Who's talking about influence on the last election by the Russians? We're talking about violation of several laws as the Democrats and partisan supporters in federal agencies attempted to influence the election. And more importantly, the fact that the breathless, shrieking narrative that the Dems and their media water-carriers have been bleating about for the last year (trying desperately to do with distraction and sleaze what they couldn't do by winning executive and legislative seats) isn't just wrong, it's exactly backwards. The only collusion present is on their part, and even they know it. Which is why they're getting even more unhinged as the narrative they've been trying to sell continues to fall apart. This may and should have an impact on the 2018 mid-terms (and thus on countless other issues) because what they've invested so heavily in - the whole "Trump is a nazi putin colluder!" hilarity - demonstrates more of exactly the sort of crap that people outside of a couple of dense liberal urban areas voted against in 2016. And their instincts were correct.
I can always tell when I'm right because the people who don't like the implications of it trot out silly memes instead of actually speaking to the substance of the matter.
No, it's not complicated. FusionGPS, the oppo-research firm, was no longer doing any work with any Republican candidates when the Clinton/DNC machine started paying them to buy Steele's artistic writing skills under the guise of "legal services" through their law firm.
And no, the two aren't equivalent, you're right. The business with Steele lying, the Clinton machine hiding their hand and payments, and the use of Steele's phony narrative (and phony self-corroboration) in order to facilitate an in-power political party's ability to listen in on the campaign of their opponents through a nonsense court petition is: much, much worse than the ineffective Russian trolling project.
Which means that the Clinton campaign and the DNC are guilty of at least as much, by paying a foreign entity to influence the election. Looking forward to THAT basket of indictments. Hope it comes soon.
The thing that bothers me in all this is that Trump is utterly fixated on his own innocence
Wouldn't you be, too, if all day long the mainstream media and vitriolic political opponents were screeching non-stop about how you're a traitor? He has work to do, and has been doing a great deal of it, despite this phony relentlessness from the Clinton camp and her supporters. No, I'm sure that if you had CNN calling you a traitor 24 hours a day, you'd just clam up and let them lie about you, right? Sure, of course.
To the contrary, we KNOW that AmiMoJo is a Russian. We know this because a law firm hired by a political consultant paid a foreign national to write down things that people he paid in Russia told him, and he put it in a dossier. And that dossier was confirmed by news articles that were written because the same guy who was paid to assemble the phony dossier briefed the reporters who then pretended they had other sources. So, obviously we know that AmiMoJo is a Russian, because we have enough evidence to convince a judge (as long as we don't mention who was paying for all of this) to grant the government the power to listen in on his communications, and the mainstream media will thus spend a year and a half repeating all of this non-stop as if it were fact. There, see how this works?
Hey, look! Anonymous coward who can't address the actual subject attempts to distract with unrelated material and tosses in some of the usual juvenile ad hominem, too, just make it clear he's a coward. Thanks for your consistency! Good work.
No. You've got it exactly wrong, and the founders who wrote the Bill of Rights explained it at length - and you can read it for yourself in copious papers, transcripts, and letters that explain their thinking. They reluctantly recognized that a standing military (a "well regulated militia") was going to be inevitably necessary. But - just like the rest of the big ones in the Bill of Rights - they recognized that some people would try to use the existence of a professional military as an excuse to deny citizens their rights to personal self defense. They had just shook OFF a government (the British crown) that did exactly that: took away all personal weapons from colonists, with the excuse that those red coats could be relied on to handle any reason someone might feel the need for one.
The second amendment says, essentially, "Well, it turns out that we'll probably need a standing military of some sort. People with government power may not use that as an excuse to infringe on citizens' personal rights to keep and bear arms."
Sure it is, in this context. And one of the sacred things about it is its baked-in mechanism for amending it. Hence, slavery is no longer allowed, but free speech, assembly, self defense, and other things still are.
The right to bear arms for anyone in a state-sanctioned militia must not be infringed.
It seems unlikely that you're actually as ignorant as you're pretending to be. But you seem to think it's rhetorically important to pretend you're unfamiliar with the constitution, so, sure, let's play.
The phrasing of the 2nd Amendment means the OPPOSITE of what you're transparently pretending it means. The people who wrote the Bill of Rights had just freed themselves from living under a regime that disarmed individuals, arguing that the crown's soldiers were all the law enforcement anyone in the colonies would need. Which was nonsense, of course. But the founders were absolutely dead set against allowing their new government to, for example, take a farmer's personal weapons away, or allow a local governor or other figure to have a monopoly on the ownership of weapons. The founders were very uncomfortable about there even being a standing army of any kind, even at the local militia level. But the realized it was going to be necessary, and - knowing there would be people like you - used some of that precious space in the Bill of Rights to explicitly pre-empt exactly the sort of thing you'd like to do.
If they were to write the amendment in today's conversational language, it would go like this: "Because a standing professional military, even if just local in scope, looks like an inevitable necessity, nobody with government power should use that as an excuse to infringe on a citizen's right to personally keep and bear their own arms."
You know, just like the 1st Amendment says that nobody in government can prevent you from speaking, assembling, etc. The Bill of Rights doesn't establish some standard for your right to speak, or your right to defend yourself. It anticipates people like you with a totalitarian mindset looking to use government power to control others, and they identified some potential hot spots (speech, self defense, privacy, etc) that merited specific language in the country's charter.
Of course you know all of this, because you've also read the many letters, transcripts, and papers authored by the people who wrote the Bill of Rights, who come right out and explain to you that you have it exactly wrong, and they tell you why they said what they said. So quit with the theatrics, and just admit that you're hoping nobody will notice when you're trying to mislead on the subject because you don't have the energy to try to amend the constitution in your effort to return the monopoly on the keeping and bearing of arms back to the way the British crown liked it.
Liberals don't care about what guns you own
Ah, that explains why we keep hearing so many liberals shouting,"Who needs an AR-15? They should be banned!" Please, now you're just embarrassing yourself. The country is littered with laws - written and passed by liberal legislators and governors - that explicitly DO care. States like California and Maryland prohibit, for example, any handgun that they haven't expressly listed (by make and model) as being acceptable. They consider things like 11 rounds to be illegal, but 10 or 8 to be less so, and so bits of sheet metal bent into different sizes to hold the ammo are very much what liberals care about. Which, again, you know, and are trying to pretend you don't.
So what is your plan for reducing the violent deaths?
Enforce existing laws. It's too politically incorrect in liberal circles to call crazy people crazy, so liberals would rather allow crazy people to buy guns than be forced to act all judgey and hurt a crazy person's feelings. Because people who are documented as being crazy are immediately stopped during their federal background checks from buying guns. While on that subject: the NICS system blocks tens of thousands of people from making gun purchases every year. The very act of submitting their federal paperwork to attempt such a purchase IS A FELONY. And yet
Youtube has "ads that are displayed before content loads (with or without a countdown)".
Not really. The web page that they're showing you does NOT do that. Inside of that page is some video content that YouTube is providing to you free of charge, and attached to that content is (sometimes) an ad. That ad does NOT prevent the page from loading, the page's navigation from functioning, etc.
Not the same thing at all. And of course you can choose to be an actual customer of YouTube and have that content appear without those ads that pay for the service and the people who create the content. But the web page itself? Come on, don't pretend you don't know the difference between an in-line ad with the video itself and those "curtain" ads that take over the actual page.
And I see that, exactly as I observed above, you're also childishly imagining that anyone who might have a different opinion as to whether or not putting the Clintons back in power was a good move must be, of course, Russians. Hilarious.
Why do I get the horrifying feeling that Trump wants to fire them in order to hold them responsible for the bad weather?
Because you're so busy dreaming up fantasy cartoon villain crap that doesn't exist to avoid confronting the actually evil crap that your preferred political camp was doing to prevent anyone but Herself from being crowned.
decided to elect the worst possible politician out of spite
No, the decided NOT to elect the worst possible politician (Hillary Clinton and her husband, who she promised would be put to work on matters of national policy). The Clinton Crime Machine is bad enough by itself, but the real issue is the Supreme Court. She promised to seat people without significant judicial or constitutional background, who "knew what people are going through out there," because that would be the easiest way to pursue he agenda in the face of a non-compliant legislature. As opposed to Trump, who published his list of prospective nominees - all proper constructionists - and has already acted directly from that list, and seated an excellent justice. We'll live with the consequences of that for far longer than either candidate would be in office.
Regardless, Trump's focus on restoring our crumbling military readiness, rolling back mountains of absurd regulations, making some strides towards a more rational and competitive tax code, and actually paying attention to things like border security - as opposed to the stagnation and corruption promised by Clinton - is a good thing. I don't care how he talks. She's also a horrible human being, and in far more insidious ways. He's just a social-skills throwback who's not a slick, sleazy professional politician who's spent years learning to look you in the eye and lie non-stop a la Hillary Clinton. People didn't vote for him out of spite, they voted to prevent the Clintons - who professed and acted on their contempt for you - from regaining the power they so craved, and which they used to enrich themselves by the millions of dollars.
Reminds me of that unknown continent that Christopher Columbus sort of ran into. You know, the one that the Vikings had already visited hundreds of years earlier, and which a bunch of Asians had walked and/or floated over to thousands of years earlier. "Unknown" is a silly adjective in cases like this.
Your ongoing sexual obsession with Republicans is pretty amazing to watch. It'll pass, at some point. In the meantime, consider trying a different kind of porn, maybe? You're spending too much time on your hot fetish for white guys with jobs. But, if your only outlet is to continually proclaim your lust for them, then go for it, I guess. Seems to make you happy.
Slashdot Mirror
Who's talking about influence on the last election by the Russians? We're talking about violation of several laws as the Democrats and partisan supporters in federal agencies attempted to influence the election. And more importantly, the fact that the breathless, shrieking narrative that the Dems and their media water-carriers have been bleating about for the last year (trying desperately to do with distraction and sleaze what they couldn't do by winning executive and legislative seats) isn't just wrong, it's exactly backwards. The only collusion present is on their part, and even they know it. Which is why they're getting even more unhinged as the narrative they've been trying to sell continues to fall apart. This may and should have an impact on the 2018 mid-terms (and thus on countless other issues) because what they've invested so heavily in - the whole "Trump is a nazi putin colluder!" hilarity - demonstrates more of exactly the sort of crap that people outside of a couple of dense liberal urban areas voted against in 2016. And their instincts were correct.
I can always tell when I'm right because the people who don't like the implications of it trot out silly memes instead of actually speaking to the substance of the matter.
No, it's not complicated. FusionGPS, the oppo-research firm, was no longer doing any work with any Republican candidates when the Clinton/DNC machine started paying them to buy Steele's artistic writing skills under the guise of "legal services" through their law firm.
And no, the two aren't equivalent, you're right. The business with Steele lying, the Clinton machine hiding their hand and payments, and the use of Steele's phony narrative (and phony self-corroboration) in order to facilitate an in-power political party's ability to listen in on the campaign of their opponents through a nonsense court petition is: much, much worse than the ineffective Russian trolling project.
Which means that the Clinton campaign and the DNC are guilty of at least as much, by paying a foreign entity to influence the election. Looking forward to THAT basket of indictments. Hope it comes soon.
The thing that bothers me in all this is that Trump is utterly fixated on his own innocence
Wouldn't you be, too, if all day long the mainstream media and vitriolic political opponents were screeching non-stop about how you're a traitor? He has work to do, and has been doing a great deal of it, despite this phony relentlessness from the Clinton camp and her supporters. No, I'm sure that if you had CNN calling you a traitor 24 hours a day, you'd just clam up and let them lie about you, right? Sure, of course.
How do we know AmiMoJo isn't a Russian?
To the contrary, we KNOW that AmiMoJo is a Russian. We know this because a law firm hired by a political consultant paid a foreign national to write down things that people he paid in Russia told him, and he put it in a dossier. And that dossier was confirmed by news articles that were written because the same guy who was paid to assemble the phony dossier briefed the reporters who then pretended they had other sources. So, obviously we know that AmiMoJo is a Russian, because we have enough evidence to convince a judge (as long as we don't mention who was paying for all of this) to grant the government the power to listen in on his communications, and the mainstream media will thus spend a year and a half repeating all of this non-stop as if it were fact. There, see how this works?
Hey, look! Anonymous coward who can't address the actual subject attempts to distract with unrelated material and tosses in some of the usual juvenile ad hominem, too, just make it clear he's a coward. Thanks for your consistency! Good work.
No. You've got it exactly wrong, and the founders who wrote the Bill of Rights explained it at length - and you can read it for yourself in copious papers, transcripts, and letters that explain their thinking. They reluctantly recognized that a standing military (a "well regulated militia") was going to be inevitably necessary. But - just like the rest of the big ones in the Bill of Rights - they recognized that some people would try to use the existence of a professional military as an excuse to deny citizens their rights to personal self defense. They had just shook OFF a government (the British crown) that did exactly that: took away all personal weapons from colonists, with the excuse that those red coats could be relied on to handle any reason someone might feel the need for one.
The second amendment says, essentially, "Well, it turns out that we'll probably need a standing military of some sort. People with government power may not use that as an excuse to infringe on citizens' personal rights to keep and bear arms."
I'm not sure how people keep getting this wrong.
Really? Which well regulated militia was Nikolas Cruz a part of?
Nice attempt to pretend the second amendment means the exact opposite of what it actually means.
The Constitution is not sacred.
Sure it is, in this context. And one of the sacred things about it is its baked-in mechanism for amending it. Hence, slavery is no longer allowed, but free speech, assembly, self defense, and other things still are.
The right to bear arms for anyone in a state-sanctioned militia must not be infringed.
It seems unlikely that you're actually as ignorant as you're pretending to be. But you seem to think it's rhetorically important to pretend you're unfamiliar with the constitution, so, sure, let's play.
The phrasing of the 2nd Amendment means the OPPOSITE of what you're transparently pretending it means. The people who wrote the Bill of Rights had just freed themselves from living under a regime that disarmed individuals, arguing that the crown's soldiers were all the law enforcement anyone in the colonies would need. Which was nonsense, of course. But the founders were absolutely dead set against allowing their new government to, for example, take a farmer's personal weapons away, or allow a local governor or other figure to have a monopoly on the ownership of weapons. The founders were very uncomfortable about there even being a standing army of any kind, even at the local militia level. But the realized it was going to be necessary, and - knowing there would be people like you - used some of that precious space in the Bill of Rights to explicitly pre-empt exactly the sort of thing you'd like to do.
If they were to write the amendment in today's conversational language, it would go like this: "Because a standing professional military, even if just local in scope, looks like an inevitable necessity, nobody with government power should use that as an excuse to infringe on a citizen's right to personally keep and bear their own arms."
You know, just like the 1st Amendment says that nobody in government can prevent you from speaking, assembling, etc. The Bill of Rights doesn't establish some standard for your right to speak, or your right to defend yourself. It anticipates people like you with a totalitarian mindset looking to use government power to control others, and they identified some potential hot spots (speech, self defense, privacy, etc) that merited specific language in the country's charter.
Of course you know all of this, because you've also read the many letters, transcripts, and papers authored by the people who wrote the Bill of Rights, who come right out and explain to you that you have it exactly wrong, and they tell you why they said what they said. So quit with the theatrics, and just admit that you're hoping nobody will notice when you're trying to mislead on the subject because you don't have the energy to try to amend the constitution in your effort to return the monopoly on the keeping and bearing of arms back to the way the British crown liked it.
Liberals don't care about what guns you own
Ah, that explains why we keep hearing so many liberals shouting,"Who needs an AR-15? They should be banned!" Please, now you're just embarrassing yourself. The country is littered with laws - written and passed by liberal legislators and governors - that explicitly DO care. States like California and Maryland prohibit, for example, any handgun that they haven't expressly listed (by make and model) as being acceptable. They consider things like 11 rounds to be illegal, but 10 or 8 to be less so, and so bits of sheet metal bent into different sizes to hold the ammo are very much what liberals care about. Which, again, you know, and are trying to pretend you don't.
So what is your plan for reducing the violent deaths?
Enforce existing laws. It's too politically incorrect in liberal circles to call crazy people crazy, so liberals would rather allow crazy people to buy guns than be forced to act all judgey and hurt a crazy person's feelings. Because people who are documented as being crazy are immediately stopped during their federal background checks from buying guns. While on that subject: the NICS system blocks tens of thousands of people from making gun purchases every year. The very act of submitting their federal paperwork to attempt such a purchase IS A FELONY. And yet
It's even better when the Shillaries get more delusional than usual. Fun!
I didn't want Moore to win. But I do still enjoy it when the Shillaries like you show up. Always entertaining.
Youtube has "ads that are displayed before content loads (with or without a countdown)".
Not really. The web page that they're showing you does NOT do that. Inside of that page is some video content that YouTube is providing to you free of charge, and attached to that content is (sometimes) an ad. That ad does NOT prevent the page from loading, the page's navigation from functioning, etc.
Not the same thing at all. And of course you can choose to be an actual customer of YouTube and have that content appear without those ads that pay for the service and the people who create the content. But the web page itself? Come on, don't pretend you don't know the difference between an in-line ad with the video itself and those "curtain" ads that take over the actual page.
Naturally Google won't block any of their own ads...
Are you saying that Google actually runs ads like those being discussed?
And I see that, exactly as I observed above, you're also childishly imagining that anyone who might have a different opinion as to whether or not putting the Clintons back in power was a good move must be, of course, Russians. Hilarious.
Why do I get the horrifying feeling that Trump wants to fire them in order to hold them responsible for the bad weather?
Because you're so busy dreaming up fantasy cartoon villain crap that doesn't exist to avoid confronting the actually evil crap that your preferred political camp was doing to prevent anyone but Herself from being crowned.
And you have just resorted to lazy ad hominem instead of refuting his point. Because you can't.
decided to elect the worst possible politician out of spite
No, the decided NOT to elect the worst possible politician (Hillary Clinton and her husband, who she promised would be put to work on matters of national policy). The Clinton Crime Machine is bad enough by itself, but the real issue is the Supreme Court. She promised to seat people without significant judicial or constitutional background, who "knew what people are going through out there," because that would be the easiest way to pursue he agenda in the face of a non-compliant legislature. As opposed to Trump, who published his list of prospective nominees - all proper constructionists - and has already acted directly from that list, and seated an excellent justice. We'll live with the consequences of that for far longer than either candidate would be in office.
Regardless, Trump's focus on restoring our crumbling military readiness, rolling back mountains of absurd regulations, making some strides towards a more rational and competitive tax code, and actually paying attention to things like border security - as opposed to the stagnation and corruption promised by Clinton - is a good thing. I don't care how he talks. She's also a horrible human being, and in far more insidious ways. He's just a social-skills throwback who's not a slick, sleazy professional politician who's spent years learning to look you in the eye and lie non-stop a la Hillary Clinton. People didn't vote for him out of spite, they voted to prevent the Clintons - who professed and acted on their contempt for you - from regaining the power they so craved, and which they used to enrich themselves by the millions of dollars.
Well, the Vikings did make some marks, and left a bunch of signs of themselves. And the Asians just set up shop and became "native" Americans.
It seems that at least a few people know it.
Reminds me of that unknown continent that Christopher Columbus sort of ran into. You know, the one that the Vikings had already visited hundreds of years earlier, and which a bunch of Asians had walked and/or floated over to thousands of years earlier. "Unknown" is a silly adjective in cases like this.
The tabby takes great pictures
What sort of camera have you trained that cat to use when he's taking those pictures?
Well, at least we know where to turn when we want to hire a specialist in clumsy, run-on, long-form mixed metaphors.
Your ongoing sexual obsession with Republicans is pretty amazing to watch. It'll pass, at some point. In the meantime, consider trying a different kind of porn, maybe? You're spending too much time on your hot fetish for white guys with jobs. But, if your only outlet is to continually proclaim your lust for them, then go for it, I guess. Seems to make you happy.
No. I don't want to live your vision for a government controlled ... everything.