>> ^lantern53:
"First President to violate the War Powers Act."

"First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions."

"First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN)."

"First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory."
^ None of your points state the reasons for why these things did or needed to or shouldn't have occurred. There's more to situations than just the short points you wish to convey. Without the background to define the value of such actions/decisions, you and the video are both presenting one-sided views for preferred agendas.

>> ^lantern53:
First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.

^ A number of your points seem to be strategically vague. Example above, it wouldn't have been difficult to state which law you refer to, or to include a link for additional info.

>> ^lantern53:
First President to terminate America's ability to put a man in space.
^ This is not what has happened. They're spreading the capability of space exploration to the private sector to reduce costs so NASA can focus its costs on other technology advancement and space exploration projects. This in no way conveys that American Astronauts will not be going back to space. Also worth noting that you don't have to work for NASA to be an American in space.
Don't get me wrong, i was disappointed to hear the cancellation of the 2020 moon mission as well, but the reasons for it are mostly 'building other foundations for exploration and spreading the costs'.. also this doesn't mean there couldn't be a revisit later down the track once better technologies are at hand.
Personally i think it's a good idea to have private sectors taking some of the cost burden away, as they will help to advance additional new space exploration technologies that NASA could also use for later moon, Mars etc missions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8489097.stm
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/beyondearth/explore.html

>> ^lantern53:
First President to go on multiple global 'apology tours'.
^ This one is taking the mickey isn't it? Under the last President and Vice-President, the US quite effectively caused concern to a large portion of the rest of the world with the 'let's go in guns blazing regardless of what others say' position.
Now I'm not saying that's ultimately wrong, indeed in some cases it would be quite right to do so.. what I'm saying is that other countries saw that the USA did not care what the rest of the world had to say in relation to these world-wide matters, which was understandably concerning to some, and the current President was introducing himself to the word leaders in person so they could see that he wasn't war hungry.

>> ^lantern53:
First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office, 90 to date.
^ It's called recreation. If you don't think that the position is stressful enough to require regular relaxation so one can maintain mental stability required to take in lots of information's across many subjects and make difficult decisions, then you should reconsider the differences between what you do, what the President does, and how much time you each sit around doing nothing to advance the country and it's relevant stability.

Cheers for all the points made, good to see another one-sided view to compare to the video's. Makes it easier to asses the value of the contents.

Assessment (at first glace with brief researching): the goods that were done, out weigh the bads.

Well done Obama, keep heading in the direction that looks like you actually care about your citizens.

The scumbag religious nutbar does have a point.

In related news, today Santorum says he would happily be Romney's VP. How does Vice President Frothy sound?

Still swiftboating and muddying the waters? Still not talking about Murray Rothbard's role in this all?





Well lets look at some actual facts:
----------------------------------BEGIN

In early 2008, this article revealed that "a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul" had identified Rockwell as the "chief ghostwriter" of the Ron Paul newsletters published from "roughly 1989 to 1994."

Financial records from 1985 and 2001 show that Rockwell, Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982, was a vice president of Ron Paul & Associates, the corporation that published the Ron Paul Political Report and the Ron Paul Survival Report. The company was dissolved in 2001. During the period when the most incendiary items appeared—roughly 1989 to 1994—Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters recently unearthed by The New Republic. To this day Rockwell remains a friend and advisor to Paul—accompanying him to major media appearances; promoting his candidacy on the LewRockwell.com blog; publishing his books; and peddling an array of the avuncular Texas congressman's recent writings and audio recordings.

Rockwell has denied responsibility for the newsletters' contents to The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick. Rockwell twice declined to discuss the matter with reason, maintaining this week that he had "nothing to say." He has characterized discussion of the newsletters as "hysterical smears aimed at political enemies" of The New Republic. Paul himself called the controversy "old news" and "ancient history" when we reached him last week, and he has not responded to further request for comment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't think Murray Rothbard, is worth looking at?

"Equality is not in the natural order of things, and the crusade to make everyone equal in every respect (except before the law) is certain to have disastrous consequences." - Murray Rothbard
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

he also wrote film reviews under a pen name (anonymously) .. so he was no stranger to trying to protect himself while expressing what he truly thought..

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/07/murray-rothbard-lew-rockwell-and.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/still-states-greatest-enemy.html

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

In 1993, Rothbard wrote about Malcolm X and discussed the possibility of a separate state for blacks, but concluded that it would "require massive "foreign aid" from the U.S.A.". He also described black nationalism as "a phony nationalism" that was "beginning to look like a drive for an aggravated form of coerced parasitism over the white population."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard218.html

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




I am seriously disappointed that people here can connect the dots to Dr. Paul yet Rothbard is clearly innocent.

He just happened to die in 1995... and we've heard nothing about newsletter content as inflammatory as when he was involved, since.

Get real people. It wasn't Ron Paul. The secret is in the grave at this point.

If you are beaten and robbed and the robbers give half of your wallet's bounty to charity, are they "compassionate and empathic"?

Liberals are the robbers, and it's not even for charity, it's to buy votes.


>> ^Phreezdryd:

This is what happens when you try and get some empathy or compassion out of repugs. It's like feeding the trolls.
HE SAID RAPE! WE'VE GOT HIM! WOOHOO! Didn't that sound like a threat to you?
Everything else he said just sounded like the adults in a Charlie Brown cartoon.
Mr.Vice President, is it appropriate for you to say the R word?
(chuckle yawn)

This is what happens when you try and get some empathy or compassion out of repugs. It's like feeding the trolls.

HE SAID RAPE! WE'VE GOT HIM! WOOHOO! Didn't that sound like a threat to you?
Everything else he said just sounded like the adults in a Charlie Brown cartoon.

Mr.Vice President, is it appropriate for you to say the R word?

(chuckle yawn)

If she'll become a president or a vice-president

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
I've dug plenty deep. I already know that people were trying to warn of the attacks coming, that's old news. So then why lie about it in a press conference? You know, that part where we were lied to by Condie Rice, etc. When they knew fair and well they had conceived that very scenario?
President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other White House officials have consistently denied knowing about the 9/11 plot or receiving information that (or even imagining that) commercial aircraft could be used as weapons. For example, Bush said repeatedly there were no warnings of any kind ... “Never in anybody’s thought process ... about how to protect America did we ever think the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets ... never.”
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that “the President did not – not – receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers ... Until this attack took place, I think it’s fair to say that no one envisioned that as a possibility.”
Then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said: “I don’t think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile ... even in retrospect there was nothing to suggest that.”
I don't care about the buildings anymore, that's all been "debunked" for the most part.
Like I've said to you before, you can quote all you want from information you find on the interwebs, that doesn't make it any more or less true than anything I can Google and quote. There's a lot more to 9/11 than just the buildings coming down, there's a lot of lies, repeated lies in fact. A lot of denial and finger pointing. And a lot of convenient "failures of the system". Whether you like it or not, or want to admit it or not there is something fishy going on here. But hey, I'm just a crackpot, loonie conspiracy theorist. What do I know, right? I should be a good robot and always implicitly trust people that lie to me on a continual basis, that way I don't have to face an ugly truth, or facts, or think for myself.

Oh for heavens sakes, your acting like discovering that politicians spin things and choose their wording carefully and to their own benefit is a discovery you've made through some stroke of genius.
Politicians will use the truth to deceive and trick the public as long as it's in their own interest, and if it's better to lie they'll do that to. That's not news, it's not a conspiracy, it's common knowledge.
So you seem to accept that an Afghan leader was warning of a 'major attack'(no mention of airplanes, just a major attack) leading up to 9/11. You don't act like his assassination on the 10th of September was a surprise either. What is surprising is your quotes you throw out thinking that officials were unaware or lying about this. EVERY quote you gave specifically states there was no idea that civilian aircraft would be used as missiles in an attack. Remembering that politicians are deceitful monsters, you'll notice they do NOT deny having warnings of an impending Al Qaeda attack. In fact, multiple official reports, investigations, and even Bin Laden's own public statements all make it very clear there were warnings of pending attack from Bin Laden's organization. The only denial in your quotes is specifically to the method.
Sorry, your whole act depends on people being either ignorant of the facts or shocked that politicians might hedge and be dodgy in their answers on a massively political topic...


No I'm not, I'm questioning why they felt had to lie about this. That is all. Don't put words in my mouth, or even try to think you know what motivates me please.

So, if you think that collaborating to bend the truth to deceive and trick the public to achieve a common goal is not a conspiracy I suggest you read up on the definition of what a conspiracy is. Just because I use the word "conspiracy" does not mean I'm referring to some wild, far fetched and unbelievable scenario. That's not always what a conspiracy is, that's what the general public has come to think of what a conspiracy is due to people like you that apply the most extreme definition to the word. Just like a UFO is not necessarily an alien space craft. It's that due to society, and per-conceived notions, most people automatically think of alien space ships when someone refers to seeing a UFO.

Sorry, you're smug little, "I know all the facts, and you are delusional" act is a joke. Yeah, you are far more superior to us "conspiracy nuts".

Oh, where did I say anything about Bush being in bed with Bin Laden or planting explosives in the towers? Why is it that once someone talks about a conspiracy they are automatically "crazy"? Not all of us believe what the fringe is trying to sell, my friend. But we also don't believe what is being force fed down our throats either.

>> ^Duckman33:

I've dug plenty deep. I already know that people were trying to warn of the attacks coming, that's old news. So then why lie about it in a press conference? You know, that part where we were lied to by Condie Rice, etc. When they knew fair and well they had conceived that very scenario?
President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other White House officials have consistently denied knowing about the 9/11 plot or receiving information that (or even imagining that) commercial aircraft could be used as weapons. For example, Bush said repeatedly there were no warnings of any kind ... “Never in anybody’s thought process ... about how to protect America did we ever think the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets ... never.”
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that “the President did not – not – receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers ... Until this attack took place, I think it’s fair to say that no one envisioned that as a possibility.”
Then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said: “I don’t think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile ... even in retrospect there was nothing to suggest that.”
I don't care about the buildings anymore, that's all been "debunked" for the most part.
Like I've said to you before, you can quote all you want from information you find on the interwebs, that doesn't make it any more or less true than anything I can Google and quote. There's a lot more to 9/11 than just the buildings coming down, there's a lot of lies, repeated lies in fact. A lot of denial and finger pointing. And a lot of convenient "failures of the system". Whether you like it or not, or want to admit it or not there is something fishy going on here. But hey, I'm just a crackpot, loonie conspiracy theorist. What do I know, right? I should be a good robot and always implicitly trust people that lie to me on a continual basis, that way I don't have to face an ugly truth, or facts, or think for myself.


Oh for heavens sakes, your acting like discovering that politicians spin things and choose their wording carefully and to their own benefit is a discovery you've made through some stroke of genius.

Politicians will use the truth to deceive and trick the public as long as it's in their own interest, and if it's better to lie they'll do that to. That's not news, it's not a conspiracy, it's common knowledge.

So you seem to accept that an Afghan leader was warning of a 'major attack'(no mention of airplanes, just a major attack) leading up to 9/11. You don't act like his assassination on the 10th of September was a surprise either. What is surprising is your quotes you throw out thinking that officials were unaware or lying about this. EVERY quote you gave specifically states there was no idea that civilian aircraft would be used as missiles in an attack. Remembering that politicians are deceitful monsters, you'll notice they do NOT deny having warnings of an impending Al Qaeda attack. In fact, multiple official reports, investigations, and even Bin Laden's own public statements all make it very clear there were warnings of pending attack from Bin Laden's organization. The only denial in your quotes is specifically to the method.

Sorry, your whole act depends on people being either ignorant of the facts or shocked that politicians might hedge and be dodgy in their answers on a massively political topic...

I've dug plenty deep. I already know that people were trying to warn of the attacks coming, that's old news. So then why lie about it in a press conference? You know, that part where we were lied to by Condie Rice, etc. When they knew fair and well they had conceived that very scenario?

President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other White House officials have consistently denied knowing about the 9/11 plot or receiving information that (or even imagining that) commercial aircraft could be used as weapons. For example, Bush said repeatedly there were no warnings of any kind ... “Never in anybody’s thought process ... about how to protect America did we ever think the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets ... never.”

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that “the President did not – not – receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers ... Until this attack took place, I think it’s fair to say that no one envisioned that as a possibility.”

Then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said: “I don’t think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile ... even in retrospect there was nothing to suggest that.”

I don't care about the buildings anymore, that's all been "debunked" for the most part.

Like I've said to you before, you can quote all you want from information you find on the interwebs, that doesn't make it any more or less true than anything I can Google and quote. There's a lot more to 9/11 than just the buildings coming down, there's a lot of lies, repeated lies in fact. A lot of denial and finger pointing. And a lot of convenient "failures of the system". Whether you like it or not, or want to admit it or not there is something fishy going on here. But hey, I'm just a crackpot, loonie conspiracy theorist. What do I know, right? I should be a good robot and always implicitly trust people that lie to me on a continual basis, that way I don't have to face an ugly truth, or facts, or think for myself.

From www.washingtonsblog.com:

... Dick Cheney was in charge of all counter-terrorism exercises, activities and responses on 9/11. See this Department of State announcement; this CNN article; and this essay.

In fact, 5 war games were scheduled for 9/11, including games that included the insertion of false radar blips onto air traffic contollers’ screens. Specifically, on the very morning of September 11th, five war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including one “live fly” exercise using REAL planes.

Then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers, admitted to 4 of the war games in congressional testimony — see transcript here or http://www.spiegltech.com/media/McKinney2.rm">video here (6 minutes and 12 seconds into the video).

Norad had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and “numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft”. In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run. See also http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/Contingency_Planning_Photos.html">official military website showing 2000 military drill, using miniatures, involving a plane crashing into the Pentagon.

Indeed, a former Los Angeles police department investigator, whose newsletter is read by 45 members of congress, both the house and senate intelligence committees, and professors at more than 40 universities around the world, claims that he obtained an on-the-record confirmation from NORAD that on 9/11, NORAD and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were conducting a joint, live-fly, hijack exercise which involved government-operated aircraft posing as hijacked airliners.

On September 11th, the government also happened to be running a simulation of a plane crashing into a building.

In addition, a December 9, 2001 Toronto Star article (pay-per-view; reprinted here), stated that “Operation Northern Vigilance is called off. Any simulated information, what’s known as an ‘inject,’ is purged from the screens”. This indicates that there were false radar blips inserted onto air traffic controllers’ screens as part of the war game exercises.

Moreover, there are indications that some of the major war games previously scheduled for October 2001 were moved up to September 11th by persons unknown.

Now here’s where it gets interesting … Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta testified to the 9/11 Commission:

“During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President … the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?”

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y]

(this testimony is confirmed here and here).

So even if 9/11 wasn’t foreseeable before 9/11, it was foreseeable to Dick Cheney – who had been attacking democracy for nearly 40 years – as the plane was still 50 miles away from the Pentagon.

If Bachmann makes president, she must have a vice president with the last name Turner, so we can get Bachman Turner Overdrive. I wish this.

>> ^Skeeve:

They are right about animal testing!?
I hope you don't have any loved ones who take insulin for diabetes, because without animal testing and animal products they would be DEAD. And that includes Marybeth Sweetland, Senior Vice President of PETA.
Animal testing is the basis of all modern medical research and has led to treatments for childhood leukemia, hemophilia, meningitis and many, many more diseases. So if you think they are right about animal testing, sign yourself up to be an AIDs vaccine tester.
As for them being a small group so it doesn't matter what they say, that's garbage. They have 2 million members, millions more supporters (most in the dark about their agenda) and bring in more than 30 million dollars a year. And even if they were a small group, that doesn't make them harmless. By comparison, Al-Qaeda is estimated to have only 200-300 operatives and may have trained as few as ten-thousand insurgents, should we ignore the bad things they do because "they believe and fight for something that will never happen"?
Shades of gray exist, but there are also plenty of animal rights organizations to support that aren't terrorist supporting hypocrites.
>> ^Yogi:
OH Fuck off. They believe and fight for something that will never happen...if they cause pets and farm animals to be treated better as a result than I say more power too them.
Look at the IRA, a lot of what that group did was abhorrent, but they were fighting against an abhorrent situation and a lot changed. It's not enough to look at what a group says because they're a small group, look at what they drive for change and agree with them when they're right about something...like animal testing.
Same with Malcolm X, there's tons of these examples throughout history, it's not Black and White...all shades of gray.



Again Fuck Off. You don't know shit and you haven't done any fucking research about how many animals have been tortured and killed. Animal testing has done good things as well...THATS A SHADE OF FUCKING GRAY LIKE I WAS TALKING ABOUT!

You're just a moron painting them with one fucking brush...like all their supporters and even members agree with everything they do. I know plenty of people who have worked at PETA and they never agreed with everything they do but they have been a source of some good and have brought the plight of animal torture and maiming to the forefront of public debate.

If you can't understand these BASIC FUCKING CONCEPTS Than I will just fucking Kill you! I WILL FUCKING EAT YOUR HEART!

They are right about animal testing!?

I hope you don't have any loved ones who take insulin for diabetes, because without animal testing and animal products they would be DEAD. And that includes Marybeth Sweetland, Senior Vice President of PETA.

Animal testing is the basis of all modern medical research and has led to treatments for childhood leukemia, hemophilia, meningitis and many, many more diseases. So if you think they are right about animal testing, sign yourself up to be an AIDs vaccine tester.

As for them being a small group so it doesn't matter what they say, that's garbage. They have 2 million members, millions more supporters (most in the dark about their agenda) and bring in more than 30 million dollars a year. And even if they were a small group, that doesn't make them harmless. By comparison, Al-Qaeda is estimated to have only 200-300 operatives and may have trained as few as ten-thousand insurgents, should we ignore the bad things they do because "they believe and fight for something that will never happen"?

Shades of gray exist, but there are also plenty of animal rights organizations to support that aren't terrorist supporting hypocrites.
>> ^Yogi:

OH Fuck off. They believe and fight for something that will never happen...if they cause pets and farm animals to be treated better as a result than I say more power too them.
Look at the IRA, a lot of what that group did was abhorrent, but they were fighting against an abhorrent situation and a lot changed. It's not enough to look at what a group says because they're a small group, look at what they drive for change and agree with them when they're right about something...like animal testing.
Same with Malcolm X, there's tons of these examples throughout history, it's not Black and White...all shades of gray.

*promote *money
I wrote a tongue-in-cheek column about corporate personhood earlier this year.

http://www.dailynebraskan.com/opinion/hale-let-the-corporations-have-their-rights-role-in-government-1.2531819

It would be interesting if corporations weren't people. But they are.

The aftermath of a few slapdash U.S. Supreme Court decisions means that today's companies resemble citizens more and more. And, much like the pigs and men sitting at the table in "Animal Farm," it is already impossible to determine which is which.

A few key court decisions sowed the seeds for corporate personhood. In Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), it was ruled that a private business was exempt from state laws seeking to interfere with established contracts. In other words, the court ruled, states can't pass laws that impair business contracts.

In 1886, in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision — and its implications were huge — granted corporations the rights of citizenship.

Just last year the Supreme Court ruled, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that First Amendment rights should be extended to corporations. The floodgate of contributions — mostly anonymous — helped sweep the Tea Party to power and shake up the status quo in Washington, D.C.

It won't be long until corporations are extended Constitutional protections enjoyed by U.S. citizens. Rather than stall sharing our rights with big business, perhaps we should endorse it.

Surely, the National Rifle Association would have no qualm extending Second Amendment rights to big businesses. They may argue corporations should enjoy the same protections our forefathers had. After all, they'll say, why should corporations have to only rely on banks and lobbyists to protect their interests? They're guaranteed to blanket their members with pro-corporate paraphernalia backing whichever businesses packs the most heat. And nothing short of San Francisco can stop the NRA.

As soon as Constitutional rights are extended to corporations, they should be able to run for president. Foreign companies — much like Arnold Schwarzenegger — need not apply.

Rather than spending money for voters to elect whichever presidential candidates get the most campaign contributions and airtimes, corporations could cut out the middle man and invest in their own campaigns.

Congress is guaranteed to be friendly to a corporation in the Oval Office. Two corporations — a president and a vice president — could help put an end to wasteful government spending by working closely with legislation. Most legislators already nip at the bit for corporate donations; it's essential to winning. Corporations would bridge the aisle between Democrats and Republicans better than George Washington.

Boeing Co., the world's largest plane manufacturer, would never land billions of dollars' worth of imprudent government contracts to build impractical engines if the money were coming out of their own pockets, so to speak. And Congress would never again have to pursue worthless pet projects to keep jobs in their state, because worthless pet projects would cost corporate White House money.

Every "bridge to nowhere" must have a strip mall at the end.

As is, a majority of the Supreme Court already defers status to big business over citizens, and it wouldn't take too long until the minority could be replaced. The awesome powers of a corporate-backed executive branch, marching in lockstep with the legislative and judicial, would outrival any nation. Even China would eventually owe us money.

Of course, a business oligarchy is probably not what the framers of the U.S. Constitution originally intended for us. But lesser nations have endured far more with far less. And who among us doesn't want what's best for us?

Critics of corporate personhood want to amend the U.S Constitution to limit the rights of corporations. They argue that corporations, because their sole purpose is to make a profit, shouldn't have the same rights as you or I.

These critics are especially alarmed that corporations can make significantly larger political contributions than individual citizens. Some critics say that this is just one example where the rights of corporations actually exceed the rights of citizens. It does seem lopsided. But with such a global competitive market, how else can we compete with other countries?

Maybe corporate personhood isn't such a bad idea after all. What else could unite Americans more than having Coke and Pepsi run on the same ticket?

If a corporation were president it just might invest more time and more money at home. Then, maybe, we could all sit at the table.

I upvoted in honor of my brother, the former vice president of the Chess Club, junior year in high school.

I even watched the whole thing, not understanding much of it.