So i had to find what that's all about... https://tenor.com/view/arrival-alien-kid-backwards-knees-gif-11231207

As usual, you have it all wrong.
The left wanted Comey fired for making false statements designed both in tenor and timing to harm Clinton's chances.
They are up in arms because it's blatantly obvious that Trump didn't fire him for his statements last June or July, they thought him their hero in November and said so clearly right up until yesterday when he moved to expand the investigation into Trump's campaign. If he was going to be fired for his actions last summer, that would have happened in January, not yesterday.
Trump IS under investigation. First, the only evidence he isn't under investigation is Trump's unsolicited self serving claim that he said that, second, do you think the investigator tells the target they're being investigated? Not unless they are colluding, like the house committee did.

The FBI and house committee both said there is clear, undeniable evidence, but it's classified so far. Trump could fix that today, but he won't, he's too busy having closed door meetings with the very Russian diplomats he's accused of colluding with. (Edit:and they just released in house photos of the meeting, no press was allowed, showing smiling and laughing Trump and the diplomats arm in arm clearly having a great time, a pretty stark contrast to his meetings with allied presidents and diplomats that were often decidedly unfriendly and standoffish) That's not snark, it's fact.

If the investigations were a witch hunt, Trump would want them publicly investigated thoroughly so the evidence would prove it....not stymie them at every opportunity and repeatedly fire the investigators while clearly being caught lying about the investigation and why he fired them all when he did.

my comment was pointed directly at the government,corporations do not create laws.

since you acknowledge the perversion of the rule of law i can only assume you are referring to an idealized memory of said rule,which no longer exists in reality.

so when i read your answer to the question "which side are you on"? it comes across as "the idealized version from beginning of our country".
which,according to your own commentary is pure fiction...it has been perverted.

i actually agree with the tenor and flavor of your comment,i just dont understand choosing a fantasy side when this video draws a pretty clear line in the sand.

this video really touches me for that very reason.incredibly powerful,yet simple message.i love how dolan uses depression era union organizing folk music to accompany his ridicule and disdain for the fake and ineffectual person who thinks wearing a t-shirt or colored ribbon is somehow helping the plight of the common man.that it is time to choose sides.

my jesus reference was not intended to shock or offend,but rather point out a hypocrisy i am encountering daily,and with increasing frequency.jesus walked with the oppressed,the disenfranchised and the abandoned.his ministries were directed at these pockets of humanity.he was an insurrectionist,a radical and a dissident.he was always on the side of the powerless.

so how i look at it,to choose the "other" side is to choose an ever-increasing authoritarian powered elite that is systematically stripping you of the very ideals you propose to support.the very power structure that robs and steals your grandkids future,commodifies human beings and criminalizes the poor.

or a more apt analogy:you have chosen the plantation owner and the slave master.

which is why my reaction is a visceral one.

my faith has always dictated my politics,and i cannot,in good conscious,choose a side that seeks to crush my fellow man for its own continued:greed,luxury,social status,political influence and social relevance.

the price they demand is too high.
it is time to choose sides.

as for being vulgar piece of trash..yeah..i dont see it.
maybe the music is not your thing or the video production value is low,but "vulgar piece of trash"?

sorry man..just dont see how this music video can be placed in that category.

This video seemed to be searching for sympathy and understanding for the poor abusive cops. Of course it makes a claim that they all took the job altruistically to help people but dealing with the public made them all turn into violent criminal dickheads that hate all non-cops. (not) If that were the case, why do other professions with more, worse contact with the public and no authority, training, equipment, or 'legal rights' (or more often the ability to get away with illegal inappropriate activity) to do anything about it not have similar instances of outrageous inappropriate violent conduct...or the rest of their profession creating a (pick your color) wall around them to protect the 'bad apples' in the profession rather than get rid of them. If 'unpleasant contact' with the public was an excuse for poor behavior, why do we not have people attacked at the DMV daily?
I have 2 things to say about that. First, if some unpleasant contact is going to make you paint all the public in the same 'criminal/opponent' light, you are not the right kind of person to be a cop. Second, if unpleasant contact IS making you feel the public is against you, CREATE some POSITIVE contact with the public. As the 'authority', it's up to YOU to create and control the tenor of your contacts and conduct. (you yourself, @lantern53 have repeatedly said it comes from 'above', like the chief) That goes for each contact, the 'authority' is in control, and is responsible for the tone of the contact.

Cops don't have the worst position dealing with the public on average (but on rare occasions may have the worst dealings). Cops don't have the most dangerous job by a long shot. The thing that most separates cops from other professions is their ability to get away with their illegal bad behaviors. That should change, a non-police group (like a grand jury) should investigate each and every use of force and prosecute any that are even questionable (if you did nothing wrong, fight it in court, your words, right? What's good for the goose....). That would stop most use of force (as it no longer lets them hide it from prosecution, and even legal force would no longer be a 'time saver' since it would put them under time wasting suspicion at least, indictment at best).

My dad plays the trombone, and yet somehow I thought that there were only tenor and bass 'bones. So, it was fun to watch half of the bass section switch over to the huge ones that I guess must be the contrabasses.

I suppose it requires a beefier set of lungs to play the contra?

To be fair, you do NOT want to know what the Tenor is saying in cow.

Your video, Postmodern Jukebox - Get Lucky (Irish Tenor Version), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Half a tenor.

they need a baritone.
Or at least a tenor

nice performance.

That tenor has a pretty impressive high range without sounding falsetto. Then I I heard the interview at the end and figured out that he ... uh ... has lots of high voice practice.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. And it definitely makes for a good tenor in the group. The rest of them sound good too.

The bari player tried taking it to the bridge and the tenor player didn't follow because he was too busy play some "Chris Potter shit."

>> ^Sagemind:
14 octave range? - Hardly. In fact she didn't hit any of the high notes in the song at all.
And there is no way her voice could hit the lower octaves.
Roy Orbison had a 3-4 octave range and was considered one of the best. I have no idea where the claim she can hit14 octaves - That's absurd
Soprano: C4 – C6
Mezzo-soprano: A3 – A5
Contralto: F3 – F5
Tenor: C3 – C5
Baritone: F2 – F4
Bass: E2 – E4
When you have an octave that means that the two notes are exactly 8 notes apart, hence the "oct" part in the word. This means that the octave of D is D. You count 8 notes from the starting note. i.e.
D, E, F, G, A, B, C, D= 8 notes all together
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Orbison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocal_range
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080214233219AAvJ05T


I think a description revision might be necessary. Thanks for the input on this!

14 octave range? - Hardly. In fact she didn't hit any of the high notes in the song at all.
And there is no way her voice could hit the lower octaves.

Roy Orbison had a 3-4 octave range and was considered one of the best. I have no idea where the claim she can hit14 octaves - That's absurd

* Soprano: C4 – C6
* Mezzo-soprano: A3 – A5
* Contralto: F3 – F5
* Tenor: C3 – C5
* Baritone: F2 – F4
* Bass: E2 – E4

When you have an octave that means that the two notes are exactly 8 notes apart, hence the "oct" part in the word. This means that the octave of D is D. You count 8 notes from the starting note. i.e.

D, E, F, G, A, B, C, D= 8 notes all together

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Orbison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocal_range
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080214233219AAvJ05T

The first video features a white woman in a crowd of white people. She singles out a lone black woman and then proceeds to bully and berate her. She makes it clear that these attacks are done in the name of her country and the white race, which is a cruel way to insinuate that she has the approval of the rest of her countrymen and fellow white people on that tram.

>>> That's a pretty bold assumption on your part. You believe she thought the orwellian serfs would back her up somehow? She is surrounded by Black people on that train--including one that could choke her or cut her throat from behind--and for good measure, there's a woman wearing a burqa in the background. It is more likely she had some mental disability, putting her kid in danger.

Thankfully someone stepped in and called this woman's bluff, which served to change the tenor of this exchange from a tense game of intimidation to a lone racist babbling nut.

The guy in the second video BEGINS his exchange as a lone racists babbling nut. He is a single black man in a crowd of white people.

He shouts out terrible things that he obviously has no intention or ability to carry out. No one takes him seriously. There is no bullying and no tension. People are laughing at him.

>>> Watch it again. There are other Black people on the train. And the nut's targets are not laughing. At all.

>>> Once again, you're making assumptions of questionable merit. First, you can't tell the level of someone's combat experience merely by sight, and if he's truly crazy he'll be immensely strong. Second, he's holding a glass bottle. He could've just as easily struck the woman to his left, with or without breaking the bottle first.

>>> Trying to summon up stormfront as a scary demon is laughable. Compare their ranks, which I assume aren't close to a few thousand, to the budgets and memberships of the NAACP, ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Center.

You may believe you're "calling me out" and that's fine, you have every right to speak up. Individuals and group behaviors we can debate all day. However, the elephant in the room, with his buttocks spread across both videos, is the fact the French nutball was not condemned--by anyone--for his antics and there were no police looking for him after the fact.

You can be against intolerance or indifferent to it, but not selectively intolerant.












>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Let me break this down.
The first video features a white woman in a crowd of white people. She singles out a lone black woman and then proceeds to bully and berate her. She makes it clear that these attacks are done in the name of her country and the white race, which is a cruel way to insinuate that she has the approval of the rest of her countrymen and fellow white people on that tram. Thankfully someone stepped in and called this woman's bluff, which served to change the tenor of this exchange from a tense game of intimidation to a lone racist babbling nut.
The guy in the second video BEGINS his exchange as a lone racists babbling nut. He is a single black man in a crowd of white people. He shouts out terrible things that he obviously has no intention or ability to carry out. No one takes him seriously. There is no bullying and no tension. People are laughing at him.
Context matters. If I say 'I'm going to kill you' in a dark alley with a gun pointed to your head, it means something very different than if I say it after you accidentally spill coffee on my new shirt.
The above video has been bouncing around the hate cesspools of the internet - like Stormfront - in an attempt to show parity between these two very different events; parity between an empowered bully and a powerless fool.
Now you could have framed this as 'hey look at this crazy drunk racist guy, what an idiot' and you would have had no problems, but that's not how you chose to frame it, and as a result, this post didn't go that well for you. I'd rather not have to call you out like this. It's obviously upsetting to you. But when racial issues that resonate with the Stormfront crowd also resonate with you, you might have problems. Sort yourself out.