Before you follow great leader's suggestions, send us your socialist handout check. If you hold onto it, you'll be sent to the hypocritical-socialist afterlife.
https://videosift.com/video/Trumps-Covid-19-Plan-Get-Cancer-Then-Poison-Yourself

He mentions she has mental illness to suggest that is why she says the things she does. In the same breath he follows a leader that really does have a mental illness.

By their own words they are exposed. I'm glad Chris jumped right on him.

Ah! A confession.

I stand my ground.

Follow your leaders.

A few points....
1) PBS

2)slant and outright zealous bias are different, if related. The level of falsehoods, the number of falsehoods, the importance of those falsehoods, the influence gained by those falsehoods, the destruction done to the U.S. by those falsehoods, by every measure Fox outpaces it's competition by > a factor of 10.

3)Fox is the leader in biased, hyper partisan opinion presented as news, always has been. They aren't playing catch up or follow the leader, they are the undeniable and clear leaders of propaganda as news, and have been since inception. The left leaning outlets are decades behind and still have this silly notion that outright lies are crossing the line, not so at Faux.

So yes, it exists on both sides, and the left is getting worse, but Fox/Rush/Beck/Jones and the right are driving this bus and have been in that seat for decades, please don't try to imply it's anywhere near equal, it simply isn't.

MSNBC viewers still gain actual factual information by watching, Fox viewers lose it....that's a verified and continuing fact.

Thank you Trump, for being such a thoroughly disgusting person that even Republicans can't support you anymore.
Thank you Trump, for being such a cry baby that you have begun attacking any Republican that doesn't support you to the end, actually telling your followers to not vote for them.
Thank you Trump, for likely handing the control of the government to the Democrats. Barring more unforeseen surprises, that is. It seems probable that Trump will end up being the most important Democrat in recent history, doing more for the Democratic party than any other 10 politicians combined.
It's gratifying to see that even zealous right wingers have a line they won't follow their leader past....I was honestly beginning to wonder. They had no problem at all with him repeatedly saying he wanted to screw his daughter, repeatedly failing in business, repeatedly not paying his bills, repeatedly being caught as an adulterer, repeatedly making blatant racist claims and plans, etc.... it seemed there was no line to cross for them.
I can only hope that the tapes of him repeatedly saying the "N word" among other unacceptable disgusting behavior from the unaired Apprentice tapes come out in the next weeks. I find it hilarious that there's actually a go fund me page trying to get $5 million to pay for the non disclosure penalty if someone leaks them. Anonymous, where are you? Go hack MGM and get those tapes to Assange.

Clinton....make an offer to release the transcripts of your speeches if Trump releases the Apprentice recordings....please OH please.

That's why I said IF they go along with any stupid thing HE does....also....I was clearly talking about Republicans, who are much better at being united and playing follow the leader.

Because she hired Shultz as quid quo pro for clearly "cheating" (flagrantly being biased, contrary to the conditions of the job and repeated statements to the contrary) to steal the nomination for Clinton, she's corrupt. Beyond that, you've gone into ridiculousness with your basketball analogy. There aren't ethics rules in basketball, or a duty to serve your fans ethically, or a duty to be nice to your opponent, or a way to fight over a ruling that he fouled another player....and there's instant redress for a foul.
This is just one more instance, the latest in a never ending string, showing her contempt for the rules and laws, and showing that she rewards breaking the rules if done for her benefit. That's reason for disqualification in my eyes.
You are welcome to your opinion. I strongly disagree, and your insistence that she's the best candidate, contrary to all evidence and strong public opinion, is why Trump will win. Thanks a bunch.

We wouldn't know if Bush was worse than Clinton until after her presidency. I contend you can't have a whit of an idea how she would operate, as her positions change with the wind and she'll do whatever suits her on the day she makes a decision, not the right thing, not what she said she would do yesterday.

When bush was in office, I would question his actions to my sister and I remember her responding that God (or maybe it was Jesus) said we had a responsibility to follow our leaders. Interestingly enough, she and her husband thoroughly hate Obama and would have him thrown out if they could. So maybe today, we still hold those values of patriotism and faith, but only if it's 'our' guy.

Mostly because most people are lazy honestly lol Which is ironic when you think about it. But generally speaking, most well marked trails will warn you of sudden changes like this. Part of the IMBA trail building guide is designing courses so they flow the way the rider would expect.

Honestly, in this case it does seem like a bout of stupidity mixed in with failure to properly mark the course. It would have been product to ask a LBS about the trail before riding it, as to avoid mistakes like this, or a sudden trail condition like a washout or avalanche.

In my own personal opinion: they were riding too fast for that section. It's like when a New Yorker comes down to Florida . . . they just fly on the interstates because they can. A smart rider knows when to speed up, and more importantly, when to slow down.

With drops and banks like these, they're not ultra expert by any means, but it certainly would be good as you said to know the map.

As for riders ride close, well, it varies. On road, it's drafting. Off road, you're not going to get the same wind resistance so it mostly just becomes a skill challenge. Many riders will ride ultra close like that so they can learn each others rhythms and ride better together. So in the event they do race, they're prepared.

When I lead rides, I always know who's going to up on my wheel and who's going to lag back. The ones who lag are the ones taking lessons and notes, and the ones right on my wheel are challenging themselves to keep up. I'm a very aggressive rider and frankly, I do some seriously stupid stuff. The ones on my wheel, either make it or don't. And there's been plenty of don'ts. The ones lagging behind are the safer ones. But that's not always the case in a fast changing course. If you want to know what the trail ahead is doing, you follow a leader who knows the course. They can tell you what's about to come up, or if they do something wrong they can warn you.

But you are correct in thinking that riding close like that can really be risky if the person in front falls. It's a give/take thing. Determine the amount of risk that's acceptable and prepare for that.

It's the way the world was meant to be. Not this follow-the-leader-which-is-just-the-fuck-in-front-of-you-just-as-dumb-as-you BS. Patterning ourselves after our collective misjudgements and perpetuated fear-ignorance via meme-behavior in the form of social pressure; I see your comment of "Fuck-it", I instantly relate to you and your superior "boss" attitude. Thus agreement is unofficially created, and a thread of social structure formed.

Fuck you. Fuck everything. And love it. Good for her, indeed. Grow a beard or don't. What's the difference? I married a woman for her boobs. Does it matter if that's an acceptable attraction for a man? I'm also attracted to her large clitoris. It's like a weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee penis.

When I hear the argument about hammers, I laugh, because who ever believes that is a dumbass. And then I realize, people actually believe it, and then I'm sad.

Yes, assault rifles are outnumbered by hammers . . . maybe. Actually, BLUNT OBJECTS outnumbers rifles, but that includes bats, bricks, printers, pianos, pipes, candle holders and the whole ensemble of clue.

Now, in reality most murder is between people who know each other. That's why serial killers are more terrifying. They're killing people they don't know, seemingly at random. Which puts the paranoia in the population and people start freaking. Random killings just seem more terrifying. For some reason people just don't expect their mom to kill them. Who knows why, must be some weird fluke or Buddha or something.

The idea that I can go watch a movie with my daughter and some guy with an overloaded assault rifle, body armour etc can come in and just shoot everyone is way more terrifying a prospect than my mother-in-law finally snapping and picking up a knife and stabbing me. First off, I could totally kick her ass. Second, the former I can't do anything about. Despite the "it takes a good man with a gun" bullshit, reality shows otherwise. 9mm versus bulletproof vest, smoke grenade, IED's and assault rifles just doesn't cut it. But I don't play CoD . . .

In regards to the constitution, yeah, when it was written the military and the people had the same access to weaponry. Matter of fact, we didn't even have a standing army. It really was up to the states to get a regulated militia to keep the country safe from invaders. So comparing that to printed newspapers and tv and internet is, well, simple. It's a similar argument most paranoid gun owners use for everything. Let's just take a superficial look and ignore reality. Kind of like real dictators and tyrants taking away 22mm hand guns while pointing their tanks at your house.

I think that's the greatest irony . . . those who wish to own guns to protect themselves from tyrants are blindly following their leaders and scream for murder and revolt, or 1766 will rise again! yadda yadda, are becoming the same puppets they claim they are protecting themselves from. No one saw Hitler coming? Well, he sounded a lot like Beck honestly. So did Stalin, etc. The people who followed them thought they made absolute sense, and then this and that happened and now we all know them as mass murdering fiends.

So again, are we really talking gun control so we have the right to become the fourth reich, or are we really wanting a worthwhile discussion on saving lives?

Oh my Gawd - Too freekin awesome!
Following the leader of course!

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
So which breed promotes "citizens taking their duties seriously" the most? And what if one doesn't breed it at all?
Liberalism, Conservatism, or Libertarianism?
None of the above? All of the above?
When are we going to get it our thick skulls that narrowminded idealology like this just creates problems instead of solves them.
No one philosophy has the answers to all situations. IT NEVER WILL. A wise person recognizes the positive aspects of any and all philosophies and applies them AS THE SITUATION WARRANTS. There is nothing wrong with Conservativism/Liberalism/Libertarianism/<insert 'ism here> as long as they are used within reason. Who decides what is within reason? We all do. We practice that every day and sometimes it works out, and sometimes it doesn't and maybe we learn something in the process. All ideaology does is attempt to remove the burden of thinking. Sorry, not interested in that.
Nothing describes idiocy better to me than some mindless moron who always votes the party line, regardless of what party that may be.


You nailed it.

It's everything history teaches us about organized religion dressed up in a new suit. When you stop thinking and just blindly play follow the leader or follow the ideology you create a large mass of people capable of doing truly horrifying and unconscionable things. Liberalism, Libertarianism, Communism, Capitalism, Atheism, Conservatism are all capable of being treated and used exactly as the religions used throughout history's wars. The problem is no the ideologies or religions but the people that misuse them to manipulate others AND the people who use them as a crutch so they can stop thinking.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Dear Apple:
You made a bad product. It happens. Stop trying to deny it and cover it up.
Sincerely, everyone who hasn't drank the cool-aid.


Dear MarineGunrock,

Consumers are quick to forget every wrong-doing as long as you make it seem like you're trying to help (ie. bumper). Sales will continue to sky-rocket, and people will go about doing what they do best, follow the leader.

Sincerely,

Steve Jobs

>> ^messenger:

I'd never noticed that before, but it's true. After thinking about it for 30 seconds, here's what I think:
It's about power.
A person who makes others laugh holds a kind of power over them, a control of their feelings. We're comfortable letting men have this kind of power over us because we're comfortable having men be the boss, hold the floor. We're more reluctant to give a woman that power, especially if she already has sexual power.
Most people -- men and women -- prefer and value a powerful man, which is why we follow strong leaders, elect more men, and laugh more at funny men. This is also why, as a guy, being funny is important when trying to meet women. Being funny isn't just for breaking the ice; it also sets a power dynamic of the man controlling the woman's emotions, "handling" her, which she usually likes, if he does a good job and doesn't seriously offend her. It shows he's confident, powerful, in control, and can make her feel happy -- all good things from a woman's perspective. On the other hand, men don't like being controlled by women, and so typically don't find funny women attractive, as much as intimidating.
Every successful female comedian I can think of is a ditz (lack of mental power), a lesbian (no threat to women, not an option for men), or doesn't have sexual attractiveness: Ellen Degeneres, Roseanne Barr, Rosie O'Donnell, Joan Rivers. None of these women hold any sexual power over men, so women can safely laugh at them too.


I know it's conceited of me, but i somehow feel proud that this isn't true in my case..

For example, none of the women you listed as funny do i find funny. There's several over here that i've seen on QI and HIGNFY and mock the week that i've found very funny, and they're also really hot imo. True i can name more funny men than funny women, but i suspect that's not my fault specifically.

Maybe this says something about me feeling more comfortable with a woman in charge? Ahem..

Edit: Oh yeah, and i'm a straight male. Just thought i'd mention that for teh analysis.

I'd never noticed that before, but it's true. After thinking about it for 30 seconds, here's what I think:

It's about power.

A person who makes others laugh holds a kind of power over them, a control of their feelings. We're comfortable letting men have this kind of power over us because we're comfortable having men be the boss, hold the floor. We're more reluctant to give a woman that power, especially if she already has sexual power.

Most people -- men and women -- prefer and value a powerful man, which is why we follow strong leaders, elect more men, and laugh more at funny men. This is also why, as a guy, being funny is important when trying to meet women. Being funny isn't just for breaking the ice; it also sets a power dynamic of the man controlling the woman's emotions, "handling" her, which she usually likes, if he does a good job and doesn't seriously offend her. It shows he's confident, powerful, in control, and can make her feel happy -- all good things from a woman's perspective. On the other hand, men don't like being controlled by women, and so typically don't find funny women attractive, as much as intimidating.

Every successful female comedian I can think of is a ditz (lack of mental power), a lesbian (no threat to women, not an option for men), or doesn't have sexual attractiveness: Ellen Degeneres, Roseanne Barr, Rosie O'Donnell, Joan Rivers. None of these women hold any sexual power over men, so women can safely laugh at them too.