sheeran. am a big fan o' de niro, but a younger and taller sheeran mighta been worth considering? de niro is under 6' and 75. have de niro referred to as "kid" were weird, no? HA! Good Fun! ps the trailer for tigers are not afraid looks intriguing.

isn't all that difficult to pick winners. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/democratic-debate-poll/ is also worth looking for increases and decreases in campaign contributions following debates, though you need wait more than a couple o' days to get such numbers. personal, we didn't approve o' how harris went after biden. after all, harris refused to commit to being in favor o' fed mandatory busing when pushed on the subject after the debate. were a calculated and kinda skeevy ploy for getting attention while undercutting the legitimacy o' the frontrunner. however, personal feelings aside, am thinking it were obvious harris approach worked. harris got a big boost towards favorability ratings as well as significant shot in the arm for her overall polling numbers. harris were a clear winner, regardless o' whether she won with Gromnir. 'course the thing is, the debates rare matter in the long run. candidates get a temporary boost from the debates and then is back to business as usual w/i a week following. with such a large field o' candidates, perhaps the debates is more important than usual. got so many candidates 'bout whom voters know little. am wondering how many folks other than Gromnir thought it were weird yang were labeled as a "tech" guy. am thinking a majority o' folks didn't know enough 'bout yang to think there were anything weird 'bout the label. why would they know anything 'bout yang? outside o' washington state, how many knew inslee? and marianne williamson? maybe debates mean more this year. maybe. need some way to distinguish 'tween all the candidates. regardless, am thinking it ain't difficult to pick winners and losers, regardless o' feels. HA! Good Fun!

am not sure why we bother to respond. if thomas had failed senate confirmation, next most likely candidate were a guy named emilio m. garza. is any number o' folks who don't like how biden oversaw anita hill, and is also more than few who believe biden did a fair job o' handling a near impossible situation, but nobody with firing neurons blames biden for swinging the Court to the right. might as well blame thurgood marshall for his terrible diet which no doubt led to the heart problems that necessitated his retirement. we actual met J. Marshall in 1990 at a barbecue. honest-to-god, one o' our first reactions seeing the guy who wheezed with every breath and clear could not get outta his chair w/o help were, "this guy has never in his life eaten a vegetable which wasn't deep fried." many folks criticize biden for handling o' the anita hill situation, but the notion the Court woulda' stayed activist if not for biden is ludicrous. Souter appointment were already deemed a mistake, and bush were not gonna repeat same error by going with anybody other than a confirmed idealogue. if not Thomas, then likely garza, or somebody equal extreme. judge smails? HA! Good Fun!

don't want this to devolve into a Gromnir thread, but quick response: dave gaider messaged us kinda midway through bg2 development and asked if we were ok with inclusion o' "Gromnir" in bg2. we assumed the character would be included along the lines o' larry, daryl and daryl in bg1... likely a flatulent kobold who gets gibbed after mouthing off to an ogre, or something similar. we told dave to, "do your worst." as noted in the link, our cameo got cut late in bg2 development and so dave instead added his Gromnir to tob. were only a couple aspects which surprised: -dave made his Gromnir more significant than we expected. even got voiced dialog. -the degree o' backlash created by all the cameos o' boardies, as well as surrounding the npc contest submissions, shocked us. converse, we were not surprised by lanfear's inability to laugh at a joke. HA! Good Fun!

would be news to us. pretty much gave up on posting even infrequent at codex contemporaneous with the embarrassing abasement before cain toee review by spazmo, but that were early 2000s. don't recall having any contact with a roxor back in those days. there were seeming a half dozen codex reviews o' poe, and am thinking roxor authored one such which got linked on obsidian's boards, yes? the review were utter self contradictory, but we addressed here and am thinking roxor never responded. no interaction per se. HA! Good Fun!

gene noble doing the juice wrld mashup were not only excellent but kinda funny. am suspecting sting gets as much mileage outta lucid dreams as possible, seeing as how he owns 85%. HA! Good Fun!

you have complete bought into the trump defender script, eh? the steele dossier were not accepted w/o reservation but it were only a small portion o' fisa and clinton's russian interests is for the most part, smoke and mirrors. the whole uranium nonsense makes us laugh at the stoopidity o' the folks believing such silliness. the deleted text messages were the result o' a technical snafu, and All the lost messages were eventual recovered, so nothing there as well, and yeah, there were a couple folks working on the investigation who clear loathed the notion o' a trump Presidency, but not only were such folks fired immediate when it were discovered they were desiring a trump fail, but their work product were thoroughly inspected afterwards and it were revealed that in spite o' their email mouthiness, they actual performed professional and w/o bias. imagine trying to find a beltway attorney who didn't have an opinion 'bout trump one way or another, eh? Gromnir has personal advocated for kkk, cultists and notorious gang members, and if somebody read through our emails to discover what we thought o' those clients, it would look damning. the thing is, we were up front 'bout our loathing o' kkk and hare krishnas and norteños before we represented 'em. even so, our personal dislike didn't prevent us from acting professional. it is part o' the job. for chrissakes, do you think criminal defense lawyers are impartial 'bout their clients? lawyers and judges is quite capable o' compartmentalizing. nevertheless, am admitting the emails looked bad and they needed be fired... and they were. your obama complaint is a bit nonsensical. obama had zero whatsoever to do with directing where the fbi investigations went. manafort's multiple attempts to get paid by russians and ukrainians via his campaign connections and papadopoulos explicit telling australian diplomats that the russians were possible providing the trump campaign with "dirt" on clinton is why the trump campaign got investigated. only part obama were involved with is keeping the investigation quiet until after the election... which Helped trump. you complain how the dangers o' the russians is trivial 'cause is little more than a steaming internet sh!t burger, and everybody knows how stoopid such silliness is, yes? fair characterization? 'course you are parroting the wholly unsupported nonsense started and spread on the internet by the trump loyalists and fox and breitbart to distract and deflect. the thing is, am doubting you realize how you were manipulated. you believe you is too clever to fall for such nonsense. how many others is just like gd, eh? HA! Good Fun!

gotta say, we do not have much difficulty with this one. the gunpowder barrels and tent in the southern portion o' the arena floor makes for a nice chokepoint, a chokepoint which explodes. the wild critters should be able to run around the barrels to get at our party and flank us, but they don't. so we make liberal use o' the handful o' explosives we no doubt have in inventory to simultaneous debuff foes and to set barrels alight. when barrels explode, most foes is killed or hurt bad enough such that they is picked off ez. young drake is kinda ez to kill with all the other critters dead or near dead. regardless, gunpowder barrels + explosives use = no wipes or even injuries in spite o' many times completing this encounter. the gorecci street looters, on the other hand, remains problematic for us, but some o' this is due to our irrational stubbornness. am thinking it is in part 'cause o' our predictable success with the arena dig site which makes us muelish 'bout gorecci. why don't we skip or simple add a couple hirelings? 'cause we can do the dig site without problem, so why the heck is it still so difficult to get this battle right? am finding gorecci is also a bit easier if our mc is a tank. HA! Good Fun!

am honest not certain how roxor came up with his theory 'bout writers and education. creative writing, (typical nothing more than a ba or bfa english degree at most universities here in the states) english and lit backgrounds is gonna be having the most overlap for a venn diagram trying to pinpoint qualities o' successful sci-fi and fantasy authors with english as primary language. 'course the abundance o' sci-fi and fantasy luminaries with negligible or no education also throws a wrench into roxor's works. no doubt the stenography course in which robart e. howard were brief enrolled is in some way relevant to roxor's generalization 'bout world building, but am at a loss to square. earlier fantasy pioneers, such as shakespeare, dickens, shelly and melville had no university degree or education, and such is hardly the unique exceptions. list gets even longer as we go more modern, but am not certain how useful would be a dueling list where for every lewis carroll (mathematician) we mentions an ursula k. leguin (italian and french lit) or ray bradbury (no university.) one noteworthy author we will mention were the guy who wrote slaughterhouse five. vonnegut had the early educational background which would appear to lend weight to roxxor proposition... sorta. vonnegut studied anthropology at the university o' chicago for five years but technical didn't graduate. flip side, vonnegut frequent claimed the iowa writers workshop (one o' the first formal creative writing programs in the US) saved his career. vonnegut would eventual become faculty for the program. however, am gonna suggest hard science-fiction may not be deserving to be lumped in with the general pulp scifi and fantasy stuff roxor were identifying as part o' his curious article relating to crpg writers. guys such as asimov and arthur c. clarke enjoyed a special kinda gravitas precise 'cause o' their legit science backgrounds. assimov, in particular, were moderate insulted by the notion o' his brand o' science fiction being branded and shelved alongside star wars kinda science-less fiction. 'course hard sci-fi kim stanley robinson is ba/ma/phd english, so... regardless, is a wacky notion to suggest perceived prevalence o' degree in creative writing 'mongst developers is one o' the obstacles facing crpg writers attempting to bring setting to life in a game. as to genesis post, we don't have much in the way o' a reply. hooks for crpgs is rare satisfying everybody precise 'cause they need actual work for anybody. allow for the player to choose diverse range o' player characters makes less likely a particular hook is gonna satisfy all, so hooks is necessarily broad. bg hook, unless you look at it w/o rose-hued glasses, were kinda terrible. if bg protagonist follows bread crumbs, we keep getting attacked by inept assassins, which makes us wonder if gorion were trying to get us killed. am not even gonna get into how complete borked were the reasoning behind nashkel and cloakwood mine trips. kobolds "poisoning" ore in mines? flooding the last remaining working iron mine in the region makes situation better? of the ie games, ps:t likely had the best hook with you starting the game as a corpse coming back to life in the morgue o' sigil, but ps:t also limited you to the nameless one as your protagonist. is a balance. more player choice is gonna mean the hook need be more open. if poe did a poor job o' explaining the behaviour o' souls in the setting, then is not as if anything we say will retroactive make the game better for the genesis poster. am also at a complete loss to deal with BG setting "strangeness" as some kinda high watermark-- poster's words don't appear to match the complaint. would be equal baffled if the complaint o' a haiku were that it were too wordy. we simple have not the capacity to respond to a few criticisms. HA! Good Fun!

solution: swap sails and hull. is likely you realized by now, the p00p afflicted sails and hull is not an effect which transfers to subsequent sail and hull purchases or acquisitions. is a bit o' funny, but nothing more. a pivotal poe choice you made is recognized in deadfire, but you need suffer no lasting ill effects from the choice. HA! Good Fun!

witch hunt? well, investigation were not a public spectacle against which trump and others could not defend themselves from a manufactured and illusory threat. not only do the witches exist, as you appear to recognize by your quoted material, but the initial investigation were secret... which ironic were one o' the many republican criticisms o' obama-- why didn't obama make the russian threat public? am not sure if gd has, like so many, fallen victim to the sockpuppet level o' theatre offered by trump defenders to deflect, but the original investigation o' bad American actors and their entanglements with dastardly russians began considerable before the trump campaign for presidency. in fact, the only reason the trump campaign got targeted by fbi and law enforcement is 'cause the trump campaign Voluntarily brought folks such as manafort into the fold, folks who already knew they were being investigated. if the trump campaign had done any kinda due diligence and vetted campaign people, they woulda' wholly avoided any kinda investigation. so, the witches exist and you agree they is a real and serious threat. should end witch hunt claims. no? am not sure what false pretenses you reference save for the trump loyalist conspiracy theory nonsense which wholly ignores actual timeline o' the investigation. as to bias, who cares? fbi gets info suggesting multiple folks is involved with russians for illicit purposes. when those suspect people becomes involved in the campaign o' a major candidate for US Presidency, does the motivation to investigate increase or decrease? given gd recognition o' the threat identified by mueller, answer appears to be one shared by gd and investigators, eh? so the fbi discovers some o' the information they received which led to initiating the investigation o' bad russians and their american stooges were from sources with a metaphorical axe to grind. again, so what? given the danger gd recognizes, the info had to be investigated and once it became obvious the witches were real and numerous, the discovery that some informants were biased became a relative minor concern. regardless felt like cassandra. our prophecies, which we thought should be axiomatic to numerous lawyers on the judiciary and intelligence committees who s'posed read the report, went complete unheeded. mueller were never gonna say more 'bout obstruction and as such the vital information from the mueller testimony were limited almost entire to the last 30 minutes o' the intelligence committee questioning. other than when defending the integrity o' his team, mueller only became chatty when questioned 'bout the scope and nature o' the russian interference, and the complicity o' numerous folks in the trump campaign. mueller were quite willing to deride trump campaign failures to do the right thing and to observe how such failures o' character threaten to result in normalization o' what should be considered unthinkable-- candidates for major US political office not only accepting but inviting foreign interference. instead o' spending 6.5 hours trying to get mueller to discuss topics 'bout which there were no chance he would speak, coulda changed focus and questioned mueller on the one thing he clear wanted to speak to-- witches. mueller wanted to speak 'bout the extent to which the witches had involved themselves in the 2016 campaign and the threat those witches posed insofar as future elections. while hardly enthusiastic, mueller were also willing to speak to the mistakes made by the trump campaign (and trump in particular) insofar as being willing pawns to the witches. republicans predictable wanted to speak 'bout conspiracy theories and to attack integrity o' mueller's investigation. no surprise. democrats. *shrug* another wasted opportunity. so it goes. HA! Good Fun!

the thing is, there were a shocking large number o' people who were essential to making those big rockets possible. am recommending doing a search for a james burke video entitled eat, drink and be merry. is a few surviving video links we found after a quick search. is a worthwhile fifty-minute indulgence even if you gotta endure an english guy narrating. regardless, rather the retrospective, have been disappointed by lack o' coverage o' lightsail which hit major milestones recent. still a few years away we s'pose. HA! Good Fun!

calling bs. $8.6 trillion debt were added by obama. $5.6 trillion were added by george w bush. as such, single year deficits numbers is gonna be misleading... if you are a "moron." % debt increase can be a flawed approach and so too may dollar increase w/o adjusting for year, but is not gonna be a big adjust from obama to bush. am suspecting largest debt increase with adjusted 2019 dollars as measure would be fdr, but y'know, decreased revenue from great depression plus new deal and war makes for kinda unique circumstances. 'course population were also 'bout 1/3 what it is today, so... as an aside, trump is on pace to add $5 trillion in first term. before obama and trump took office, expectations were that there would be an increase in debt for both guys in spite o' obama being democrat and trump being a republican promising debt reduction. after all, both Presidents were s'posed committed to grand infrastructure plans which always cost money short-term. 'tween corporate bailouts, stimulus and obamacare, there were no money in the till for obama to consider meaningful and major infrastructure... and lord only knows what debt increases would look like if trump had cut taxes for rich, increased defense spending and implemented infrastructure overhaul. 'course trump couldn't find a way to get an infrastructure overhaul done during first two years when he had republicans controlling both houses o' Congress in spite o' fact infrastructure overhaul had largely bipartisan support. sure, republicans and democrats disagreed on how to pay for infrastructure, but if art of the deal guy can't work out a compromise for something both parties wanted, what does that say 'bout likelihood o' trump getting anything more contentious passed before the next election? regardless, calling bs on this deficit nonsense. obama increased debt by ludicrous amounts. trump is doing similar debt increase w/o having great recession to blame. HA! Good Fun!

(edited out pointless. clear ain't making headway) back on-topic, joaquin castro and laura ingraham had a difference o' opinion. is conflicting reports as to actual language used by castro to describe ingraham. HA! Good Fun!

... am genuine not certain which would be the more laughable alternative. as to previous administrations and tanks, am not one o' the guys who suggested such were unprecedented. such is gauche and indeed tacky, but as you say, not unprecedented. delivering a campaign speech on the fourth? maybe need go back to nixon, though other Presidents have had brief 4th o' july photo ops which typical also drew criticism. oh, and as you is likely aware, take an opportunity to throw a few jabs at jfk is not gonna bother us none. am always baffled by jfk revisionist history. insofar as the umbrellas, am thinking they were taken up as a defense 'gainst pepper spray rather than acid rain. honest, am not recalling exact why umbrellas were the adopted symbol. regardless, is so difficult to guess if acid rain or pepper spray explanation would be more amusing to gifted. neither is exact on par with "crushed" by tank, but am genuine not sure where the humor in such imagery is, so is tough to predict future laughs. HA! Good Fun! ps am honest not recalling eisenhower or jfk doing 4th o' july military parades. you got a link, or were such inaugurations or other events? am s'posing we could google, but am lazy.

thanks for bringing back to where we started... 'cause "crushed" by tank is hilarious. no tanks, but hijinks nevertheless Trump appears to contradict officials, says census citizenship question not abandoned this administration is like a 24/7 episode o' benny hill. HA! Good Fun!