Jump to content

Politics Princess' Sweet Sixteen


Blarghagh

Recommended Posts

 

Battlefield 4 you can play that if you want to experience war.

Ummm what?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_4

"Battlefield 4 is a first-person shooter video game developed by video game developer EA DICE and published by Electronic Arts. It is a sequel to 2011's Battlefield 3 and was released in October 2013 for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360; then later in November for PlayStation 4 and Xbox One.

Battlefield 4 was met with positive reception. It was praised for its multiplayer mode, gameplay and graphics, but was also criticized for its short and shallow single-player campaign mode, and for its numerous bugs and glitches. It was a commercial success, selling over 7 million copies.[4]

 

Battlefield 4's multiplayer contains three playable factions—the United States, China, and Russia—fighting against each other, in up to 64-player matches on PC, PlayStation 4, and Xbox One (24-Player on Xbox 360 and PS3).

"

Well still selling. I have played through Battlefield 3 and was thinking of buying Battlefield 4 very cheaply together with my friend this year. I am also going to buy Pillars of Eternity 2.

Edited by Terminator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

bowie_large.jpg
  • Like 3

"To be fair, if I was married to Milla Jovovich, I would also be happy just making movies that show off her butt." - Hurlsnot

"You need to be careful, lest I write another ten page essay on mythology and how it relates to Sailor Moon." - majestic

"I won't say what just in case KaineParker is reading" - Bartimaeus

"Oh no! Is there super secret ending as well? I don’t care." - Wormerine

"Get some poor minorities, that keeps WASPs away easy." - Malcador

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Battlefield 4 you can play that if you want to experience war.

Ummm what?

I know. You have to play CoD to experience that

  • Like 2

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be hard pressed to come up with a more selfish or reprehensible individual in American politics today than her. You really want to know why we are stuck with the Donald Trump chaos show? Right here. Sneering condescension and extreme narcissism does not play well to an American public whose economic fortunes have been brought low. Even now she can't get over herself. Donald Trump is President today because enough people found him to be less repulsive than her. That saddest thing of all is there were other options. And before anyone trots out the whole "third party can't win" trope if enough people decided  both Clinton and Trump were equally bad and voted a third party they would have won. It would have been helpful had Johnson been invited to the debates . But the Committee for Presidential Debates is controlled by Democrat and Republican politicians. The only they they agree to work together on is to keep everyone else out of their clubhouse. But this notion of there only being two choices is only true because too many people think it is.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=3KKPpjN5PTc

 

She is without a doubt the most obviously selfish and reprehensible individual in American politics. Today for sure, and very arguably ever.

 

I agree wholeheartedly that Johnson should have been in the debates, but he was never a true alternative. Had he been in the debates, that would be more obvious.

 

He didn't lose because too many Americans think there are only two choices. He never got anywhere because he's a pretty ****ty candidate, with a mostly crappy message. He was pretty much a status quo guy for many of the issues that people want changed, no matter what direction they happen to lean in politically.

 

The fact is that guy had as much legitimate claim to his party's nomination as Hillary did to her's, as the Libertarian party nomination was about as crooked as the democratic party's nomination process the last go around. The cry of foul within the Libertarian party during primary time was not small (though it barely made any news).

 

The truth is that Libertarian party is as hijacked, bought and paid for as the Republican and Democrat apparatuses. I look forward to the day you realize that.

 

And all that said, the solutions to the nation's biggest problems will more than likely never be found via the 'right person' in the White House. It's long past that point, unfortunately.

Edited by Valsuelm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/378980-mueller-gives-trumps-legal-team-questions-for-potential-interview

 

Ah. Now we know why Trump and his lawyer (as Trump said the probe should've never been started today, so it's no longer just the words of his lawyer) are freaking out.

Put fascists and sociopaths on your ignore list.

Quote

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/378980-mueller-gives-trumps-legal-team-questions-for-potential-interview

 

Ah. Now we know why Trump and his lawyer (as Trump said the probe should've never been started today, so it's no longer just the words of his lawyer) are freaking out.

 

Showing them the questions he wants to ask doesn't seem like a good idea because then they'll try to coach Trump on the answers. Then again, they don't know what he does know, or doesn't know for that matter. They probably have a good idea, sure, but still.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I would be hard pressed to come up with a more selfish or reprehensible individual in American politics today than her. You really want to know why we are stuck with the Donald Trump chaos show? Right here. Sneering condescension and extreme narcissism does not play well to an American public whose economic fortunes have been brought low. Even now she can't get over herself. Donald Trump is President today because enough people found him to be less repulsive than her. That saddest thing of all is there were other options. And before anyone trots out the whole "third party can't win" trope if enough people decided  both Clinton and Trump were equally bad and voted a third party they would have won. It would have been helpful had Johnson been invited to the debates . But the Committee for Presidential Debates is controlled by Democrat and Republican politicians. The only they they agree to work together on is to keep everyone else out of their clubhouse. But this notion of there only being two choices is only true because too many people think it is.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=3KKPpjN5PTc

 

She is without a doubt the most obviously selfish and reprehensible individual in American politics. Today for sure, and very arguably ever.

 

I agree wholeheartedly that Johnson should have been in the debates, but he was never a true alternative. Had he been in the debates, that would be more obvious.

 

He didn't lose because too many Americans think there are only two choices. He never got anywhere because he's a pretty ****ty candidate, with a mostly crappy message. He was pretty much a status quo guy for many of the issues that people want changed, no matter what direction they happen to lean in politically.

 

The fact is that guy had as much legitimate claim to his party's nomination as Hillary did to her's, as the Libertarian party nomination was about as crooked as the democratic party's nomination process the last go around. The cry of foul within the Libertarian party during primary time was not small (though it barely made any news).

 

The truth is that Libertarian party is as hijacked, bought and paid for as the Republican and Democrat apparatuses. I look forward to the day you realize that.

 

And all that said, the solutions to the nation's biggest problems will more than likely never be found via the 'right person' in the White House. It's long past that point, unfortunately.

 

 

Also, if the Green and Libertarian parties were allowed to the debates, they'd be forced to find quality candidates that can actually stand up to an actual debate.

 

Course, 'good at debates' doesn't neccesarily mean 'good candidate', Trump ripped every opponent a new one as they tried to beat him at his own game and Clinton has her skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/378980-mueller-gives-trumps-legal-team-questions-for-potential-interview

 

Ah. Now we know why Trump and his lawyer (as Trump said the probe should've never been started today, so it's no longer just the words of his lawyer) are freaking out.

 

Showing them the questions he wants to ask doesn't seem like a good idea because then they'll try to coach Trump on the answers. Then again, they don't know what he does know, or doesn't know for that matter. They probably have a good idea, sure, but still.

 

 

IIRC, his lawyer previously implied that Trump would not submit to being deposed (...in the sense of coming in to answer questions - I still have hope that the other sense of the word is possible, :p), so I think it's a sort of negotiation tactic to let him prepare his answers. The fact that he and his lawyer had a meltdown after seeing them probably suggests that their level of preparedness won't help him avoid incriminating himself in some manner - given the vast amounts of obstruction of justice that he's posted on Twitter for all to see (and now witness tampering), it wouldn't exactly be a surprise. I would assume the questions gave them an idea of where Mueller plans to go with the probe, whether it's collusion or simply the obstruction of justice-related charges.

Put fascists and sociopaths on your ignore list.

Quote

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NK-esque response and freakout is a negotiation tactic? That only makes sense for a toddler.

 

I suppose it might be a defensive reaction in the same sense that a frilled lizard popping it's frill and hissing is a defense tactic.

 

As for avoiding incriminating himself, if they can't avoid incriminating or perjury by just doing written answers, then they're beyond screwed.

Edited by smjjames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Mueller giving them the questions at all to begin with so that they could prepare without Trump resorting to dementia-induced word salad is the negotiation tactic. If he refuses to give a deposition, there's not much Mueller can do about it except report it to Congress...so it's part of the negotiation to try to get him to actually submit to one at all.

Put fascists and sociopaths on your ignore list.

Quote

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/378980-mueller-gives-trumps-legal-team-questions-for-potential-interview

 

Ah. Now we know why Trump and his lawyer (as Trump said the probe should've never been started today, so it's no longer just the words of his lawyer) are freaking out.

 

Showing them the questions he wants to ask doesn't seem like a good idea because then they'll try to coach Trump on the answers. Then again, they don't know what he does know, or doesn't know for that matter. They probably have a good idea, sure, but still.

 

 

IIRC, his lawyer previously implied that Trump would not submit to being deposed (...in the sense of coming in to answer questions - I still have hope that the other sense of the word is possible, :p), so I think it's a sort of negotiation tactic to let him prepare his answers. The fact that he and his lawyer had a meltdown after seeing them probably suggests that their level of preparedness won't help him avoid incriminating himself in some manner - given the vast amounts of obstruction of justice that he's posted on Twitter for all to see (and now witness tampering), it wouldn't exactly be a surprise. I would assume the questions gave them an idea of where Mueller plans to go with the probe, whether it's collusion or simply the obstruction of justice-related charges.

 

 

Please provide some tweeted evidence of obstruction of justice. I'm curious.

 

 

In related news:

 

Drudge is running a poll on whether Trump should fire Mueller or not. As of this post, more than 75% of those voting say Mueller should be fired.

 

And a Republican congressman predicts (correctly I think) that when the Democrats gain the house (they are very likely to) they will vote to impeach the Trump.

Edited by Valsuelm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sure. The problem, as I understand it, is what do you do when the president utterly refuses to submit to or even acknowledge subpoena or any other court proceedings? Note that even your article mentions that other presidents voluntarily submitted in order to prevent a constitutional crisis - I seriously doubt that Trump will be concerned with such, given that he hasn't been concerned with...well, anything related to due process or any semblance of justice. Does the court have the power to physically compel the president to submit? I was under the impression that only Congress has the ability to do something like that...and given that our Republican Congress has refused to protect/appoint Mueller as their special prosecutor to make Trump unable to fire him, I'm not exactly too confident that they'll try to punish him for anything short of starting a nuclear holocaust.

Edited by Bartimaeus

Put fascists and sociopaths on your ignore list.

Quote

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Sure. The problem, as I understand it, is what do you do when the president utterly refuses to submit to or even acknowledge subpoena or any other court proceedings? Note that even your article mentions that other presidents voluntarily submitted in order to prevent a constitutional crisis - I seriously doubt that Trump will be concerned with such, given that he hasn't been concerned with...well, anything related to due process or any semblance of justice. Does the court have the power to physically compel the president to submit? I was under the impression that only Congress has the ability to do something like that...and given that our Republican Congress has refused to protect/appoint Mueller as their special prosecutor to make Trump unable to fire him, I'm not exactly too confident that they'll try to punish him for anything short of starting a nuclear holocaust.

 

 

It gets taken to the Supreme Court and if he still refuses? Constitutional crisis. Also, some Republicans really don't want him to fire Mueller because they know the catastrophic deadlock it'll create and they backed off of protecting Mueller last year because Trump seemed to back off on Mueller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Constitutional crisis indeed. I don't want a constitutional crisis of this magnitude occurring under a seemingly complicit Republican Congress with a president that has gone on the record to say that we should try having a "president-for-life" like China. I don't think it'll go the way we'd like. Our institutions only hold up as much as the separate parts want them to hold up.

Edited by Bartimaeus

Put fascists and sociopaths on your ignore list.

Quote

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Battlefield 4 you can play that if you want to experience war.

Ummm what?

I know. You have to play CoD to experience that

 

Well I have not played other CoD games but I tried newest CoD in BETA for free and it was not ok game for me. Lol that **** game even did not work well in BETA and crashed to Windows for me when no other game have done that to me. Gameplay BETA multiplayer I give 3/10 verdict.

 

 

Here is your COD game I and even laugh at it:

 

You know Battlefield 4 single player campaign is not so good I give you that. However multiplayer Battefield 4>>>>> CoD lol.

 

Battlefield 4 old game from 2013? You know what in graphics Battlefield 4 wins COD newest no doubt about that.

Edited by Terminator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need to use emoticons more often

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A subopena is possible though, if legally complicated https://www.vox.com/2018/3/15/16997474/mueller-subpoena-trump-organization-probe-russia

 

@Val: It's less actual tweets of obstruction of justice and more pattern of behavior. Also, Drudge's audience is obviously biased towards Republicans :p

 

A pattern of behavior? What pattern of behavior that Trump has engaged in constitutes obstruction of justice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that the president can fire those who are supposed to investigate him in the first place is the real issue. It makes no logical sense. That is like me being investigated by a police officer and having the power to fire him at will. L0LZ

  • Like 1

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that the president can fire those who are supposed to investigate him in the first place is the real issue. It makes no logical sense. That is like me being investigated by a police officer and having the power to fire him at will. L0LZ

 

It makes no logical sense because constitutionally it's very arguable that Mueller has no business investigating the President at all. Constitutionally it's very arguable that the job Mueller even has shouldn't even exist. Those who founded this country didn't give us a FBI or anything like it. The idea of a Federal police force did not fly at all with the 'founders' or just about anyone else who ran the nation for it's first ~100 years, and with very good reason. The FBI is an epitome of Federal power gone awry. The organization has been corrupt as **** since day one, founded by J.P Morgan's lapdog Teddy R. as a political witch hunting machine. ~120 years later it's making headlines doing the very thing that it started out doing.

 

The entire FBI investigation is a circus and a charade. Threatening to fire the people perpetrating it is not obstruction of justice, nor is actually firing them. Too many people have been brainwashed to think the FBI has any authority at all over the President. It doesn't. The FBI answers to him. The only people the President constitutionally has to answer to are the voters, or the Senate/SCOTUS in the event that Congress (who is supposed to act on behalf of the voters - but just about never does) votes to impeach him.

Edited by Valsuelm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...