HAPPY BIRTHDAY CHAOS ENGINE!

May it be all you want it to be and more.

Enjoy!

Gary Breecher, better know as The War Nerd, "Saddam Died Beautiful: A Special Eulogy":

"Blaming Saddam for being what he was is like blaming a rattlesnake for killing. That's how it lives, and it's what that Crocodile Hunter guy would've called "a bee-YOO-tiful ambush predator." Saddam was right for Iraq the way a Sidewinder is right for the Mojave. The NeoCons scared us by shaking his fangs in our faces, as if Saddam planned to bite every single commuter in LA, when all he wanted to do was stay alive and in power -- because those were the same thing for him -- in the Iraqi desert, where everything stings, sticks or bites. We may as well have gone on a crusade to wipe out all the snakes and spiders in the desert for being what they are. Only difference is, we wouldn't have lost 3000 soldiers that way."

---

Saddam was a rat-fuck bastard of the lowest order, but the world ISN'T a better place now that he's gone. In fact, for the amount of chaos his removal has sown, he might as well have been named Franz Ferdinand

Happy Birthday surfin' web surfin' dude.

I hope it is all you want it to be.

But you have zero proof. You're stating that you have enough proof, but yet you really don't have any proof. You have circumstantial evidence.

I have zero doubts that DWS once in that position helped because she and Clinton are friends and political allies. But that's not quid pro quo. If Clinton hires her to help in her campaign, it isn't quid pro quo if Clinton hired her because of DWS's skills in the area. You have zero proof that's why DWS was hired. You have zero proof DWS did "whatever Clinton asked her to do". You have zero proof Clinton asked her to do anything that broke the rules in the first place. None.

You are inferring every single accusation you made against Clinton. There's absolutely no evidence of any of them at all.

Clinton has zero insights about what the public thinks? You're kidding, right? The woman who was the front runner for the Democratic nomination, who has been in the public spotlight at the national stage for almost 25 years doesn't have any insight about what the public thinks?

Come on, man.

Also, DWS's job wasn't solely to ensure the nominating process was fair. She had a ton of responsibilities, and many of them she did well. That was my point. All you're seeing is the part where she screwed up because it hurt your preferred candidate. Her job was also to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, too.

Perhaps a few might say DWS wasn't the reason Sanders lost? A few? You mean like.... ohhhhh, I dunno... Bernie Sanders? How about Bernie Sanders' staff members? But what the hell do they know, AMIRITE?

Dude, Sanders got crushed with minorities. You know where that can allow you to win the nomination? The GOP. Unfortunately for Sanders, he was running for the nomination where minorities are a significant part of the voting bloc. Absolutely CRUSHED. Clinton won 76% of the African-American vote. Before the primaries really began, Clinton was polling at 73% among Hispanics. You honestly think that was because of DWS? Let me put that to rest for you. Hillary Clinton did well among Hispanics against Barack Obama. Was that DWS's doing, too?

That's the thing. I have clear cut FACTS about why Sanders lost. I have the words from Bernie Sanders and his campaign staff. You have speculation about whatever small impact DWS's had on primary votes.

Valarie Plame? No, Bush never named her. It ended up being Karl Rove.

How did I shove Hillary Clinton down your throat? Explain that one to me. I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. In VA, I chose to vote in the GOP primary to do whatever I could to stop Trump, which was vote for Marco Rubio, as he was polling second in VA. I didn't do a damn thing to stop Sanders or help Clinton win the nomination.

Why didn't I vote for Sanders? Because of his lack of foreign policy experience, and he wasn't putting forth enough practical policies that I think would work. I like the guy fine. I'd vote for him as a Senator if he was in Virginia. I like having voices like his in Congress. But Commander In Chief is a big part of the job, and I want someone with foreign policy experience. He doesn't have that.

I also value flexibility in a candidate. The world isn't black and white. I like Sanders' values. It would be nice if everyone could go to college if they had the motivation. I very much think the rich are not taxed nearly enough. But I also think ideologies and ideals help to create ideas for solutions, but the solutions need to be practical, and I don't find his practical unfortunately. Sometimes they're not politically practical. Sometimes they just fall apart on the mechanics of them.

Gary Johnson has more experience? Uhhhhh, no. He was governor of New Mexico for 8 years. That compares well to Sarah Palin. Do you think Palin is more experienced than Clinton, too? Johnson has zero foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton was an active first lady who proposed Health Care Reform, got children's health care reform passed. She was a US Senator for the short time of 8 years, which is way less than Johnson's 8 years as governor of New Mexico (wait, what?!), was on the foreign relations committee during that time. Then she was Secretary of State.

Sanders is the only one who I'd put in the ballpark, but he's had legislative branch experience only, and he doesn't have much foreign policy experience at all. Interestingly enough, you said he was the most experienced candidate, overlooking his complete lack of executive experience, which you favored when it came to Gary Johnson. Huh?

Clinton can't win? You know, I wouldn't even say Trump *can't* win. Once normalized from the convention bounce, she'll be the favorite to win. Sure, she could still lose, but I wouldn't bet against her.

Clinton supporters have blinders on only. Seriously? Dude, EVERY candidate has supporters with blinders on. Every single candidate. Most voters are ignorant, regardless of candidate. Don't give me that holier than thou stuff. You've got blinders on for why Sanders lost.

There are candidates who are threats if elected. There are incompetent candidates. There are competent candidates. There are great candidates. Sorry, but there aren't great candidates every election. I've voted in enough presidential elections to know you should be grateful to have at least one competent candidate who has a shot of winning. Sometimes there aren't any. Sometimes there are a few.

In your mind, I'm a Hillary supporter with blinders on. I'm not beholden to any party. I'm not beholden to any candidate. It's just not in my nature. This is the first presidential candidate from a major party in my lifetime that I felt was truly an existential threat to the US and the world in Trump. I'm a level headed person. Hillary Clinton has an astounding lack of charisma for a politician who won a major party's nomination. I don't find her particularly inspiring. I think it's a legitimate criticism to say she sometimes bends to the political winds too much. She sometimes doesn't handle things like the email thing like she should, as she flees to secrecy from a paranoia from the press and the other party, which is often a mistake, but you have to understand at some level why. She's a part of a major political party, which has a lot of "this is how the sausage is made" in every party out there, and she operates within that system.

If she were a meal, she'd be an unseasoned microwaved chicken breast, with broccoli, with too much salt on it to pander to people some to get them to want to eat it. And you wouldn't want to see how the chicken was killed. But you need to eat. Sure, there's too much salt. Sure, it's not drawing you to the table, but it's nutritious mostly, and you need to eat. It's a meal made of real food.

Let's go along with you thinking Sanders is SOOOOOOOOOOO much better. He was a perfectly prepared steak dinner, but it's lean steak, and lots of organic veggies, perfectly seasoned, and low salt. It's a masterpiece meal that the restaurant no longer offers, and you gotta eat.

Donald Trump is a plate of deep fried oreos. While a surprising number of people find that tasty, it also turns out the cream filling was contaminated with salmonella.

Gary Johnson looks like a better meal than the chicken, but you're told immediately if you order it, you're gonna get contaminated deep fried oreos or the chicken, and you have absolutely no say which it will be.

You can bitch and complain all you want about Clinton. But Sanders is out.

As Bill Maher would say, eat the chicken.

I'm not voting for Clinton solely because I hate Trump. She's a competent candidate. At least we have one to choose from who can actually win.

And I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comparison of Trump to Clinton. One of them has far more governmental experience. One of them isn't unhinged. One of them is clearly not racist or sexist. You would at least agree with that, right? Clinton, for all her warts, is not racist, sexist, bigoted, and actually knows how government works. To equate them is insane to me. I'm sorry.

And this is coming from someone who voted for Nader in 2000. I totally get voting for a third party candidate in some situations. This isn't the time.

Edit: You know who else is considering voting for Clinton? Penn Jillette, one of the most vocal Clinton haters out there, and outspoken libertarian. Even he is saying if the election is close enough, he'll have to vote for her.

"“My friend Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called No One Left to Lie To about the Clintons,” Jillette says. “I have written and spoken and joked with friends the meanest, cruelest, most hateful things that could ever been said by me, have been said about the Clintons. I loathe them. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on just about everything there is to disagree with a person about. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I will put a Hillary Clinton sticker on my fucking car.”

But he says he hopes the race will turn out well enough that he feels safe casting his vote for Gary Johnson, who is running on the libertarian ticket, and who he believes is the best choice."
http://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-terrified-president-trump-431837

You have ZERO proof she was hired quid pro quo. Absolutely zero. Do you honestly think Clinton would risk any bad optics whatsoever if she thought DWS wouldn't help her win? That was the Rodman analogy. Clinton hired her to help win the election, not to regulate elections to be fair.

And even Sanders supporters said the nomination wasn't stolen. He lost. He lost mainly because he didn't appeal enough to minority voters. You have to take a massive leap of cynicism to make that claim.

You're making it sound like Clinton hired Alan Grayson. That's my point.

Then you magically transfer DWS's guilt directly to Clinton. Did Clinton do that, or did DWS? I'm pretty sure it was DWS. I hated George W. Bush as president. That didn't make me magically transfer guilt about the Valerie Plame incident directly to him because there's no evidence he was responsible for outing her as a CIA operative.

And again, you're also talking about the leader of the Democratic Party favoring a lifelong Democrat over a dude who just decided to join for a Presidential run. When I think of a candidate who is personally corrupt, I think of Nixon. He broke a law. Clinton didn't break any laws whatsoever. NONE! She didn't even do anything. DWS didn't break any laws for that matter. She shouldn't have done what she did, but good lord, you're blowing this way out of proportion.

How exactly am I helping Trump win? Because I'm gonna vote for Clinton over Trump, Stein, and Johnson?! You're gonna have to explain to me how I should help Trump lose. Do I vote for Trump?! Do I vote for some other candidate who has absolutely zero chance of winning?

And all evidence does not argue against Clinton being the most qualified candidate out of the remaining candidates. She is BY FAR the most experienced candidate in government. You can sit there and rail about the hiring of DWS to help campaign all you want, but there is no possible way you can possibly make the claim that she isn't the most experienced out of the remaining candidates. She was the most experienced candidate among all primary candidates, too. That's an undeniable fact. All evidence at the very least doesn't say she isn't the most qualified. None of the 2016 primary candidates came remotely close to her experience in foreign policy. None of them came close to her experience in domestic policy.

This isn't to say experience is everything. But you're making a very flimsy argument about her being personally corrupt, and then claiming the ridiculous assertion that all evidence says she's not the most qualified candidate, even though she's clearly the most experienced.

And yes, we don't know how good or bad a President she would be. You also can't know if a specific Honda Accord will be more reliable than a specific Chevy Corvette either. That doesn't stop me from buying the Honda Accord without batting an eye if I want the most reliable car.

Only in this case, it's more like a Honda Accord vs. a lit on fire dumpster on wheels.

I'm afraid this is foreshadowing of the election. Trump has won.
Sanders voters are mostly not Democrats....or weren't until they had to be to vote for him. That means they won't be voting for the democrat that underhandedly cheated them out of their chosen nominee, she doesn't represent their morals or goals in the least, why would they?
Democrats can whine about it all they want, it won't change the fact that they have blown this election as if it was their plan all along. They absolutely deserve to lose too, but so do the Republicans.

Jesus christ, I'm 7 minutes in and he still hasn't made anything approaching a critique of "ideological feminism", whatever that's supposed to be.

Get to the fucking point.

right... finally. over 10 minutes in and we get to the first claim.
"what we're denying is that there's a rape culture"

Well, you can deny it all you want, but you're going to want to back that up with facts.. oh no, what's that? Let's just move straight on to the next point.

FFS, he is LITERALLY doing the exact same thing that his fucking stupidly long intro talked about. If you make a claim, that claim should be examined.

Can someone tell me if this gets any better? 'cos right now, I can't be bothered watching the rest of this unless there's a marked improvement in the quality of his "argument".

City's breaking down on a camel's back
They just have to go 'cause they don't know whack
So all you fill the streets it's appealing to see
You won't get out the county, 'cause you're bad and free
You've got a new horizon It's ephemeral style
A melancholy town where we never smile
And all I want to hear is the message beep
My dreams, they've got to kiss, because I don't get sleep, no

Windmill, Windmill for the land
Learn forever hand in hand
Take it all in on your stride
It is stinking, falling down
Love forever love is free
Let's turn forever you and me
Windmill, windmill for the land
Is everybody in?

Laughing gas these hazmats, fast cats
Lining them up-a like ass cracks
Ladies, homies, at the track
It's my chocolate attack
Shit, I'm stepping in the heart of this here
Care bear bumping in the heart of this here
Watch me as I gravitate, ha ha ha
Yo, we gonna go ghost town
This Motown, with yo sound
You're in the place
You gonna bite the dust
Can't fight with us
With yo sound, you kill the INC
So don't stop, get it, get it
Until you're cheddar header
Yo, watch the way I navigate, ha ha ha

Windmill, windmill for the land
Turn forever hand in hand
Take it all in on your stride
It is stinking, falling down
Love forever love is free
Let's turn forever you and me
Windmill, windmill for the land
Is everybody in?

It's been a while since I posted. I also rarely spew politics on the Internet anymore, but the arguments in the video are just weak.

Most gun control arguments amount to a bunch of cherry picked statistics, and then a complaint about other cherry picked statistics supporting the other argument. For example, you can't cherry pick the Chicago argument, that's just showing a lack of nuance, but let's go ahead and cherry pick the Australia and CDC arguments.

There was a ban on assault rifle sales in the US. Violent crime has dropped since it was repealed. How's that for a cherry picked argument?

Chaos's reasoning is aligned with my own. The issue is cultural, not legislative.

I'm also particularly peeved about the defense of a free state argument. I believe in the second amendment for this reason. You can't hold a block of houses with f16s. You do it with boots on the ground worn by soldiers bearing arms. To me, the second amendment is one of the last remaining checks on executive authority in this country. Tell the black panthers that bearing arms did nothing to protect them against abuses of state. Any policy maker considering a radical and unpopular extension of executive authority (ahem, Trump) needs to consider the logistical ramifications of an armed populace, wielding millions of firearms, the locations of which are unknown. That's a deterrent, plain and simple. Spend all you want on the military. The military is made up of people just as hesitant to wage war against their own countrymen as you or I. Especially so if there is a real possibility they are putting themselves at considerable risk in the process.

Money grubber trophy winner goes to Clinton.

Trump University a scam? Are not are real estae get rich with other money programs that?

I went to one of these Rich Dad , flipping houses for high profits meetings at the local hotel once. All they wanted to to sign you up for their 10 20 30 thousand courses in Florida. Their all scams. My wife wanted to do it and I said no. She later agreed a week or two later after the hype was out of her head.

The bigger scam is the Clinton foundation. Heck Just what is she promising other countries once she is President?

Yep Trump has a lot of failures, shit loads. But seems he never gives up pushing forward. He is not a failure but a success. I don't see any building or gulf course with the Warren or Clinton name on it.,

Trump victims are tens and thousands in debt. Well Under the leadership of Obama, Americans are 20 Trillion in debt. (Agreed Republicans were right there sucking on the government tit. ) Trump is a small fry in comparison to Obama shenanigans.

Climate change fraud -- what a sack of crap. no one really believes this shit, only stupid leftest.

The minimum wage should be repealed. It is a state issue and the laws of economics will dictate the amount.

Union Jobs - really -- What companies who are finical healthy have union jobs? Auto industry? Air line industry? Steel industry?


Why isn't this bitch running? She is clearly better at attacking that Hillary?

Fackkin' wallabies mate! All ya want is to grow a few tuber right, but they right creepin' around at night eatin' up your yer plants. I Reckon we whack down a few of them little sappies and fix us a right fence to keep the right buggers out.

I'd just like to point out Bob is attacking what Bernie stands for, and the rest of you are merely attacking Bob. If you honestly want him to listen to your side, to your beliefs, stop attacking him.

If all you want to do is bully up on someone and make them clamp down and ignore you, then please continue, you're doing fine.

You can call me an ass all you want, just don't take yourself too important. Your "punches" don't touch me the slightest. With "sad" I didn't mean myself but the fact that so many people are absolutely ignorant to the downsides of modern media.
I never wanted to say that I think there might be any physical dangers for the child coming from the screen, my thoughts were more in the direction LiquidAvatar mentioned.
And please excuse me if I apparently failed to explain what I meant without ambiguity, English isn't my native language.
I just wrote what I think about it and I'm well aware that my view on this matter won't find a majority. That doesn't make me automatically wrong though.
I'm very sorry I apparently upset some of you guys, but hey, that's the internet, right?

You haven't addressed ANY of the complaints I registered. You haven't responded to the complaints about the racist videos, you haven't responded to the abuse of the ignore system for newtboy, and you seem intent on framing this as some sort of personal vendetta.

I also find it interesting that twice now when I've asked you to ban someone for racist behavior, the first words out of your mouth are you getting defensive that you don't share their views. I didn't ask you about *your* views. You doth protest too much, sir.

Perception is reality. If you do nothing about racist sifts, you can protest all you like, You can tell me that you MAY have talked to the offender, you can deflect and dodge all you want, but talk is cheap, and the implication will be that if you do nothing, then you must share those views.

Actually, no, racism is pretty black and white. You either view all humans as equals...or you don't. It's quite simple actually. The jury is actually in on this. Racism is not merely an opinion, It's bad mmkay? It's been in a few papers, you might have heard about it.

I already took a break from this site because you refused to do anything about Lantern and nothing has changed with the current racist du jour. It's clear that you've given up on this site and don't care about the community (except when an anniversary rolls around) as it is a mere shadow of its former self.

This is no longer a tenable situation for myself (and clearly for others who have already left the site because of your pattern of failures dealing with blankfist, chingalera, et al). Unlike you, I chose to act.

Please delete my account, effective immediately.

You haven't addressed ANY of the complaints I registered. You haven't responded to the complaints about the racist videos, you haven't responded to the abuse of the ignore system for newtboy, and you seem intent on framing this as some sort of personal vendetta.

I also find it interesting that twice now when I've asked you to ban someone for racist behavior, the first words out of your mouth are you getting defensive that you don't share their views. I didn't ask you about *your* views. You doth protest too much, sir.

Perception is reality. If you do nothing about racist sifts, you can protest all you like, You can tell me that you MAY have talked to the offender, you can deflect and dodge all you want, but talk is cheap, and the implication will be that if you do nothing, then you must share those views.

Actually, no, racism is pretty black and white. You either view all humans as equals...or you don't. It's quite simple actually. The jury is actually in on this. Racism is not merely an opinion, It's bad mmkay? It's been in a few papers, you might have heard about it.

I already took a break from this site because you refused to do anything about Lantern and nothing has changed with the current racist du jour. It's clear that you've given up on this site and don't care about the community (except when an anniversary rolls around) as it is a mere shadow of its former self.

This is no longer a tenable situation for myself (and clearly for others who have already left the site because of your pattern of failures dealing with blankfist, chingalera, et al). Unlike you, I chose to act.

Please delete my account, effective immediately.