I mean... Jost's been living under police (or Black Widow) protection for years since Che's been owning him every Joke Swap. It's something that need not be said anymore.

This is the first time Che's in sweating territory though. From just 3 words! That's a credit to Jost. I think Jost did better this year than any others, even though he still couldn't beat Che (a foregone conclusion).

The fake poet/activist black lady move is genius on Che's part, there's just no win for Jost, and her no contact with Jost is just pure humiliation from beginning to end.

I want to expand on this bit. This right here is from the Treaty of Tripoli, which as newtboy noted was ratified unanimously a mere 10 years after the signing of the Constitution. Treaties are part of the "Supreme Law of the Land" and are not just happy words between diplomats - they've the full weight and support of the US legal system behind them.

So VERY CLEARLY, the early politicians of the US had absolutely ZERO objection to the notion that this is NOT a Christian nation. It is secular, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Any claims to the contrary are absurd revisionist history.

Say unnamed anonymous sources…followed with…
“While the recommendation is not a final decision” — and the unnamed sources said “new evidence could emerge that changes the prosecutors’ view.”

Odd decision since they have his texts and payments, not just the word of co-conspirators. I expect a detailed explanation if true, or it looks like corruption.

DOJ is not commenting….wait and see.

Could easily be fake news….don’t you think everything the Washington Post writes is fake news? Funny how you don’t question anything from any source that seems to be in your favor, and just deny every fact that isn’t.

Excellent video!

Have had much experience with Kodak films. B/W film of which I had much time in the darkroom processing the film and then making prints. I also had the chance to work with an Award winning Press Photographer.

One question I had for him was, how does he process his film to get such clear, sharp negatives? My prints would sometimes look grainy or flat. His answer was just 5 words that made me feel like an idiot.

"I just follow the instructions" he said without being insulting.

He told me that Kodak spends millions of dollars to come up with the processing instructions so, "why should I do anything different?"

That's when it hit me. I'm processing film, not mixing drinks.

Paranoid ravings of a lunatic stoking fear and tribalistic anger with zero actual information or specific accusations, just trigger words and video of political enemies.
This is the worst kind of political xenophobia aimed squarely at the ignorant who don't even grasp which side they support.

Ronald Reagan brought down a wall with just 4 words.

"Tear down this wall!"

You remind me of the guy in a hostage situation. "Do what you want with the women and children, just leave me alone"

Some day, your dream will come true.

Do the "masculine" thing. Face your fears.

I've been reading a comic lately called Animosity, in which all the sudden all the animals in the world get the power of speech and sentience. There's a section at the back of vol 2 that gives a rundown of the current state of things in all 50 states and in most major countries. Under New Zealand there is just one word, "Guess".

Jesus fucking Christ, learn to read.
I clearly said someone just giving lip service, as in someone just using words but not following through with actions, should not be met with violence.
An ACTIVE Nazi, as in someone physically enacting those words, making physical efforts to preform some genocide, or in the act of actually attacking a black, jew, hispanic, homo, cuck, libtard, etc, (not just calling them names, but attacking) yes, resist their violence with exponentially more violence from every direction without hesitation or empathy.

You aren't putting words in my mouth, buy you are 100% backwards in your interpretation of what I thought was clearly written.
I was raised to believe you are allowed to be as wrong and stupid as you like in America, but your right to swing your fist ends firmly at my nose and that line, once crossed, enables a righteous and crippling response without qualm.

Interested in what makes you say that. Did he dis Bernie and promote Hillary before the primaries? Was there an obvious bias? I was completely unaware there might have been a bias, and would be fascinated to see what makes you say that (other than just your words). Any articles or videos? It would disappoint me to no ends if he played favorites between them before the primaries. I like Stephen and love Bernie.

@enoch I agree with what you said (mostly) and agree with @Asmo even more.

The one thing not included in your pretty good analysis, enoch, is my main cri de coeur -- since the very beginning, feminists have been told not to call themselves feminists. From the very beginning. Using a lot of the same arguments that newtboy put forth, but way before there were third wave feminists.

It is a very touchy and real subject to those of us who have identified for decades as feminists despite an onslaught of reasons why that is a wrong thing to do.

I'm sorry that happened to you -- I hope I wasn't one who took you on. It is entirely possible I was -- turbocharged as a lot of us are about that "word." It doesn't take much to set some of us off -- it isn't pretty, it can feel terrible, and it is out of proportion due to the long history of having the very same conversation over and over and over again.

Because I hope I am now clear -- it isn't just a "word." The word has always been a battlefield -- the right to call ourselves that without being lectured, the right to define it for ourselves as women, the right to prioritize working for rights for a particular group and be clear about the subject.

Other than that, yeah, you are correct -- newtboy and I have the right to call ourselves what we will, for our own valid reasons.

@ChaosEngine

if you are referring to the established political class,the pundit class and those with relative power and influence i would agree with your assertions.

which is pretty much what i am talking about.

if you look how ron paul was being treated by his own party and compare that treatment to sanders by the DNC,there are some glaring similarities.

while both paul and sanders have differing politics,they did align in a few areas i.e: audit the fed,citizens united,money in politics and restructuring the military to name a few.

they both had/have immensely popular grassroots support.ron paul garnering 20 million in small donations and sanders broke that record with 30 million.

they both held large rallies with high attendance.

they both had a populist flavor that appealed to their own political base.challenging the current corrupt power structures.

and they both have/had experienced a weird media blackout,even though they were/are incredibly popular with the voters.

now we can question WHY that is,but i don't think it too much a stretch to come to the conclusion that both candidates challenged the current power structures that dictate this countries dysfunctional and corrupt political system.add to that mix a paid propaganda pundit class that never challenges the current narrative,all put on display on corporate media which is owned by what? 5-6 entities? who just happen to be the biggest lobbyists in this country?

nader experienced pretty much the exact same treatment from the DNC in regards to media exposure and it went even further in his case with him being outright denied to some debates,or made to jump through almost insurmountable dictates to even get ON the debates.

so when i assert this is a well crafted and intentional practice by the parties,i do so with precedent.

because all three,nader,paul and sanders all had/have massive public support from the voters,but not their respective parties.

so when ron paul started to become a real thorn in the RNC,who did not want him anywhere near the nomination.they changed the tactic from ignoring or downplaying pauls message..to creating the "kook" myth.this was from his own party!!

nader received similar treatment,though in a different context.the establishment as a whole came out against him.

so what can we assume,based on previous tactics from these political parties in regards to sanders?when they can no longer ignore his popularity? his grassroots campaign donations? his rally attendances?

there will soon come a time when they can no longer ignore sanders and his grassroots success,and they will respond the exact same way they did with nader and paul.they will concoct a narrative that plays on peoples fears and biases and begin to portray sanders as an anti-capitalist "kook".that somehow him being a democratic socialist means the end of our civilization.just the word "socialist' makes many a republican wet their panties.

could i be wrong?
oh please god let me be wrong.
i happen to like much of what sanders is promoting,not everything,i have issues with some of what he proposes,but over-all i dig not only what he is saying but how he is going about conveying his message.

there is one huge problem if sanders gets the nod,and that is the support you mentioned.he has almost none in the legislature.which will make much of what he is trying to change in washington damn near impossible.

which will create it own political mess and just create fodder for the pundit class to ineffectually pontificate on,just so they can have a job.

i think it would be such a great thing for this country if sanders got the nomination,but the establishment has already made its intentions clear:they dont want sanders,they want hillary.the establishment does not play by the rules nor do they play nice.

playing by the rules and being decent is for the peasant class.

hope i am wrong.
i hope that every single point i made will never occur.
i hope that sanders gets the nod and things may change,because this country needs a fucking enema.
but my cynicism really struggles with that kind of hopeful optimism.

Hey bob, you're on camera!!

The guy is an racist idiot, but I don't think anyone deserves to lose their job over something like this. He's a fucking grunt, he's not a public figure, he wasn't working and it wasn't like he wore his company's uniform or logo on him or anything and I don't think a company should punish someone for what they do after hours. He was definitely trolling for a fight, but there was no violence, just harsh words, racist or not.

...but it's a private company and racists aren't a protected class and they can fire who they want.

There's a lot of words one could use for CNN's coverage, but hypocrisy is not one of them. Seriously people, words have actual meanings. Let's try to use them, rather than just toss words out there because we like the way they sound.

I just want to say one word to you. Just one word.

Fungi.

@newtboy.

I don't see the word fat as anything other than descriptive. That dancer was fat. I am fat. It is just a word. No "calling out" was intended.

What I meant by I wouldn't complain "as much" if men's bodies started being as constrained in the media was my inarticulate attempt to bring a sense of equality to my rant. I agree with you that there are more average looking women on TV. But "more" isn't many. What I was trying to say was -- right now, average looking men are everywhere in the media, way out of proportion to average looking women. That pisses me off. When there comes a time when average looking men start disappearing, my anger over the gender inequality of numbers will fade.

My anger over the under-representation of average-looking won't fade, though. I'll be equally as pissed on behalf of both genders.

I'm glad that you are engaging with me, and much more respectfully than I have engaged with you. I knew I shouldn't use the term "willfully blind." I was peeved and that wasn't fair nor kind. I apologize.

I will stick to "blind," though. The studies are there. Any casual watching of movies and TVs supports my position. So why are you blind, then? The facts don't support your position. Your claim to research is a puzzle to me. What research, when all the research supports my points? I concede your point that it is better than it used to be, but "by far"? No, my friend. Not "by far." Not even close to "by far."

Every little bit helps, though. Thank god for Gabourey and Melissa and Amy Schumer who proudly weighs a stupendous 160 pounds and makes fun of Comedy Central for trying to make her starve herself into stickness.

I remember weighing 160 pounds, when I was in my late 20s. I thought I was fat. Hell, I thought I was fat when I weighed 140 pounds. Now I weigh 240 pounds, and I really am fat. I wish I had Amy back then. Of course, she is a product of the latest wave of feminists who are calling bullshit on... well, the list is long. I'm so proud of her.

And I'm proud of my contribution that made it possible for her to do what she is doing. Yippee for us!

Thanks for such a respectful exchange. My apologies again for my ill-chosen, ill-mannered words.