I have to agree about the singer. She was great, but clearly doesn’t have the crushed soul or mind numbing angst required to properly channel Tool.
*quality cover…will it hit 100?

better question is how come your tears taste so so good. like every one of them is perfectly salty and filled with loser angst. yumminess look at all the precious childish confusion below ha ha ha

👇👇👇

Lol. Nice, but Nirvana should be played filled with angst and depression, not rage, shouldn't it?

Btw, you forgot the =

*related=https://videosift.com/video/Nandi-Bushel-plays-crazy-cover-of-Nirvana-In-Bloom

Romans 10:9-10

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved

When you do that, believing that Jesus died for your sins, God will save you and make you a new person. You're good if you don't care where you are going after you die, if you leave it as you believe up to chance. Yet the evidence that God exists is undeniable, and the coming of His Son Jesus Christ was predicted by prophecies going back thousands of years. So you're not really leaving it up to chance because the scripture tells you that you have no excuse for ignorance.

Romans 1:18-20

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse

You would say, I am sure, that you haven't seen any evidence for God but the scripture says you have and you have suppressed the truth about it. I believe scripture and in our conversations I am sorry to say you are always poisoning the well of reasoned debate with mockery and ridicule. What is behind that is a heavy bias and angst which keeps you from seeing who God is. Being obstinate against the truth of Gods word is foolish. Why not give God the benefit of the doubt and at least ask Him to show you if what I have been telling you all of these years is true?

Upvote, purely because I have to wonder "why?" And imagine the pitch being, "Hey guys... let's make a live action Dora, she's a teenager now in High School. Teen angst. Adventure. Action. The Jumanji sequel worked out a million times better than anyone expected."

Bob. This asshats is a liar or totally ignorant of the law he's complaining about.
He actually says 10000 lbs of marijuana sales is eligible for instant probation, and heroin is essentially no longer illegal?! If that were true, I would understand the angst....but it's just not true in any way.

No violent cons or sex offenders will be released under this law, they are exempted from this kind of early release, just like here in California. His claim about that one man is total bullshit, an absolute lie.

Also note, the man he mentions, arrested 52 times was not even charged for almost all of them, much less convicted, proving a problem with improper arrests.

You don't need to thoroughly investigate non violent criminals any more than you need to investigate non criminals. That said, these already were vetted enough to do manual labor under minimal supervision. If they're safe enough to work unsupervised, they should be safe.

Yes, I think more voted for Trump than voted against Obama because they finally had someone to vote FOR instead of AGAINST.

No, you said "refuting the white racist voters brought Trump in fallacy. Somehow they didn't come out to vote against a black guy..." and I'm saying that, without the white racists, he would have lost, so they DID 'bring Trump in' and did 'vote against the black guy', but in smaller numbers.....again. You didn't say they didn't vote for him, but you said their votes didn't make a difference, I disagree.

I guess YOUR personal bias is blinding YOU, because I also said EXACTLY that, repeatedly, starting in the first reply, that Clinton and Schultz drove independents and moral Democrats away....it was a combo punch. Racists emerged AND moderates stayed home, and had either been different, the outcome would have been different.
I never refused to recognize the hatefulness in America, I stated clearly and repeatedly when the DNC fiasco happened that Clinton had just lost to hate, because that's what Trump is, the leader of the party of hate and angst.

Some of us refuse to ignore blatant racism just because it might be more pleasant to do so. Clearly, you aren't in that camp. I have been clear that not all, or even a majority of Trump voters are blatant racists, but they all are willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with blatant racists and support blatantly racist policy....nothing to do with where they work and all about what they say and do, plenty of left leaners work with their hands...I'm a trained welder for instance.

He's fucked up his whole life.

Cheated contractors, investors, the IRS. Sexually assaulted women, then bragged about it. He runs a false charity that only works to benefit Trump himself. He openly espouses Putin's policies on topics of Russian interest, even when it conflicts with American interest. He condones and encourages violence. Threatens to use the power of the office to imprison his perceived enemies. Threatens to jail journalists and comedians who disagree with him. Can't even UNDERSTAND why nuclear weapons are not to be used except in cases of existential threat.

He IS a fuckup.

Republicans nominated him.

Republican politicians backed him (some less enthusiastically than others, but it's hard to tell what was political expediency and what was genuine angst).

If they're going to impeach him, there's plenty of material already. He could see jail before he sees the Oval Office.

Two problems.

1) Republicans would be embarrassed to admit they'd backed a candidate that spent more of his first four years in jail than in the office. It would blow up the party and they're too self-centred to do that.

2) Even if they DID impeach him, Mike Pence is only slightly better. Republicans will still have a 100% lock on the Supreme Court in 4 years, they can shut down more polling stations, kick everyone they don't like off the voting rolls for flimsy excuses (it happened in North Carolina this election in spite of a court order).

It would take an overwhelming majority of Americans voting against Republicans in four years to tip the scales. If they have another four years, they're only going to push things further. Watch California get reduced to fewer electoral votes than Arkansas.

The US is bordering on failed state/despotism. The Republicans in congress and the senate are the only ones who could stand in the way, but if they stand in the way, they give up their own power.

Do you really think they're going to do that? Really?

I was thinking much the same thing. I think he's hamming it up a bit to suit the show, but that was some pretty deep honest introspection there, along with an almighty well of angst.

I'm starting to get why people vote for Trump. To throw a radical in to the equation, for better or worse. It's a gamble, and it's likely going to turn out bad if he wins the presidency, but it's not like the establishment is going to magically reform itself...

And though it's his show and he's trying to run it, I though Colbert was actually ruining it a little bit. It became apparently pretty early in that Bill was talking from the heart for a change (rather than shooting from the hip), it might be worthwhile listening.

Apologies, I got carried away... wall of text incoming.

@RedSky

I agree, monetary policy at low rates has very little to offer in terms of economic stimulus. Then again, the focus almost solely on monetary policy is part of the problem. Fiscal policy can have a massive impact, both directly (government purchases of goods and services) and indirectly (increase in automatic stabilizers). But for that you either need to be in control of your central bank, so that you can engage in Overt Monetary Financing ("printing" money). Or you need the blessing of the private banks, which is particularly true for a Vollgeld system.

The budget is the core of a parliamentary democracy, and to be at the whim of the folks at Deutsche Bank, HSBC or Credit Suisse -- no, thank you very much. We saw how that played out in Greece.

Anyway, the central bank can do miraculous things: if it provides funds to the democratically elected body in charge of the budget, aka parliament/the government. Trying to "motivate" the private banks to stock up on cheap reserves to stimulate lending is just a sign of ideology.

The great Michal Kalecki, in his essay The Political Aspects of Full Employment, summarized the general issue of government spending quite clearly. The industrial leaders stand in opposition to government spending aimed at full employment for three distinct reasons: a) dislike of government interference in the problem of employment as such; b) dislike of the direction of government spending (public investment and subsidizing consumption); c) dislike of the social and political changes resulting from the maintenance of full employment.

I'd say control over your currency is too great a tool to leave it in the hands of unelected managers. Clement Attlee knew very well why he had to nationalize the Bank of England in '46.

Back to the issue of inflation, I'd like to make two points. First, how big a role should inflation really play when talking policy. Second, what's the influence of a central bank on inflation.

Where does it come from, this focus on inflation. People usually talk about government spending when discussing inflation. Private spending is rarely brought up, even though it can be just as inflationary. So let's ignore private spending for a moment and talk purely government spending: should a deficit/surplus not be judged primarily by how well it helps us achieve our macroeconomic goals? Or more clearly, why should we sacrifice full employment or our general welfare on the altar of inflation? Yes, that's over the top. But so is the angst of inflation.

I'd say let's stick with Abba Lerner's concept of functional finance and judge deficits/surpluses purely by how well they help us achieve our macroeconomic goals. Besides, the US has run massive deficits during the GFC, so much in fact, that a great number of monetarists saw hyperinflation just around the corner. Still waiting for it. Same for Japan. Massive deficits... and deflation.

As long as spending, both private and government, doesn't push the economy beyond its limits (full employment, real resources, production capacity), out-of-control inflation just doesn't materialize. Plus, suppressing inflation is actually one thing central banks can do quite well. Unlike causing inflation, which both Japan and the EU are showcases off. Draghi can dance naked on the table, monetary policy (QE, mainly) won't push inflation upwards.

Which brings me to the second point: what's inflation, what's the cause of inflation, how can central banks manipulate it.

CPI is often used as a measure of inflation, but I prefer the GDP deflator. CPI doesn't account for externalities that you cannot influence, whatever you do. Prime case: the price of oil. Monetary policy of the Bank of Sweden has no influence on the price of oil. The GDP inflator, however, accounts for every economic activity within your currency zone -- much more useful.

General theory says, this measure of inflation goes up when demand surpasses supply. And vice versa. The primary factor of demand is domestic purchasing power, therefore wages. If you suppress wages, you suppress inflation. If you push wages, you push inflation. More specifically, you can see a direct correlation between unit labour costs and the GDP deflator in every country at any time. Here's a general graph for multiple countries, and the St. Louis FED provides a beauty for the US.

That's why it's easy for central banks to combat inflation, but almost impossible to fight deflation.

Terrorist attacks are more multifaceted.

First, they are an opportunity to generate work for the defense industry.

Second, they are usually for a reason. Often some angst over our own actions in foreign countries. For example, the news says AQ is a bunch of crazies that hate freedom, however AQs demands prior to 9/11 were to get our military out of the holyland. While that's not an offense that deserves blowing up buildings, it is definitely not the same as some banal excuse like hating freedom.

Thirdly, they are often perpetrated by some persons/groups that we had a hand in creating. We install the mujahedin in Afghanistan, knowing full well what they'll do to women, and then use their treatment of women as one excuse to later invade. Saddam worked for us, was egged on to fight Iran, was egged on to suppress insurgents (the 'own people he gassed'), and we later used his actions as one excuse to invade.

At the time, the mujaheddin was useful for fighting Russia as a proxy. At the time, Saddam was useful for perpetuating a war where we sold arms to both sides. Afterwards, they were useful for scaremongering so we could perpetuate war when otherwise things got too quiet and folks would ask about why we're spending big $$$ on defense.. (In the mean time hand-waving the much more direct 9/11 Saudi connection).

... Plus if on the off chance things do 'settle down' in areas we invade, that creates new markets for US companies to peddle their wares. You can reopen the Khyber pass for western land trade with Asia, you can build an oil pipeline, and you can prevent a euro based oil exchange from opening in the middle east. All things that benefit our industry.

So in practice, as far as big industry is concerned, there's a utility in 'fighting terrorism' (and perpetuating terrorism) that just doesn't exist with internal shootings. As such, unless another 'evil empire' shows up, the terrorism cow is gonna get milked for the foreseeable future.

Sure, there's a rhetoric about preventing terrorism, but our actions do nothing to that effect. It's just a statement that's useful in manufacturing consent.

There's a particular irony, though. That is, that while such behavior is 'not very nice' (to put it mildly), it does however provide for our security by keeping our armed forces exercised, prepared, and up to date - such that if a real threat were to emerge, our military would be ready at that time. While that seems unlikely, when you look back in history at previous major conflicts, most were precipitated rather quickly, on the order of months (it takes many years to design and build equipment for a military, and the first ~half a year of any major war has been fought with what was on hand). So in a round-about, rather evolutionary way, perpetuating threats actually does make us safer as a whole.

To clarify the word 'evolutionary' : Take 10 microbes. All 10 have no militant nature. None are made for combat. It only takes 1 to mutate and become belligerent in order to erase all the others from existence. If some others also mutate to be combative, they will survive. The non combative are lost, their reproductive lines cut off. As there's always a chance to mutate to anything at any time, eventually, there is a combative mutation. So, all life on earth has a militant nature at some layer of abstraction - those that exist are those that successfully resisted some force (or parried the force to its benefit. Like plants that use a plant eater's dung to fertilize the seeds of the eaten fruit).

The relationship holds true at a biological level, interpersonal, societal, national, and international level. Societies that allow the kind of educational and military development that leads to victory, are those that have dominated the planet socially and economically. For example, Europe's centuries of infighting made it resistant to invasions from the Mongols, Caliphates, etc, and ultimately led to the age of colonialism. For the strengths built with infighting, are later leveraged for expansion. As such, the use of "terrorism" to perpetuate conflict, is ultimately an exercise in developing strength that can later be leveraged.

Our national policy is largely developed in think tanks, and those organizations are planning lifetimes ahead. So these kinds of considerations are very relevant.

TL/DR : Yes, agreed, the terrorism thing is B.S. on many levels.

-scheherazade

While I can understand the angst against the media because the media is often at fault for misinterpretation and twisting words that people say, what I don't understand is why is there a media requirement? Is that slapped in some contract that he signed that he wasn't aware of until someone poked around at it? Or is it some general NFL "obligation" that they impose upon the players (and against their wills no less?) just to make all of this a media circus and farce?

I have nothing but respect for Lynch for doing what he does. Just wish there's an answer as to why this is an "obligation."

Specifically, what 'references to deficiencies in your character and process' appear clear? I think you're reading into what I wrote, because I didn't mention your character, nor reference a 'process' that I know of (except a thought process of some people that believe disproven theories, like the one that claimed vaccines cause autism. If that's what you mean, be honest and say so clearly please, as you have indicated it is not the reason you are upset and that you have no clear position either way, leaving me with no explanation whatsoever).
I did re-read my post and response and can't tell what you're talking about. As I read it, it was a flat disputing of the content of the video, a question about why you found it inappropriate, and a request for clarity about your disjointed responses.
Yours however were clearly disrespectful ad hom attacks ("I have little to no respect to offer." and "I do, however, have a disdain for apparent character deficiencies") without adding to discourse or discussion of the content of the video, only rant about how nasty I am for saying it was BS (a position backed up by facts and data) or asking why you downvoted (apparently inappropriately, as you can't find an answer to "what's inappropriate or offensive")....but I'm the mean nasty guy referencing deficiencies in YOUR character and process? Huh?
I'm also unsure what you mean by "my opinion of you remains intact and as I would prefer it."...as you neglect to mention what that opinion is. The implication is that you have a low opinion of me, because you prefer it that way. Am I missing something?
I again note you have still not answered the original question that set you off, so I'll ask once again....What did you find offensive or inappropriate in my original post that caused you to downvote the comment? I'll add a second question....Why does that question make you apparently so angry and disrespectful? There was obviously something you found worthy of all this angst, but you still have not said what it was. PLEASE be clear and succinct if you care to answer.

Music is M83's Teen Angst.