Your video, Debate Fallout: A Closer Look, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 26 Badge!

^ @ChaosEngine: I think she makes perfect sense -- she just has some hang ups in regards to her own gender. (She's also really dumb.)

"Leave Hillary Alone, Bullies"

Sarcasm. Reference to an old meme regarding Britney Spears?

"Aww, c'mon guys, give her a break. Anyone can be out of commission.... for weeks on end... whilst in the heat of battle for the highest office in the land. No press conferences for nearly a year? No scheduled campaign events for days upon days? No statements, no answers, no accountability, no problem. Layin' low to run out the clock before November, but you're SEXIST for noticing it."

Sarcasm and calling out Hillary and the media for using misogyny and sexism as a crutch rather than ignoring the sexism like a good woman should in this man's world. Like Palin, who mans up and doesn't let her emotions show. (I don't believe in this viewpoint, but I believe Palin does.)

"And you're MISOGYNIST for questioning a female's fitness. Good thing media didn't hound the crap out of '08 candidate John McCain for his decades-old military medical records or I'd guess them to be hypocrites."

More sarcasm in regards to feminism, while calling out the hypocrisy of the media going after McCain's medical records, but excusing Hillary.

"Leave Hillary alone! All that email-evidenced yoga, and wedding planning, and cookie-baking-grandma-duty wears you out. Believe you me."

Sarcasm and misogyny in the form comparing Hillary's email scandal to typical female activities such as practicing yoga, wedding planning and baking cookies. Not exactly sure why she's focused on making fun of typical female activities. Palin clearly has some emotional issues she needs to work out. Maybe she wishes she was a man? lol. Anyway!

"Heck, even those of us claiming to be fit as a (seasoned?) fiddle, hit bumps in the wellness road. Even I. Especially I. (Remember Piper's middle name is "Grace"; mine isn't.)"

Is she referring to Trump as the "seasoned" fiddle? No clue.

Also not sure who Piper is... Piper Laurie from Twin Peaks? Piper Wright from Fallout 4? Pied Piper? Likening the Pied Piper to Jesus Christ, who by "grace" she is saved? Help me out here.

"Rock-running recently, I tripped over my own two feet and crashed & burned face-first. I recovered with the doc's SuperGlue, and now any man who asks "what happened?" I'll refer to as just a mean ol' SEXIST bully."

I think she's appealing to men by referring to stitches as "SuperGlue", sorta like duct tape fixing everything. She should have said the doc's duct tape. That would have been funny, actually. But for real, I think Palin may have an inner desire to be a man and not a "weak" woman.

"Glad for Hillary's protective media's precedence. The next woman running for POTUS has no need to answer to much of anything, for we've got weddings to plan, and Down Dogs to do, and cookies in the oven! So just leave us alone, boys."

Almost full circle to earlier in the message where she lists a bunch of typical female activities: wedding planning, yoga ("Down Dogs" = downward facing dog, a pose in yoga), and baking cookies.

I guess she's claiming Hillary is just a whiny girl so she might as well just do a bunch of dumb girl stuff. Meanwhile, Palin is doing "man" stuff like jumping on rocks, then she goes to the hospital, gets her head superglued together and back out on her feet doing more man stuff.

I'm gonna go bake some cookies now. That sounds like the best idea Palin's ever inspired me to do. Bake some motherfuckin' cookies.

Also, everyone should practice yoga and if you're going to get married, doesn't everyone help with the planning on some level? Why is Palin so dumb?

Ok, this is Tenpenny Tower from Fallout 3.

So, I guess what he's saying is that we've finally overcome the fallout from Bush Juniors disastrous 8 years in the white house.

Well yeah, just naming my favs. Amazing watching that, then playing Fallout 4 in 3-D tonight. Been gaming since I was like, 2.

I think it is stupid to whine about the email leaks "unfairly" damaging Hillary's campaign.

The DNC could have easily avoided the fallout / resignations / etc. by simply not doing shady, underhanded shit. When you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, don't bitch about who snitched on you -- a better response would be to learn that you can't get caught if you don't do anything wrong.


Sorta reminds me of earlier in the campaign when Hillary complained that it was unfair for people to want to see her transcripts of paid speeches given to Wall Street banks. She said that other candidates weren't expected to do that, so it was an unfair double standard. Bernie Sanders response was great -- he said he'd be 100% willing to hand over any of his transcripts, except for one minor problem: he never made any paid speeches to Wall Street banks.


With regards to Wikileaks, I have zero problems with how they handled things and don't care at all who their source was -- Russia, some other very biased source with a clear agenda to damage Hillary, whatever. The only thing that matters is, are the emails true / legit? I haven't heard anyone suggest that they aren't; just bitching about it being "unfair" that all the dirt is on Hillary and the DNC.

Wikileaks relies on sources. You know, leakers. I'm confident that if they had dirt on Trump or any other candidate, they'd put it out there. But Wikileaks can't make candidates or parties do questionable shit, and even when candidates or parties do do questionable shit, they still need someone to catch them and then leak the information to Wikileaks.

Sometimes, if they don't have any dirt on somebody, it might be because there isn't any dirt to be had... Just like Sanders' transcripts of Wall Street speeches.

To be fair, it was the 80's when almost every car was still suffering from the oil crisis fallout. Handling wise, it still could run the track about as fast as a 3rd gen WRX. In a straightline run, it suffered even back then. A much cheaper 1985 Ford Mustang GT 5.0 HO was just ever so slightly faster than it in the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times.

God help you if you ran into a Buick Grand National though, those things ate other sports cars for breakfast back then. Of course, if you were unlucky enough to be racing your 85 in 87 and happened to see an all black Buick with a GNX badge, you might as well turn off your engine and park. Those things were as fast as the Countach Quattrovalvole and the Testarossa.

I always have a tendency to think "let's not be hasty" when considering stuff like this. There's always (at least) two sides to every story.

For example, with Philando Castile (man shot in the car):
He *did* have a gun in the car.
His girlfriend said that he told the officer about it and did not do anything threatening at all, but there is/was at least *some* potential that the cops would tell a different story.
The video of the event didn't show how things escalated, so we have to figure it out based on the reports of two potentially biased reports -- the girlfriend/family and the police.

Honestly, that was enough to look quite bad for the police, BUT my "don't be hasty" tendencies were still in play.


And now, we've got this. Like @newtboy has been saying, I just can't fathom the level of incompetence required to make this an "oops" situation. If they were trying to shoot the autistic man and missed and hit Kinsey by mistake ... that's fucked up.

A) If they were trying to "protect" Kinsey, how about listening to him? Did he sound nervous, like he needed protecting? NO. He calmly explained the entire situation, and was obviously NOT afraid of the autistic guy doing him any harm. And this time, they've got a lot of the lead-up on video, so we can actually hear him explain the situation. Any cop (or anyone) with 2 brain cells to rub together would holster their firearm if they listened to his explanation. Maybe they would stay behind cover and let Kinsey either talk the autistic guy into dropping the toy truck in his hand or let him get up and show them clearly that it was not a weapon (since they were responding to a report about someone possibly having a gun), but there's clearly no need to keep the guns aimed on either of them -- and Kinsey told them as much.

B) If they were trying to "protect" him, then why did they cuff him? With 3 sets of cuffs, apparently. After shooting, once they approached and figured out that there was no weapon, any decent human being would jump into action to try to mitigate the fallout of their dumbass mistake. Don't cuff the guy you "accidentally" shot -- call for an ambulance, try to stop the bleeding, etc.


For fucks sake, if that is the story the police are coming up with to explain / defend (hah!) their actions, it is just utterly pathetic. Charge the shooter and the entire police department with something criminal, and throw the law book at every single one of them. My normally strong "let's not be hasty" impulse is looking at this entire mess with a double /facepalm.

Very glad that Mr. Kinsey is expected to fully recover. Maybe the silver lining beyond his survival will be that an event this blatant almost has to force us to acknowledge that there is a serious problem with how our police are operating.

IT was more the fallout and the blame pointing that annoyed me.

This guy is supposed to be president...

"Yeah she may have copied a couple thoughts...sorry...let's move on"

That's how Obama did it.

Got to love the country singer's straw man about Hitler and Japan and ignoring the fundamental issue of US policy in the Middle East and acting to protect oil interests over letting them self rule and work out whatever issues they have to work out. I understand the need to try and contain the fallout from the wars between the various Islamic factions (mostly Shia and Sunni) from spilling over to neighboring nations, but the US policy has been overt in serving US interests over the long term interests of the region since the 50's. The US solid backing of Israel, even in cases where it is clearly in the wrong, adds fuel to the fire.

And I know those on the right complain how Obama has backed away from Israel, though the evidence clearly differs as the US still refuses to tell Israel, to the degree we should, to treat people within its occupied zones with proper respect... and the fact so many Americans feel the need to protect Israel and favor Israel over its occupied territories no matter what, again adds fuel to the fire and shows those in Islam how under attack their faith is, which makes them stronger in their faith and more sure that they are on the right path, since the devil is working harder to put their faith down than any other faith... of course I hear this exact same argument from Christians all the time, how the devil is trying to put Christianity down proves that Christianity must be true... amazing how a little empathy would probably help world peace, but neither faith seems to have any... though I've seen enough FB memes about how Christians are so depressed because they have so much empathy and I wonder where it is, as I've yet to see any empathy from Christians as a whole. All of which digresses from the original point...

US foreign policy is directly responsible for the rise of ISIS/ISIL, whatever you want to call it... now ISIS has risen itself up to be a rather large threat via its actions, which are deliberately provoking, as it's easier to radicalize people when the world starts turning against Islam as a whole, as those on the Right are apt to do, than turn against the small segment that aren't peace loving. Of course the Right's preferred response to those provocations are to do exactly what ISIS has publicly stated they want. They want a large war against them, they'd love it if Republicans banned them from coming to the US as it would make lone wolf attacks in the US by US citizens more prevalent, which like they did with Miami (the shooter himself pledged allegiance to ISIS, but he also pledged allegiance to Hezbollah, which is fighting against ISIS)... Republican policies, especially those of Trump and Cruz are so on point with ISIS desires, one has to wonder if they themselves are tied with ISIS interests, or if they are tied to military interests that profit off continuing the war and sacrificing American lives in the name of war profiteering... but Republican Jesus said "Blessed are the warmongers and the war profiteers and cursed be the peace makers"... It was there on the Sermon on the Mount when he also said, "Blessed be the rich employer who pays his employees poorly, and cursed be those employees who are poor and needy and needing assistance. Surely I say unto you, if you give tax breaks unto the rich and cut benefits for the needy and the poor, I shall bless your Nation... oh and forget the sick and dying, they got themselves into their mess, they are responsible for getting out, only the well to do shall have healthcare." Again I digress though...

I don't know any more, I think those hypothetical match up poles that have Bernie beating Trump by a higher margin than Clinton don't take into account the fallout from the only way he could be nominated now, if nearly all of the super delegates decide to overturn the result of the primary. And that would seriously piss off the majority of Democratic primary voters.

If it actually went down that way, I don't think Bernie would be up in the poles given how many Clinton supporters would feel cheated and betrayed by the party. I know that's ironic since Sanders supporters already feel that way, but overturning the primary is an epic level of shenanigans that would eclipse anything done to Sanders.

The only hope for a Sanders nomination is if Clinton implodes in the next 3 weeks, like by being indicted. Otherwise I think the best he can do is what he's been saying, try to affect the party platform.

Here's a breakdown that shows my train of thought :



The 2nd amendment limits the authority of 'specifically the government'.

It is not an affirmative right to individuals, it is a denial of rights to the government.
It in theory prevents the government from taking any actions that would infringe on bearing arms.




So, let's look at scope.


If bearing arms is for government regulated militias :

Let's assume that 'well regulated' means 'well government regulated'. (i.e. Merely government regulated in practice.)

- A militia that uses arms as per the government's regulation, would be operating as the government wishes - it would *be* an extension of the government, and the government would not need to seize its arms. The 2nd amendment is moot.

- A militia that doesn't use arms as per the government's regulation, is not government regulated, and has no protection from government arms seizure. The government is free to deny this militia arms at the government's discretion. The 2nd amendment is moot.


In order for the 2nd amendment to not be moot, you would need to protect an entity that the government would *not* wish to be armed.

Since we're still talking militias, that leaves only "non-government-regulated militias" as a protected class of entities.
Hence, this would preclude "government regulated" as a possible definition of "well regulated", in regards to "well regulated militia".

So, we've established that for the 2nd to not be moot, only "non-government-regulated militias" can be in the set of 'well regulated militia'.




So, following on the idea of the 2nd amendment scope being for "well [non-government] regulated militias".

The government can then circumvent 2nd amendment protection by making illegal any 'non-government-regulated militias'. This would eliminate the entire category of arms protected entities. The 2nd amendment is moot.

Hence, for the 2nd amendment to not be moot via this path, that means that "well [non-government] regulated militias" must also be protected under the 2nd amendment.




So, without government regulation, a well regulated militia is subject to the regulation of its members.

As there is no government regulation on militia, there is also no government regulation regarding the quantity of militia members. You are then left with the ability of a single individual to incorporate a militia, and decide on his own regulations.

Which decomposes into de-facto individual rights





This is why the only consequential meaning of the 2nd amendment is one which includes these aspects :
A) Does not define 'well regulated" as "government regulated".
B) Does not restrict the individual.
C) Protects militias.

Any other meaning for the 2nd amendment would result in an emergent status quo that would produce the same circumstances as if there was no 2nd amendment in the first place. This would erase any purpose in having a 2nd amendment.





But sure, maybe the 2nd amendment is moot.
Maybe it was written out of sheer boredom, just to have something inconsequential to do with one's time.
Maybe it was a farce designed to fool people into thinking that it means something, while it is actually pointless and ineffectual - like saying the sky is up.




In any case, I think we can agree that, if the 2nd means anything, it is intended for facilitating the defense of the state against invading armies.

The fallout of that is that if the 2nd particularly protects any given category of arms, it protects specifically those that are meant for use in military combat. Not hunting, not self defense, etc.

A pistol ban would be of little military detriment for open combat, but would be the greatest harm to people's capacity for insurgency (because pistols can be hidden on a person).

A hunting rifle ban would also be of modest military detriment for open combat (can serve DMR role), but probably the least meaningful.

Arms with particular military applicability would be large capacity+select fire (prototypical infantry arms), or accurized of any capacity (dmr/sniper).
Basically, the arms of greatest consequence to the 2nd amendment are precisely the ones most targeted for regulation.

-scheherazade

The only textual interpretation they should do is to understand the meanings behind the words.
(Like the subject at hand : what was the functional definition of the words "well regulated" in 1791.)

The act of deciding "well, they wrote X, but we think they would have written Y had they thought of these new circumstances, so we're going with what we think" is taking things too far. (eg. concepts like : surreptitious telephone wiretap law applying to overt public video/audio recording)

The legislature exists for a reason. Writing/Updating laws is what they are here for. Let them do their job and legislate new laws that alter the scope/definition of old ones.


The problem with case law is that there is no Federal/State/Country/City LIS system where you can just search for whatever laws apply to whatever activities. You would need access to legal databases, like say LexisNexis. Even lawyers don't read case results directly to know what the decisions mean, they use summarizing services that outline the fallout of court decisions in terms of enforcible concepts. Ironically, these summaries are copyrighted, and the public at large is not allowed to know what those enforcible concepts are without paying.

IMO, I think eminent is easiest confused with emanating. Because the concepts behind them are so similar. One sticks-out-of, the other oozes-out-of. If you said that 'an eminent thing emanates from something', you would be so so close to literally correct.

-scheherazade

The game is fucking awesome, but I think you are right that it doesn't really warrant a $60.00 price tag. I feel more convinced of this after paying $25 for the latest Fallout 4 expansion, Far Harbor - DOOM for $60, Overwatch for $40 and Witcher 3's latest expansion Blood and Wine for $19.99.

Blood and Wine is a god damn exemplary piece of video gaming. The amount of content and quality in that *expansion* surpasses most AAA games and all of the aforementioned games - for less.

Anyway, back to DOOM gripes; most of the side missions are fucking way too linear and aggravating. There's nothing special about the multiplayer and the Snapmap thing is basically a level shitter-outer.

That said, the multiplayer was created by an external team but Id software are working on correcting the multiplayer. If they correct the multiplayer and make something interesting out of it, release a real editor to get a decent mod scene going - then I think the game would be worth $60.00 for quite a while and they could go all Blizzard about it and keep it at that price for years.