Incorrect, as pointed out above. Some second hand accounts of tantrums, and many first hand accounts of criminal activity like knowingly inviting heavily armed thugs into his crowd to prepare for his planned attack of the capitol building and saying Pence deserved to be lynched so Chump wouldn’t make a statement telling his people to stop as his thugs actively hunted the Vice President in the halls of Congress. She witnessed those first hand. I know, you’re just repeating what some liar told you, and you have no first hand knowledge of her or anyone’s actual testimony because you aren’t allowed to watch the hearings….so your arguing over your own second and third hand accounts filtered through biased liars.

Note, the secret service was so in Trump’s camp that Pence refused to get in a car with them because he believed they would murder him or deliver him to the murderous crowd….the one allegedly denying it, Ornato, still works for Trump today (and hasn’t actually denied it, there are just reports claiming he WOULD….and Ornato has been accused of lying for Trump repeatedly including personally telling the blatant lie that Lafayette square wasn’t violently cleared for a Trump photo op at a nearby church….


Get his denial under oath then try again.
Edit: today the story from Trump’s team became “Trump was too fat and out of shape to lunge for the steering wheel.”, which if true made him too fat and out of shape to reach out <3ft, which makes him far too fat, feeble, and near death to be president.

Keep your head up your ass if you wish. You’ll find yourself alone in there.
Why not call them to testify? Because that bit, while salacious, is hardly the main point or even a crime that might be prosecuted, so why waste time on red herrings. I know you wish they would focus on his infantile tantrums, they distract from his treasonous terrorism.

This woman worked 10 ft from Chump. She was a personal assistant for his chief of staff, you would expect her to be about as loyal as they come to be in that high position with direct access to the president ….and his behavior was so intolerable and anti Democratic she tanked her career and personal life to expose it. Do you have any reason why she would lie? There are many reasons why she wouldn’t have testified, including the death threats against her if she did. She’s clearly from team Trump, not an anti or never trumper.

Fools like me, and around 70% of everyone else….everyone not in the cult with full blinders on, and even some who are. Your little world is crumbling, your great leader exposed for the petulant child and treasonous terrorist leader he is, publicly. Fox is running away, republicans are running away, independents are flying away at supersonic speeds.

You would know about drinking bath water. How does Trump’s ass crack taste?

Edit: You know this is the Trump methodology….
1) deny you did “it”
2) equivocate, claim “they do “it””
3) still deny, but insist it would be fine if you had done “it”
4) admit you did “it” just a little
5) revel in the fact that you can now admit you did the evil inexcusable thing and more without your base caring

You certainly pretended to be, and pretended to have first hand knowledge of the situation, and knowledge of what all Texan Christians all think on the subject. Turns out you don't know shit first hand, and are arguing based on uninformed opinions you hold, not knowledge. It's called a lie by omission.

Texans didn't vote for this, their representatives did. You are telling Texans what to think and do....insisting because a majority are Christian they must be anti choice, and since pro choice people lost one battle they should just leave Texas, but the same doesn't go for Texans who are anti choice and had lost every battle until this one. See how infantile your argument is now?

America is a representative democracy....a democratic republic, not a democracy. Some places like California have direct voter approved laws, so are partly democratic, but mostly representatives choose our laws and path. Assuming that because one person wins an election means all their voters approve of everything they do shows a naivete usually reserved for pre kindergarten kids.

Sweet zombie Jesus.
Most of them weren't even vets, and those that were didn't serve with him. It was 100% lies about Kerry and his service from liars that falsely claimed first hand knowledge that contradicted his service record, not from him. Those that did serve with him corroborated his official record. Proven conclusively to be all lies from liars, totally debunked, but Fox has you still believing the lies.

It's so well known to be a debunked and blatant smear campaign that it's now used as a term to describe other smear campaigns....to "swift boat" someone is to make up a false story about them to hurt them politically.

How was he a sell out?...explain yourself if you can with fact.

If, as you wrongly assume, I had only driven by them, you could get away with that statement. Unfortunately for you, I actually went TO the farms, stayed at them (slept there) and watched the workers at their jobs. (EDIT: I also have an angora goat rancher in my family...close enough to the same thing for this discussion.)
I stand by my previous statement 100 percent, with first hand knowledge about the topic.
This video is bullshit. You dragged it out of me. 99.95% of farms would never allow anything they showed to happen, and would report the abuse to the authorities after booting the offender off the farm.

Edit: and yes, fast sheerers can do even more than 30 an hour, but they know exactly how to handle the sheep with tiny pokes that put them into a seated, leaning position that makes it simple to control them painlessly and without any trauma in the least using their legs while sheering. In the two times I watched, over 150 sheep altogether, I saw 2 get slight cuts that were taken care of properly and with care. As was mentioned above, stressed animals make subpar wool, so it's in the rancher/farmers interest to keep them happy, so they do.

Males had their horns on the farms I went to and the one's I drove past....so you're wrong about that too.

Not as different as you think, when at least 1/3 and probably up to 1/2 of the people (100% wrongly) believe the constitution is not only based in Christianity, but was handed to Washington and Jefferson by Christ himself. The secular nature of the government the founders attempted to codify is eroding...we now have god on money, in our pledge of allegiance, in our courtrooms, etc. Religious rights/laws are on the rise, not decline.....at least Christian religious rights and laws.

The church is in decline, yes. Out of power, not by 1/2.

Yes, my point, it's not secular if being atheist disqualifies one from holding office. There is a religious test, not by law but in reality. That alone precludes true secularism, and it's not alone.

Well, of course there are other countries, but I only know how religion interacts with the government in my own country, and even then I freely admit there's much I don't know, both by their design of the system and from my own lack of interest. I can't speak with any first hand knowledge about how Europe is evolving (or devolving), how it's governments respond to religious pressures, or how their populations react. That's why I stuck to the US in my response, which is a place that the religious right describes as you did, totally secular and fast removing all power from Christianity, when the reality is you can't be elected here if you don't pray to Christ publicly and removing special privileges only granted to religion is considered a war against religion and an attempt to stamp it out...at least by 1/3 of us if not more.

As for perspective, you limited it to "the time we live in", but you want to counter my answer with "historically....", and YOU said "secular constitution", so I'm not sure how you translate that to "globally". To me, "secular constitution" strongly implies the US.
Clearly things are different in ANY democracy than under a theocratic dictatorship. That goes without saying....but I guess not to you, so now I said it, so now you can see the perspective that went right over your head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States

QUICK! Find a reason to justify murdering 200-600 a year!

I'm sure you have personal, first-hand knowledge that they were definitely clearly all dangerous violent criminals.

Lantern logic:

600 = not that much because..
"COPS ARE ALWAYS GOOD & RIGHT!"

*pushes everyone out of his 1950s bubble*

I have first hand knowledge of oil well drilling and completion, This video depicts the processes used in fracking and you "hippies" are just ganging on a video to shout on your mounds sound bite tripe. The poster seems to have posted it for informative purposes and then you rats come and jump on board. Your informed and honest opinions are misplaced on a good video, downvotes for it are in the range of retarded.

McCain served in the Vietnam war, was shot down and captured in October 1967, and was mistreated and tortured as a prisoner of war. This is the first hand knowledge he claims.

Although it's always hard to know how accurately the media portrays people, and especially in the U.S., he has always struck me as an honourable man and one who has the best interests of his country at heart.

I'm afraid I can't say the same of the men who supported mistreatment of prisoners, or those who attempted to hide it.

*length=792

Indeed, however with small exception I thought we were being fairly civil. That said, we all know what to expect from the 'little f*#king thing'. It's why the admins are constantly on his ass, and he may be banned again.

My point about veracity was that one has to trust the 'reporting' by others who may have an agenda to further. Without first hand knowledge, it's difficult for some (like me) to give full trust in ANY reports. I tried to read the first link you provided, but it started with a 'letter' to Saddam and I admit I didn't go farther.
As I recall, the numbers were more in the 1-300K dead from the ethnic cleansing (I have 175K in my head, but I don't know if that's right). I was old enough to watch the reports live when it happened in the 80's-90's and worry I might be drafted. I have not intended to imply Saddam wasn't terrible, only to imply he was not as bad as possible.

What I've seen so far from ISIS were hundreds if not thousands of 'prisoners' marched to their execution after surrender, even after swearing allegiance to ISIS, reports of mass rapes, village destruction, 'warnings' to all those not in line to leave or die, takeover of 1/2 the country in weeks (or less), all by 5000 people. Reports are that they are gaining members, allies, and massive amounts of money and arms. For their size, they appear to be worse than Saddam, who had hundreds of thousands, if not millions at his disposal. If you multiplied the videoed crimes of ISIS in just the last week by 200+, you would understand my point that they seem worse than most weeks of Saddam's rule....when you consider their respective sizes.
I'll hope you are correct, and ISIS is soon to be wiped out, but it's certainly not happening yet. No matter how it plays out, you are certainly right that ugly times are ahead for Iraq.

>> ^VoodooV:

I think Bill Maher is exactly right. He wants to be the first Mormon president...that's the long and the short of it.
Governing? whatever
bipartisanship? whatever
It explains perfectly why he is able to shift positions so drastically. HE DOESNT CARE! He's not a republican, he's not a centrist, he's not a democrat. He just wants to be able to say he was the first mormon president.


I live in Utah of course and I can tell you from FIRST-HAND knowledge that there are many Mormons that shoot up through the Mormon hierarchy (theocracy) and they DO NOT care about anyones problems unless you know them on a personal level; they just want to get to the next level...

Mitt has exuded a terrible personality from day one, even back here, in Salt Lake City when he *saved* the Winter Olympics. Which is what launched him into his governor position; boy did people fall for that shtick, "Hey, but wait, I FIXED the Olympics! I'm a national hero!". That is how he basically thinks, ego first everything else second. How he treats his dog on trips just implies that it's true...

I swear Mitt is either a sociopath OR has narcissistic personality disorder traits. No matter what he talks about on a personal level, he CANNOT relate, at all to anyone. It's quite disquieting, atleast to me.

My country has a long history of anti-intellectualism, but I don't think that Asimov's quote applies here, "our" reasons are different. I would believe it of the States though, despite my acute lack of either first hand knowledge or American studies... Hmm... am on shaky ground here
In reply to this comment by Trancecoach:
He's one of my very favorite orators... Always inspiring.

BTW, this particular clip reminded me of the famous quote from Isaac Asimov:

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

>> ^oritteropo:

That was rather entertaining. It didn't go in the direction I expected, and was far better for it... of course if I'd looked at the related videos section first I probably would've remembered who he was and would've been less apprehensive.

@dannym3141

Can't quote that behemoth without trying to figure out all the embedded coding to only pick your newest stuff.

Anyway, I just wanted to address the last line of it. I have no first hand knowledge of Amsterdam, but according to their wiki they limit their coffeehouse (weed, food, coffee/drink, no alcohol) to only selling small quantities of weed and other rules:

In the Netherlands, the selling of cannabis is "illegal, but not punishable", so the law is not enforced in establishments following these nationwide rules taken from the wiki page:

no advertising
no hard drug sales on the premises
no sales to anyone under the age of 18
no sales transactions exceeding 5 grams
no public disturbances

For some offenses, a business may be forced to close for three to six months, for others, completely; all this is detailed in official policies.

-------------------------------

So it's not as if they allow anyone, anywhere, anytime to do whatever they wish....it's controlled to some degree. They also have closed shops due to proximity to schools and I believe I've read articles where they want to close access to coffeeshops to tourists. So......I can only assume the mindset of many tourists toward drug use is a nuisance at a minimum. And there will be those who argue is anti-drug mindset, etc.

And it might be a little bit of a lot of things, but I think it speaks to a failure in education namely the complete lack of when approaching a lot of "un-approved" topics. Where you end up with polar opposite opinions, 1) no one should do it ever, 2) everyone should do it, as much as possible. It applies mostly to drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and sex in the US. It evens out a little in people (and if it doesn't it usually goes really bad) when they get past college-age when it comes to alcohol, tobacco and sex, but drugs seem to stick with them whether it be to the forbidden nature of it or addiction.

I guess with sex, unless you end up with something incurable you can recover (even a pregnancy). Tobacco you can quit, but it does have consequences for some who are genetically unlucky. Alcohol, liver issues but worse are drunk driving and just overall bad decision making that could lead to a record.

And then drugs, illegal or prescription, sometimes people become too reliant on them...especially if they affect pain and mood...and they often even get intertwined where the brain associates lack of mood suppressors/enhancers as pain. Personally I don't see why many people would risk using their drug of choice regularly if it means potentially losing their job when a drug test comes around or other consequences...and that's where I see it as an addiction when they want the job and the drug but at some point they will conflict and unwillingness to change one to keep the other.

Anyway, it's one of those things where you could go back and forth on it all day long. But in the end I think it boils down to how much other people's choices affect others. If using whatever doesn't have a noticeable impact on others then fine. But you run the spectrum of smoking in restaurants to drunk driving as to how much of an impact is noticeable. And on that, I am done posting about this as it's guaranteed to turn into some sort of political/religion discussion.

>> ^ponceleon:

>> ^BoneyD:
>> ^ponceleon:
>> ^BoneyD:
I am really suprised at the supposed super-libs in this thread who are okay with Bin Laden being assassinated, rather than stand trial. It is obvious that apprehension was never the goal of this mission, the US government obviously had no intention of having him 'brought to justice' in a court of law. Likely because it would mean drawning attention to their other embarrasment over those they've held in Guantanamo Bay.
America is supposed to be the shining light on the hill. That no matter what, those who commit crimes would be fairly examined by the evidence and their guilt or innocence decided by the court. All this killing will do is allow Americas detractors to yet again point and say, "Look, they don't even follow their own laws".

Please, enough with the fake outrage and generalizing statements.
I'm probably one of those super-libs you are referring to and while I am disappointed in so much revelry over a death, by no means do I feel this was an illogical outcome. This wasn't a sniper hit, this was a fire-fight in which the enemy used a woman as a human shield.
To think they could have "talked it out" is just unrealistic given the situation. Your assertion that the US government had "no intention of having him 'brought to justice'" is poorly supported by FACTS such as Saddam Hussain being brought to justice in the exact way you seem to be implying.
The bottom line is that it wasn't possible given the situation, at least with the information that we have been given so far.

Fake outrage? Excuse me, what gives you the right to label me disengenuous? I'll admit I'm as human as the next guy and not sad at all that this hateful sack of shit is dead. Nor that I think it would have even been possible to take Bin Laden alive, before he topped himself. Do I think that he needed to die? Yes. It's this approval of his killing without due process that is counter to the ideal that we should hold. If we can't, then we should shut up and just be pleased that he is dead.
Bin Laden was responsible for mass murder and did not deserve to breath our air, I wouldn't have been upset if it were the death penalty he faced. But what is the point where you are comfortable with a murderer being denied a trial? When they kill 2? 10? 50? Where is the line where that becomes okay and who makes that decision?
Oh and before we start hearing any more about the rubbish that the SEALs were ordered to capture him first and foremost, I point to the US's recent track record on their use of special forces (see: Task Force 373). Both political parties have both demonstrated that they are perfectly fine with extra-judicial executions, even of their own citizens. The mission was to kill him. Period.

LOL!
The irony of your icon, by the way, is delicious.
You validate everything I say about your own fake outrage by agreeing with my statements and then concluding with your "inside" knowledge of that the orders were "period."
Unless you want to out yourself as someone who was involved in the mission and has first-hand knowledge of what the "orders" were, please, do stfu about what they were "period."
It is exactly that kind of hyperbole that makes your outrage fake.


You call in to question my character by calling me 'fake' and wonder why I might take offence? I don't mind you critisising the points of my arguement, but don't try to suggest that I'm simply doing it to score points on here. I am not a troll and I am always genuine when stating my position. I will concede that I can't know for sure their exact orders and was wrong to claim otherwise, I based my statement on the evidence of recent US actions. I should have used the term "highly likely".

However! You don't get away that easily, please answer my question. Do you think it is okay for someone who has been accused of committing crime to face execution without trial? (Whether or not capturing Bin Laden was even possible in this case)

>> ^BoneyD:

>> ^ponceleon:
>> ^BoneyD:
I am really suprised at the supposed super-libs in this thread who are okay with Bin Laden being assassinated, rather than stand trial. It is obvious that apprehension was never the goal of this mission, the US government obviously had no intention of having him 'brought to justice' in a court of law. Likely because it would mean drawning attention to their other embarrasment over those they've held in Guantanamo Bay.
America is supposed to be the shining light on the hill. That no matter what, those who commit crimes would be fairly examined by the evidence and their guilt or innocence decided by the court. All this killing will do is allow Americas detractors to yet again point and say, "Look, they don't even follow their own laws".

Please, enough with the fake outrage and generalizing statements.
I'm probably one of those super-libs you are referring to and while I am disappointed in so much revelry over a death, by no means do I feel this was an illogical outcome. This wasn't a sniper hit, this was a fire-fight in which the enemy used a woman as a human shield.
To think they could have "talked it out" is just unrealistic given the situation. Your assertion that the US government had "no intention of having him 'brought to justice'" is poorly supported by FACTS such as Saddam Hussain being brought to justice in the exact way you seem to be implying.
The bottom line is that it wasn't possible given the situation, at least with the information that we have been given so far.

Fake outrage? Excuse me, what gives you the right to label me disengenuous? I'll admit I'm as human as the next guy and not sad at all that this hateful sack of shit is dead. Nor that I think it would have even been possible to take Bin Laden alive, before he topped himself. Do I think that he needed to die? Yes. It's this approval of his killing without due process that is counter to the ideal that we should hold. If we can't, then we should shut up and just be pleased that he is dead.
Bin Laden was responsible for mass murder and did not deserve to breath our air, I wouldn't have been upset if it were the death penalty he faced. But what is the point where you are comfortable with a murderer being denied a trial? When they kill 2? 10? 50? Where is the line where that becomes okay and who makes that decision?
Oh and before we start hearing any more about the rubbish that the SEALs were ordered to capture him first and foremost, I point to the US's recent track record on their use of special forces (see: Task Force 373). Both political parties have both demonstrated that they are perfectly fine with extra-judicial executions, even of their own citizens. The mission was to kill him. Period.


LOL!

The irony of your icon, by the way, is delicious.

You validate everything I say about your own fake outrage by agreeing with my statements and then concluding with your "inside" knowledge of that the orders were "period."

Unless you want to out yourself as someone who was involved in the mission and has first-hand knowledge of what the "orders" were, please, do stfu about what they were "period."

It is exactly that kind of hyperbole that makes your outrage fake.

We've found out only a bit more about how it works (Electromagnetism) since this video. Most of the knowledge comes from our particle accelerators. (We've found particles that specifically carry the force, which combine into atoms, then elements, then molecules, and so on...)

Even if we explain how everything works (we figure out gravity's connection, what makes energy into mass) we're still left with origin answers. If you understand Quantum Mechanics w/QED (and as Feynman would say it that, "You don't!") you might allow some to see that "perhaps" we were created from nothing, it just required time.

This is something that we can "conceive" and "imagine". Understanding has definitions with clear boundaries, were as the Universe it seems may only be something that is only "conceivable" until It can define Itself.

/(Being able to "define" itself could be a term to subjectively describe Humanity.)(Or Aliens...)

-- (edited in) --
The only thing the "ICP" added to that speech is that they're correct, but only if the question was asked by a serious mind. Otherwise, they show their complete and utter lack of any knowledge we've had available--to them--since before they were born. It's a parody (almost dark irony; new *tag?) only in the sense of how ridiculously rampant this type of thinking is; in the common populace. It's more ironically sad (as above), in a lot of ways. Their video shows (atleast in their city school zone) how ineffective our teaching methodology/funding is. (Not the teachers; more society and the structure of learning. Teachers tend to be the only glue holding anything together. I've had more than enough first hand knowledge and/or witnessing.)

I could add on forever. The Teachers are willing to change and many bend over backwards; paying for NEW texts (sometimes buying new texts so they don't use some text that has been broken by another state), materials (chemistry, biology, music, etc... pay the most -- unless you're an elementary teacher...then you pay 1/10 your paycheck, if you care for your kids). IT'S not the teachers and the children will go with the flow. There needs to be an ideological change in how kids are taught. I'd go with a college type. Small classes, higher budgets, good training for teachers. Consequences that will make a bully STOP, and if they don't make sure there are classes to help them and if necessary the parents as well. (Yes, parents should be able to be pulled from work.) On staff Doctors/Psych to always help (I know some are starting this). Apprenticing. Not holding a kid back in all areas cause they suck at one. I could go on for awhile longer. Some of this might require us to demobilize the military/industrial complex. Look at how well they can teach "children/teenagers with no hope" into a Tier One Operator, SOC etc...

/Didn't mean to be so long, but as you can see, the "ICP" really bug me.