Nice try at changing the subject btw….still waiting. You ever gonna grow a pair? Not yet!


Hannity absolutely identified the wrong guy, and claimed he’s an illegal…both lies he won’t retract.
Disgustingly, this is nearly exactly what happened when he broadcast the Guardian Angles violently gang attack an innocent bystander because they thought he looked foreign so must have stolen something, then when he turned out to be from Brooklyn and not a thief at all, it’s just forgotten, never retracted. It’s a pattern, one you want continued because you hate truth and honesty and other races.
The right, like you, can’t bring itself to admit mistakes so ends up with stupidity like the big lie and Biden investigation, because reality doesn’t fit your narrative.

I don’t know what narrative you think this doesn’t fit, or why waiting for the right shooter to be identified signifies anything but professionalism. Coulter guessed and was right this once. She’s usually wrong with her racist guesses, you just ignore it when she gets caught being the sleazy nasty lying bitch she is then forget she gets caught out so often.

One person on Goodreads rated all his (your?) books 5 stars. Everyone else who read this one gave it two stars or fewer.

Nobody (other than your 5 star fan) on Goodreads has read the others.

I think the 5 star reviewer is a relative, friend, or the author's sock puppet. Either way it's pretty sleazy, and if you have to go to those lengths to get anyone at all to read your book it can't be very good. So I'll take a hard pass on this one.

No one can confirm her testimony because all that she named refuted it-.. Guess this escapes the logic cells of the leftest brain.

Democrats never contradicted the latest FBI report. There is no there there. So they went with more smear and innuendo.

Conservatives are not spinning emotions, Democrats are. You "have to believer her" On what grounds? No one confirms her story.

Facts are 10 say one thing and Ford say the opposite. ..

Welcome to the new SCOTUS Kavanaugh.

I heard that RBG is disgusted by the Democrat tactics used. Can we say SCOTUS pick #3? Do you think Democrats can pull this sleazy slanderous stunt again?


Democrats are loosing bigly on every issue, Trade, NAFTA, Korea, Paris Climate accord, etc, Most of these are nothing more than major American Job killers and Trump is calling BS for what it is and bring jobs back. 4.2% GDP growth ,, unemployment down to 3.9,% lowest in 39 years.

I do agree, but on the other hand sometimes these things go well beyond legitimate "questions about your actions / statements / plans".

Subject even the most patient person in the world to enough stupid / leading / clickbait-y questions, and eventually they'll get annoyed with it. Which is of course the entire point, so that they can clip that reaction out of context and run it with a headline like "Watch as Senator X flies off the handle after being asked a simple question!"

Some of these incidents are definitely sleazy politicians trying to weasel out of scrutiny to the greatest degree possible. But I'm sure that many of them are the political version of Marshawn Lynch just wanting to do his goddamn job without being constantly peppered with pointless questions from the media. And we all thought he was awesome for showing up to media days and saying only "I'm just here so I don't get fined", right?

Not trying to trivialize the political arena down to the level of a public spectacle like professional sports, but I think the comparison is at least a little valid.

I think it depends on how you define "worse". I believe that Hillary is capable of being the shadowy, sleazy politician that knows the corrupt system, knows how to use/abuse it, and is 100% willing to bend it to her own goals.

Trump is a largely incompetent blowhard. He, like Hillary, says what he thinks he has to say to get the support of his base, and then flip-flops to suit his purposes. He isn't a Washington insider, he doesn't have the network of connections that Hillary does.

If Trump could be another Bush, Hillary could be another Nixon. I'm not convinced that Hillary is the lesser of two evils here.

And that's still working under the assumption that Trump would be as bad as Bush. Bush was bad, but without Dick Cheney and Karl Rove whispering in his ear, maybe he'd have been a merely incompetent president instead of a terrible one. For all the negative things that I think can fairly be said of Trump, I don't think that he's very likely to become someone's sock puppet like Bush.

I'm definitely not sure that Trump would be better than Hillary (for whatever definition of "better" one chooses), but I don't think it is cut and dry to the point of delusion for someone to see either of them as the bigger threat.

Great point at the end by Cranston: "Maybe it's time for a viable 3rd party."

I doubt there has ever been a more golden opportunity for a 3rd party to rise up than right now. Certainly not in living memory.

Half of registered republicans think that Trump is some sort of folk hero in the making. Nearly everybody else thinks that he would be a disaster of near-Biblical proportions. He might get a decent amount of votes from that crowd by people who "just want to watch the world burn", but still. Meanwhile, nearly everybody (including democrats) thinks that Hillary is a sleazy, status-quo politician. Her "supporters" think that she has the best chance of preventing President Trump -- apparently they don't trust polls that show Bernie Sanders being a much more palatable option for everyone, specifically in the sense that he'd easily beat Trump whereas Clinton vs Trump is neck and neck.

Basically, anyone who runs for a third party in this election stands a fantastic chance of doing better than one or both of the presumptive nominees from the two major parties. Jesse Ventura would get a LOT of serious attention in this election. Any other election, probably not so much -- but right now...

I think Cenk is getting a little bit overexcited at around the 5:30 mark, when he thinks that these polls show that America is center-left, as opposed to the long-standing belief of Fox News that America is center-right.

What I think they show is that America is much more radically anti-"sleazy politician" than ever before.

Trump has the biggest portion of the republican side of things, because he is clearly NOT a normal politician, and however you feel about him you must admit that he is not an "establishment" kind of figure. Sleazy? Sure. But not "sleazy politician". Cruz doesn't appeal to the republicans that like Trump, because he is closer to being a "sleazy politician".

On the Democrat side of things, it is a similar picture if you just go by opinion polls rather than delegate count. Hillary is another "sleazy politician". Even among Democrat-leaning respondents, a high percentage of people polled prefer straight-shooter NOT establishment-friendly Sanders to Hillary, precisely because of that. Democrats are tired of sleazy politicians too.

To be fair, the Democrat side is less divided, because a lot (possibly most) of the real pro-Sanders people will hold their nose and vote for Hillary over any of the opposition, if she is the nominee, even though they would (greatly) prefer Sanders.

Trump supporters will *never* vote for Cruz, especially now that Colorado and Wyoming just gave all their delegates to Cruz without even bothering to allow their residents to vote. Cruz doesn't actually *have* any supporters -- the GOP is only trying to persuade Republicans to vote for him so they can deny Trump the delegates needed to lock up the nomination and go to a contested convention -- at which point the GOP will have no further need for Cruz and ditch him like a used condom. The few registered Republicans that want Kasich are very likely to NOT vote for Trump if he is the nominee, and will likely be similarly displeased with whichever asshole the GOP tries to shoehorn in in the event of a contested convention.

So yeah, the Republican side of things is a real clusterfuck. But the likely nomination of Hillary for the Democrats seems like a very big mistake to me, mitigated only slightly by the dog and pony show that is their opposition in the GOP.

Both parties clearly pine for the old days where the party bigwigs gathered in a smoke-filled room and decided who the nominee was going to be.

Sometimes it seems like that system resulted in higher-quality candidates. Or at least candidates who were better able to hide their sleazy politician auras behind a screen of charisma.

But shit like this makes it very clear how and why that system was shady and corrupt.

Unfortunately, I don't think this story will be big enough news to change anything. The likelihood of the GOP going to a contested convention and foisting some candidate on voters that hasn't even been running (Drudge Report suggests Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan are likely choices of the party) is much more likely to cause a big enough splash to change things.

While not exactly admirable, it was her only chance to tell him all that face to sleazy face. So I personally cheer for her.

On the other hand what is the point of telling him all this, I mean does he not know all this about himself already?

He made a fortune on health care (some of it fraud, out of court settlement) and endorses Trump. Sleaze personified.

I know of one or two local politicians I might freak out over like that. And then I can think of many more local politicians who I would heartily disagree with over a beer yet have no reason to freak out ever, because they are respectable people, unlike this dressed up piece of... whatever.

The sad thing is, as an owner of an AMD 7990 (dual GPU) and seeing that most of todays games run horrible with a dual GPU setup because the devs have not taken the time to code for it, my next upgrade I will be forced to go to a single GPU card.

So either way, both companies have a darker side that isn't talked about as much as they should be in reviews.

Example: i7 4.2Ghz, 16GB ram, AMD 7990 GFX card, CoD: AW @ 1920x1080 will drop to 7fps.... IN THE MENU. (and it's not just COD). I've seen multiple new releases run like crap.

Talk to support, they answer is disable crossfire. Why pay for a dual GPU if no new games are supporting them, because their biggest audience runs 1 GPU.

I wish a new company would knock both AMD and nVdia on their ass, and take over with better tech, faster cards, and not be so sleazy. (One can dream)

I was really looking forward to this game, but these last three weeks have been one sleazy decision after another from the developer. Now, if (and that's a BIG if) I ever buy it, it'll be in a bundle or from a bargain bin for $5.

Really...a 13 year old girl...got to be kidding....

Low, sleazy, and slimy...schmarmy, even for ....

...and monumentally clueless besides....

This is unworthy of "private" status.

This is so sleazy, and it's the exact same schtick the Republicans used against Clinton.

1. Manufacture a bunch of half baked scandals.
2. Link them all to the President, whether he was involved or not.
3. Launch them all at the same time so they are hard to respond to.
4. Describe them with minimum detail and maximum hyperbole.
5..Cross your fingers that the public won't scrutinize your claims.
6. Use manufactured outrage to try and boost your corrupt, floundering, obstructionist party in the upcoming elections.

Most of these manufactured scandals have been debunked, or are a lot more nuanced than portrayed by this GOPer, but many will just watch this video and leave it at that.

Meanwhile, unemployment remains high, the infrastructure crumbles, gridlock keeps the congress from fixing the economy,, anonymous corporate cash floods our elections, economic disparity grows, there is still no accountability on Wall Street, the drone program continues to kill innocents and Bradley Manning sits on trial.

This one suspect was not a threat to the entire Boston area, and did not make what amounts to Martial law without the declaration right.

Says you. You have no idea what they knew or didn’t know. How many people would he have to endanger to declare martial law (which they didn’t)? This idiotic logic you choose to use, that 1 man couldn’t possibly be a risk to ¾ million people, completely ignores that he was, as evidenced by his actions up to that point, a danger to some of those ¾ million people. I can’t believe I’m actually defending the cops, but defending the public is exactly what I believe their jobs should be (as opposed to primarily raising revenue by writing tickets), and until I see evidence to the contrary, it appears they did just that with the knowledge of the situation and the suspects that they had at the time, and until you can show different, the warrantless searches seemed reasonable.

If you think being scared is the best reason to give up your rights to privacy and freedom from search and seizure, you don't understand the USA and perhaps should move to one of those other countries that agree with you, there are many.

You don’t have a right to freedom from search and seizure. You have a right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Living in a free country gives you the right to be as ignorant as you wish about the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, but demonstrating that ignorance in a public forum such as this should be embarrassing.

Now, we appear to have a comprehension problem...I said I disagree with those claiming this was some conspiracy or even a compliance test. I did not say, and have not heard anyone else say (besides the suspects father) that this was perpetrated by the government, that's a pretty big jump there. The implication is that the police are using the fear violate people's rights thinking they'll be either be justified in their actions or at least get away with them.

“I have heard some say” is the most common and sleazy way of introducing an idea one has not a lick of evidence for, but wants to wedge into the conversation because it supports, again, a narrative he/she wants to advance. You said it and then only denied you were one who said it. You went on to truss up the notion of “compliance test”, and imply your agreement of it, with “difficult to argue against that idea”, and then revealed your conspiracy nuttery with “so they don't want to (or can't afford) to do this again”. The next paragraph’s lame appeal to patriotism and nationalist dogma betrays an authoritarian worldview. You don’t have a reading comprehension problem. You have a reality comprehension problem.

Sadly they would likely be right, thanks in large part to people like Fletch that don't understand or agree with the freedom from 'search and seizure'.

Unlike you, I understand what the Fourth Amendment says, but I'm pretty sure I also understand what you and your ilk wish it would say. Again (again), you choose to detach “unreasonable” from “search and seizure”, which, I think, demonstrates that even you realize the invalidity of your blustering, and that your primary purpose here is to advance a narrative.

{snipped lots of ridiculous, ignorant horseshit of personal beliefs about police actions and procedures he has no evidence whatsoever to support; read it above if you need a chuckle; #youtubelawyer}

Again, you appear to suggest that the police may enter your home to search for dangerous criminals at any time they choose in the name of safety because they are dangerous criminals and MAY be in your home, they are certainly in the area. That's just plain dumb and shows lack of forethought and lack of understanding of the right to be free from search and seizure, especially in your own home.

I didn’t suggest anything of the sort, although you continue on in your paragraph with the false presumption that I did. I don't even know of anybody who does suggest it. It only seems to exist in your paranoid fantasies. Do you have any point or argument that you didn’t pull out of your ass, or anything that doesn’t rely upon some other bit of info you assumed, presumed, or just fabricated? This isn’t YouTube. You can find support here, but your bullshit will be called, and criticism won’t be muted by the endless scroll of a thousand comments.

If you want to give up your rights because your a coward, move. I hear Australia is nice.

Oy... more authoritarian nuttery. Australia is awesome, btw. Bravest thing their government ever did was pass effective gun control. That we should have such courage…


Edit: Went a leeetle too far

Appears to be explaining Alex Jones's method.

What is sleazy about Beck's message?