20 minutes of answers and this is what the argument is about? WTaF?

This is either very stupid, very clever or both. There is nothing in the sound file that would suggest a "t" was pronounced at the end of that word. But the way Biden speaks, it would not be noticeable if he had said what he is accused of. When he says "look a(t) my record" the "t" is also not prominent.

Biden, when he misspeaks, usually corrects himself. He does make mistakes, and he does correct them - less/fewer, wind/windmills and so on. Come on man.

WAS!?! What do you mean WAS?
Did something happen to Don today I haven't heard about?! (Hope, hope, hope)
If so, I guess we'll have to make due with president Panza until next fall....if the unopposed windmills don't kill us all in the interim of course....although I would certainly prefer president Rocinante.

Your video, Trump Rambles About "Oringes" and Windmills: A Closer Look, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Yes, this is Gilliam's windmill. The story's changed a few times from his original idea, but he hasn't given up in his quest.

Of course, now that it's in the can one of the old producers is claiming he holds the rights and is blocking the release, but every story needs a dramatic climax... let's just hope Terry survives it.

*related https://videosift.com/video/Terry-Gilliams-Cursed-Don-Quixote-Movie-Lost-in-La-Mancha

Headbanging and a windmill? This birds clearly a metalhead!

These use wind-drag to generate movement. So the scoop is grabbing the wind, while the backside of the opposing panel is letting more wind slip by. The opposing panel is still receiving some of the force of the wind, so it will help govern the speed.

The big windmill types most people are familiar with use an aerofoil, so it's actually the wind generating lift on one side which is turned into rotational force. Since there is no opposing drag created in the design they will get into over speed conditions.

City's breaking down on a camel's back
They just have to go 'cause they don't know whack
So all you fill the streets it's appealing to see
You won't get out the county, 'cause you're bad and free
You've got a new horizon It's ephemeral style
A melancholy town where we never smile
And all I want to hear is the message beep
My dreams, they've got to kiss, because I don't get sleep, no

Windmill, Windmill for the land
Learn forever hand in hand
Take it all in on your stride
It is stinking, falling down
Love forever love is free
Let's turn forever you and me
Windmill, windmill for the land
Is everybody in?

Laughing gas these hazmats, fast cats
Lining them up-a like ass cracks
Ladies, homies, at the track
It's my chocolate attack
Shit, I'm stepping in the heart of this here
Care bear bumping in the heart of this here
Watch me as I gravitate, ha ha ha
Yo, we gonna go ghost town
This Motown, with yo sound
You're in the place
You gonna bite the dust
Can't fight with us
With yo sound, you kill the INC
So don't stop, get it, get it
Until you're cheddar header
Yo, watch the way I navigate, ha ha ha

Windmill, windmill for the land
Turn forever hand in hand
Take it all in on your stride
It is stinking, falling down
Love forever love is free
Let's turn forever you and me
Windmill, windmill for the land
Is everybody in?

No, your point doesn't stand.

I didn't defend Syntax's comment. I pointed out that you had provided no evidence that Trump had committed any crimes, and that Clinton and he are both innocent until proven guilty. If I was defending anyone, it was Clinton.

These aren't red herrings. Unless pointing out an error is a red herring.

I understand your points perfectly well, they're just wrong.

"sesquipedalianly". Nice word, I had to look that up. For that you win word of the week and ironic phrase of the week all in one.

Do you mean insensitive or slow (in regards to obtuse)? Context is always nice. I admit to being insensitive. But if your attempt was to call me slow I'll have a dozen other people laugh at you on the way out.

The only person battling windmills in this context is you. Fighting against simple corrections. Why? Because you hate Trump? I don't hate or like him or Clinton. But I'll correct other people's dogmatic bullshit against him or Clinton every time I get the opportunity to.

My mistake. I conflated Syntax's comment with your defense of it, but the point still stands, just change "you" to "they" in that paragraph.
Beyond that, you simply created red herrings to attack because you don't understand my points but seem too stubborn to admit it and ask for clarification, and you are STILL incredibly naïve, by either definition, and sesquipedalianly obtuse as well.
Enjoy battling those windmills.

Aww shucks, I'm honoured you deigned to comment to me directly rather than out here... /eyeroll

ps. "sook"

To sulk, crack a sad and act like a big fat baby when you don't get your own way.

An Australian slang term used to indicate another person is soft, easily upset, or just a plain pussy.

Somewhat appropriate methinks.

edit: Have included the "private" comment to my profile. Newt, if you think you're so justified surely you don't have to post backdoor snipes at people when they're standing right in front of you... =)

BWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!! Really?!? Too funny.


When you 3-4 repeatedly (intentionally, or from lack of comprehension ability) COMPLETELY misread what I wrote because of your being triggered, yes, it's you.

Tell me when 'Feminism' has worked AGAINST women or FOR men in it's 'sexual equality' mission. You can't. You just whine. 'No no no no no no no....you're wrong'.

Yes, it's you 3-4 who got upset and started misreading from the first post and being insulting because of your failure....it was not 'everyone else in the thread', it was the few who remained in the discussion because they were triggered and/or didn't comprehend.

Well, you completely misunderstood the "bold", and apparently still can't grasp the concept even after being corrected about the meaning, so, yeah, reading comprehension, not your strong point........I have been tested, and I read and comprehend better than 99% of Americans. Again, how did YOU score? EDIT:...or is it my fault for writing at above an 8th grade level?


This ridiculous BS with you triggered 'feminists' is SOOO not worth my completely worthless time. There's absolutely no point conversing with someone who simply can't comprehend something they think they disagree with, or who misreads over and over and fights phantom red herrings like Don Quixote with a windmill.

Thank you, come again.

PS OK, I'll go back and downvote, since you decided to call me a "little sook", whatever the hell that is (it's not English), I'm pretty certain it's MEANT to be an insult....so you're wish is my command, downvoteing the ad hom.

Oh yeah, I'm not a feminist. /grin

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I know you want this person banned, but it's not going to happen for now. Maybe I've even had private words with this person on the matter, but that's my job, and ... as angry as you might feel - my only counsel is to say that things are rarely black and white - and human behaviour is complex.

If this is one of those things that you just can't accept, perhaps it's time to take a break. I can understand that.

I'll keep tilting and windmills and enjoying the occasional sycophantic up vote.

Seriously? That's your response? Some people agree with bob so it's ok to post racist shit? Allow me to post child porn then, allow me to post some WBC "god hates fags" shit. Some people agree with that shit, so by that logic, it must be allowed. Your guidelines say don't post racist stuff, but I must have missed the part that said "unless some people agree with it, then it's ok"

You're worried about group think? on the internet???? HAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHA! You're tilting against windmills on that one because you're a little late to the party, dag. Besides, if racism not being tolerated is group think, then sign me up! EVERY site...EVERY SITE leans a certain way, dictated by the particular community (even a dying community like ours). If this nonsense of "some people agree with it" exemption is your new excuse, then you're no better than CNN or other media outlets, who allow all sorts preposterous shit to air, because they're trying to pretend to be 50/50 on every issue, and don't debunk things that they know are incorrect...because hey..some people believe it, so it's ok. Or is it just to feed the controversy and get more clicks? Cuz that's another thing the press does. They don't care about reality, they just want that sweet ad revenue.

I don't get what the problem is, you've banned people for racist stuff before, why is it so difficult now? These are your own rules dag. When are you going to enforce them? If you're not going to enforce them, then take those rules down. If you're not going to do that, then you might as well shut this site down, or just revel in the apathy that surrounds this site and enjoy your sycophantic upvotes?

You've got ample evidence, you've got a slew of clearly racist videos, you've got him abusing the ignore system in regards to @newtboy, and all you have to do is look at his comment history to see more reasons to get him out of here.

Do your job!

I'm no monarchist. But you're tilting at windmills. The symbolism you speak of is dead, because everyone knows how ridiculous they are. The government treats them with disdain and are always cleaning up after one of them goes gobbing off. The constitutional veto that the Queen nominally has, for example, would be impossible for her to exercise.

The British tourism industry is based almost entirely on the history of the Royal family and the USP is that we still have one - they're not just figures from history, we have, as Mr Stanhope points out, the genuine article still in residence. It's a zoo.

Meh, looks kind of cool, but windmills next to a 200 ft wall imply that the creators really didn't think things through.