I noticed the Firefly posters very prominently.
Their vote for next property to be rehabilitated? Plez?

ah,the days of being in a relationship with a woman,who loved painkilllers with her jug wine.

who would wake me up in the dead of the night,using the super heated metal tops of a bic lighter on the bottom of my feet (those are called "smileys" for those who do not know) to scream at me about some girl who had the audacity to look my way at target,because 3:30am is the time to find out if i am having sexual thoughts about random women.

or an earlier girlfriend whose father was a prominent artist in the country and was holding a weekend jazz festival.i had a customer who had cerebal palsy,and one leg had been amputated,whose boyfriend had just broke up with her and she was a wreck.

so i had this bright idea! why doesn't this poor emotional wreck of a woman come to the jazz festival of my girlfriends dad? that will get her mind off things right?

but,having a second person accompany made me a little late.so when i finally showed up,my girlfriend was already half in the bag,and mad.i tried to explain and introduce her to mary,the heartbroken girl.

and my girlfriend broke my nose with a bottle of michelob.i do not think she cared that mary was heart broken,and an utter wreck in need of human company.i could be wrong,this is just a guess,but the bleeding from my broken nose may have been a strong indicator.

or how about the time i was counseling a long time friend,who had pulled a midnight move out to escape a man who had basically had her trapped in a spare room,chaining her to the wall.that man had gone as far as severing her achilles tendons,after her first attempt to escape,and this woman suffered from a severe case of PTSD.

now she did form an almost childlike bond to me.maybe because i had offered her the first taste of true compassion,and offered her safety and comfort,and allowed her to talk the poison and bile out that had been building inside her for over three years.

but her attachment to me,which was to be expected,was not viewed favorably by my girlfriend.i spent a lot of time and attention in drawing this broken and damaged young woman to feel safe,and to begin to feel human again(which infuriated my girlfriend).my patio was always filled with friends,artists and people of interest,and i did my best to bring a normalcy to this young womans life in order to help her acclimate,and to feel human again.

and my girlfriend would come home,get drunk,and start to whisper the most vile.and disgusting things..not about this young woman,but about me.

which,of course,if you understand the mentality of an abuse victim.especially one who had suffered such as she had.any criticism,or perceived threat to the person who had (in their mind) saved them,will create incredible anger and anxiety.

so because of my girlfriends irrational jealousy of this woman,and in her drunken selfishness,she went out of her way to make this woman feel as uncomfortable,and as unsafe (the exact opposite of what i was trying to do).so much so that the young woman...who didn't want to be a burden,or affect my life in a negative way...left my home,and wrote me she would never come back,because she loved me and didnt want to cause problems.

two weeks later she was found dead in motel room.over dose of piankiller and xanax...and wrists slashed to ribbons.

or how about the time one of my girlfriends broke three of my ribs,because i was being kind to a waitress?

or the time another girlfriend stabbed me,because while she was unhappy with our relationship,she could not abide me talking to anyone who owned a vagina.in this case a fellow artist i was collaborating with,and who happened to be not only an amazing human being but beautiful as well.

or that one time,when i broke up with a girl,because it simply was not working out and she repeatedly rammed her ford fairmont station wagon into my brand new firebird?

oh..the stories i can tell about all my wonderful relationships,and the women i have shared portions of my life with.i could write a book...

and then i watch this video,and i am overcome with an urge to drive cross country to the creators home,walk inside,grab him by the ankles and crag him outsides....and beat him senseless.

because he is coming from a false premise.
he is implying the that the benefits of relationships outweigh he selective memory our brains create when reliving our moments of singlehood.

when the reality is this:as long as you have friends,who love and accept you for who you are,you are never actually single.you are surrounded and loved by an extended family.

i do not need a girlfriend.
i do not want a girlfriend.
i am not interested in getting married.
and as i have revealed here,i would prefer some memories to remain buried under the much happier and adoring memories of my actual friends who put up with my eccentricities,and my overall oddness,rather than deal with a woman who is smitten with the ideas fed to them by institutions,and periodicals such as comsopolitian and vogue.

though,ironically,i have two ex girlfriends living in my home as i write this.
one is a former porn star,and current stripper who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia,and is a recovering addict.

while the other i had to go do a midnight rescue from a place where she was renting a room,but the house was junkie house,and she is a recovering addict as well (and they also kept stealing everything from her).she has bought a house,but it needs work and that work is taking fooooooorever.

and BOTH of these women still harbor some residual feelings towards me.even though i have been quite clear,open and honest that i have ZERO interest in rekindling anything,with either of them,but that hasn't stopped them from being all catty with each other,and causing drama,and complaining about the smallest,tiniest and most ridiculous of things to bitch about.

at first i tried to play referee.
i did my best to help everyone get along,until i realized they both had no interest in getting along.they wanted to outdo the other in order to get my attention.

which is just.....dumb..but anyways,my new way of handling their insipid complaints is always this response:i don't care.

and it seems to work beautifully.

so there you have my story,or at least part of it.
and i have to say...this guy is kinda full of shit.

for those of you happily married,with a great partner,i salute you.good for you,and i mean that.

but for me?
no thanks.i am good.

@bcglorf
you left out that anwar had worked for the CIA and NSC as a consultant,and that in his earlier days as an imam was critical of al qeada and was very pro-american.

look,i am not arguing the fact that anwar did become radicalized,nor am i denying that his shift in attitudes (which was mainly due to americas handling of the iraqi war) had become not only critical,but had gone from condemnation to calls for violence,and praise for violence.

which brings us to the fort hood shooter nidel hasan who was an avid fan of anwar al awlaki,and DID have a correspondence with awlaki.which when examined,was pretty fucking one sided.it was apparent that hasan was attempting to get in the good graces of awlaki who,evidenced by the email correspondence,had no real relationship with hasan.though awlaki did praise hasan,and his violent actions.

so i do not get where 'the emails are closed".just google nidal hasan and anwar al awlaki emails,and you can go read for yourself.

and as for these emails as justification..i really do not see your logic in this respect.

so if someone becomes a huge fan of mine,and emails me constantly because we met ONCE and now they think we are buddies and share common interests (which,maybe we do),and that person perpetrates a violent act.

am i responsible for that act?

and here is where the crux of the discussion REALLY is:
maybe i AM responsible.
maybe i am guilty of inciting violence.
maybe i should be held accountable,because not only did i keep this mans violent intentions to myself,which resulted in death,but then praised his actions afterwards as being the will of god.

there are ALL possibilities,and they are valid questions.
they are legal questions,and maybe there should be a legal accountability.

should the proper pathway to a legal conclusion be:
a.a remotely piloted drone that targets my phone and launches a missile murdering (assasinating0 me,along with innocent by-standers?

or.

b.working with the yemeni government to bring me into a secure facility to be questioned,and possibly charged with inciting violence and prosecuted in an international court of law?

do you see what i'm saying?

the question isn't if anwar al awlaki,as a prominent imam,was vocally against american foreign policy,or that he openly supported violence in the form of terrorism.

the question is:
how do you address that situation,and prosecute the legalities?

because as scahill posited:how do you surrender to a drone?

could anwar al awlaki be guilty of EVERY charge the US accused him of?
quite possibly.
but we will never know because he was assassinated,as was his 16yr old son.

even your counter argument is speculation based on loose affiliations,and tenuous connections.

you will NEVER be able to supply a concrete,and verifiable accounting of anwar al awlaki's guilt,because you CAN'T..he was assassinated.

and THAT is the point.

now let us take this a step further.
let us examine how this can be abused,and watching trump consolidate executive power by surrounding himself with departmental loyalist,loyal only to him,we can begin to see the beginnings of trumps "soft fascism".

now lets take how you made your argument,and supplant a different scenario,but using the same parameters.

do you SEE how easily the drone program could be used to quickly,and efficiently remove opposing political players from the board? dissenting and opposing voices simply painted as violent enemies of the state that were in need of removal,because of the "possibility" that they may one day actually incite or cause violence?

the state can now murder a person for simply what they say,or write but NOT what they actually DO.

anwar al awlaki didn't actually kill anyone,didn't perpetrate any acts of violence.he simply talked about the evils of american empire,the mishandling of the iraq war (which he was originally in support of) and praised those who DID engage in violent acts of terror as doing the work of god.

should he have been held accountable in some fashion?
i think there is case to be made in that regard,but instead of going through proper channels,and adhering to the protocols of international law,he was outright assassinated.

and just how easily this can be abused is incredibly frightening.

again,i understand we approach things from different angles,but you have to see the danger in this practice,and how easily it can be misused to much darker and sinister purposes.

"well,he said nasty things about us and had a lot of friends who were on the terror watch list"

is simply NOT a valid enough excuse to simply murder someone.

there are protocols and legal procedure for a REASON,and anwar al awlaki may certainly have been in breach of international law and therefor possibly SHOULD have been prosecuted under those terms.

but we will NEVER know,because he was killed.
by an american president.
a nobel peace prize winner and constitutional law professor.

anwar al awlaki was an american citizen,his SON was an american citizen,but due to those abominations:MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012.obama had the power and authority to assassinate them both.

where was there right to face their accuser?
habeas corpus..gone...a legal right that dates back to 1205 a.d by the BRITISH..gone.
innocent until proven guilty....gone.
the right to provide evidence in your defense...gone.

all the president has to do..and DID in this case,is deem you an "enemy combatant" and BOOM..dead.

i really hope you reconsider your attitude in this case my friend,because this shit is fascism incarnate,and now trump has his chubby little fingers on the "fire" button.

god help us all......

https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/american-unintelligence-on-russia-op-ed-56746

I know it's the Moscow Times, but still, the content is valid. And it's the only place I've seen, outside the blogosphere that is, where a prominent piece points out just how ridiculous it is for the DNI report on hacking to focus so much on RT.

And not only that, but to paint RT's coverage of inequality, excessive surveillance and police brutality in the US as a sign of it being a tool of the Kremlin... that's just hilarious. The line about "alleged Wall Street greed" (RT, 31 October) on the other hand was too much even for me.

These two cut through the shit rather well, I'd say:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/01/intelligence-report-on-russian-election-influence-is-a-flop.html
http://bit.ly/2i4UOwS

If that's the case, that he's off duty, isn't this a much more serious crime? Improperly using the cop car, lights and siren, badge, weaponry, and authority of his position to pretend to be an officer preforming his duties when he's really harassing and pranking someone as a private citizen? That should definitely be a felony.

Actually, no. He has his badge displayed prominently, and his cuffs, pepper spray, and gun on his belt. He may be off duty, true, but there's nothing about his uniform that would indicate that. Not all officers wear blues. I've seen many officers on duty wearing similar clothing and gear.

No matter what, it's an abuse of his power and equipment for his own personal amusement.

That's perfectly ok I've got in to several heated debates about this with Americans recently, and this may explain why. Has the term neoliberal has been re branded to mean something else over there?

The most worrying thing for me is how effective it has been, they form the leadership of most countries around the world now, most of the media, Hillary Clinton and even Obama.

Some prominent and notably not neoliberals are Donald Trump and Russia.

The reality is that sceptics today are targeting esjews for the same reason they have every other group of harmful cultists in the past. It shouldn't come as a surprise that a community of dedicated rationalists would be mystified and angered by the sudden rise of a new anti-rational movement; especially where that movement has been directly damaging to their own, see things like elevatorgate and prominent sceptics getting banned from conventions for wrongthink.

But why should the focus be suddenly so sharply on one group of irrationalists, to the apparent neglect of the others? Because esjudaism is the fresher and more exigent threat. Everyone in the current generation who's capable of correcting their ideas about religion, ghosts, scientology and psychics has basically already done so. Whereas esjews, like their frequent allies and ideological partners the islamists, seem to be gaining ground and converts every day. There's more opportunity and more need to change minds there than elsewhere.

Controversially I'm going to claim that 'youtube sceptics' spend a lot of their time on social media. Some of them make their living through social media. I think it's possible to understand why so many of them object so strongly to the tsunami of censorship that's devastating speech on those platforms in response to social justice hysteria; to suppression of the fictional and fascist concept of 'hate speech', to the false reports and takedowns of youtube videos, to twitter's Ministry of Truth and Safety, to reddit's constant ideological purges.

Now, why are so many of these anti-esjew sceptics white males? Well for one thing because most people in the english-speaking world are white, get over it and stop screeching about diversity. More substantially because most people are idiots. Let me explain. When you have a terrible ideology, obviously you look to stupid people for converts, but when you have an explicitly bigoted ideology, one that demonises certain groups of people while advancing special privileges for others, you narrow your focus even more and direct your propaganda efforts specifically at stupid people in the classes you're pretending to represent. You don't get many jewish friends of national socialism, and you don't get many white male esjews. It's not that these people are sitting on their throne of privilege chuckling down at the poor minorities struggling up to meet them. It's that they're a bunch of retards, but the wrong kind of retards to be esjews.

So opposition to esjudaism comprises: every intelligent and moral person in the world, male and female, black and white, gay and straight; a bunch of stupid straight white men; conservatives and other defectives; actual misogynists, homophobes and racists who imagine we're on their side.

TLDR: Sturgeon's Law.

Well I haven't seen Ghostbusters yet, but remember when everyone was pissed off because the new Star Wars had a woman and a black storm trooper as the lead characters?

Do you also remember when the film succeeded on its own merits and no one gave a shit any more because the film was actually good?

Releasing a film where the four principle characters are 3 intelligent white scientists and a streetwise sassy black woman is hardly a fucking exercise in equality anyway. And we're talking about a remake of a comedy that was popular and successful in the 80s - it's not like they're taking big risks and giving the women a chance to shine on their own, is it? How about an all-woman written and directed original film, or can't they spare the money? Because they seem to find enough cash for Seth Rogen or one of the other comedy clones to vomit out another catastrophe every year. Or maybe the people with the money are all men and prefer jokes about farts and masturbation.

That's the worst thing that seems to get ignored - this is Hollywood's lazy way of brushing a few crumbs from the table and saying 'See? Women have just as much power and prominence in the movies! By the way, do you know any girl who's turned 18? We need the new love interest for a 50 year old in the latest action flick. We need someone who looks just good enough that we can photoshop a huge pair of tits on her. We're going to take it in turns to take her to dinner and try to bed her before filming starts.' Hello people? There is enough sexism to deal with in Hollywood without worrying what IMDB rating Ghostbusters got and why.. Treat the disease, not the symptoms.

Well we seem to be devolving into miscommunication, so let's all be clear! bareboards2, I was not singling you out at all. In fact, you have by and large been the image of civility, so much so that I picture you with a monocle while writing your missives to us.

I too think that MonkeySpank (god help us all) seems to have the most historical and accurate interpretation of the situation; one does not traumatize a people, be they Jews or African Americans for decades and decades and decades and then expect them to up and happily integrate. There's a reckoning that has to happen, and I am sorry if your lilly white ass didn't personally own slaves, you were born into a societal architecture created by those who did and you can't pretend the playing field is level. You can stare at your voting right's act, you can belly ache about how Ashley with her 3.5 didn't get into U State university while a minority did, but it doesn't change the fact that that there's a lot of redress to be done, and it'll take a LONG time to remedy. We have some signs of improvement, with prominent African American politicians and intellectuals taking the stage and garnering universal respect, but that's the tip of the iceberg, and we have a LONG way to go.

Both. They must interpret the meaning/definition of the law before they can interpret whether actions are in compliance.
No, that IS judicial scope. It's what those that lose call 'judicial activism', but you never hear a winner call it that.
Judges interpret the words AND the meaning of laws. They often 'read between the lines' to determine what they think was intended, not just what was specifically written. That's not new or out of line, it's how it's always worked.
True, it creates a minefield of interpretation of written laws that may not completely jibe with the exact verbiage in the written laws, but they are documented in the decisions.
No, I'm not forgetting those laws, I'm disputing your statement that "Again, it's a matter of what people are willing to enforce.....If everyone is on board with twisting the rules, then that's the norm." Populist feelings do NOT effect the law, only legislation and interpretation do.
Until recently, there was nothing to show that the 2nd amendment addressed individuals. That's why Washington DC had a complete hand gun ban, and that case is what changed the meaning to include individuals instead of simply regulated militias.
Eminent is a word I might use to say 1) conspicuous or 2)prominent (especially in standing above others in some quality or position). I think the latter is how it's used in this case, not the former. EDIT: I expect most people confuse it with the word "Imminent".
My mother is a professional editor, so I admit I'm more familiar with odd words than many people. (Most people didn't have to read the dictionary or encyclopedia while they sat in a corner for being bad as a child). I think if you ask the populace about many legal terms, or really any >3 syllable word, most people won't know the actual definitions.

The supreme court is in a position to interpret the law because that's how our system works.
The Judicial's role is to INTERPRET the law that congress writes.
Due process is followed. You mean if strict, literal interpretation with no thought were the rule. It's not though.
Yes, the judicial interprets the legislature....so their interpretation may differ from the specific words in a law.
No, it's a matter of what the courts say is enforceable. Our system does not change laws because some, even most people disagree with the law. Just look at gun laws if you think differently. The people are willing to enforce more background checks and willing to bar anyone on the watch list, the legislature isn't. Enough of everyone is 'on board with twisting the rules', but they can't because the courts say they can't.
Really? You think people won't panic if you yell "fire" in a crowded room. OK, make sure you NEVER stand between me and a door then.

Um...yeah...you just keep thinking that "well regulated" has nothing to do with being regulated. I disagree.

I don't understand your point about eminent domain....Full Definition of eminent. 1 : standing out so as to be readily perceived or noted : conspicuous. 2 : jutting out : projecting. 3 : exhibiting eminence especially in standing above others in some quality or position : prominent.

Sounds the same to me.
-Newt

@newtboy

And yeah. I'll blame independents and moderate Republicans and Democrats who don't vote in November if Trump wins.

That will be on your heads. If you don't vote or vote for a third party and Trump wins.

Because Trump will be a disaster for the world and this country.

As one prominent solidly conservative R has said about his decision to vote for Hillary -- our republic will survive her presidency. It probably won't survive a Trump presidency.

And if moderate Rs vote Trump and Dems stay home and independents vote third party because they haven't been sufficient woo'd...

Yeah. I will blame all of you.

Holy goddamn this is what youtube is starting to feel like. Not all of it, just the most prominent/promoted parts. Attractive, hyperactive (post-)millennials speaking eloquently about some incredibly forced, made up situation, and it's heavily monetized and intended to build personal brand.

Half of this video was her talking about a problem that doesn't exist for real people and the rest was advertising for squarespace. Now that Bernie Sanders doesn't look like he'll be allowed to get money out of politics, he should get money out of youtube.

I know this isn't going to change the world (almost certainly), but it moved me a little bit to see that point made on such a prominent stage and so bluntly. If this doesn't happen soon, i don't see how our species can thrive. There is currently so little regard for the consequences of our actions.. and Hilary probably believes what she says, that it never affected her. But subtle changes to priorities here and there add up over the years. As smart as she must be to be a presidential candidate, lobbyists can buy 'experts' to sound convincing and come up with selective ways to show data, or just buy more access to a politician and get more time to put their point across.

i have been watching interviews where prominent comics are refusing to do gigs at universities due to the fact that the PC culture has become so saturated that they can't even do their bits,and it becomes a horror show.

young,educated people who mistake their own little bubble-world and attempt to project their sense of morality onto others by demanding changes in language and attitude by way of shrill harpy speak,is totally missing the point of humor.

comedy is the examination and critique of certain truths we may hold sacred,and expose the absurdity.a good comedian can do this fairly well,a great comedian does so with a finesse that is epic.

see:george carlin.lenny bruce,bill hicks,patrice o'neal,bill burr,louis ck.doug stanhope

so i have to disagree with you @Imagoamin.
comedians who thrive on being edgy are not thriving just for the simple fact of being edgy or controversial.they thrive because they are adept at exposing the absurdity of life in such a way that makes us all laugh.....at ourselves.

they experience pushback constantly in the form of heckling and jeering,and do so on a nightly basis and do not get upset that people get offended by their material.that is the very boundary they are pushing!

self examination,criticism and the ability to accept that maybe those things we held so dear are,in fact,absurd and in need of ridicule.the great comedians all give us a great,totally effective self-cleansing pill.they call it "the get the fuck over yourself" pill.

but the overly sensitive PC culture that is festering in our current higher education institutions is creating a new breed of human that lacks basic self-awareness and,on the whole,a gaggle of humorless cunts.

humor is a concept beyond their ken.they dont get it and instead of relaxing a bit,they prefer to get their panties in a knot over.....words.so they all get together and tweet and facebook,in order to share their outrage and make their little signs and march in front of a chris rock show with absolutely zero sense of irony.

to them they are striking a blow for justice!

which is just absurd,and in desperate need of ridicule.