My Newt, let me bow down to the Oh Great Sage of the Sift.. OGSOTH..

I stand for neither.

The KKK and the team are NOT on our side. Not on your side either. They stand alone.

But you squarely stand with the alt left. Next time your out protesting, wear your yellow dress so I can pick you out on the YouTube vids. You make your mother proud. Ill be watching.

Believe the bias of the fake news -- keep it up -- You and your ilk are the party of evil and debauchery. These are not American values.


PS: It's ANTIFA, I new you would correct that -- because you are so smug and arrogant....OGSOTH... Where I come from It's short for ANTI First Amendment.

Conservatives can not say a word with out these radicals showing up in masks , (so they don't shame their parents) and clubs .. Can you say Berkley? I bet you only have fond memories-- Bully

Don't kid yourself The left are the radicals of society and bloody its citizens that stand opposed to liberal ideas. Bullies.

https://i.imgur.com/yWmsAT9.jpg


https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5roy7w/fact_antifa_is_an_abbreviation_of_antifirst/

Trump has disavows the KKK and its ilk time and time again.

Trump Disavows Racists Over and Over Again - While Media Says Exactly the Opposite


Newt, you are on the wrong side.. I still have hope for you. Heck I'll event take you out for dinner, as long as you wear you yellow dress.

If you want me in a dress just name it. Anything for you newt. BFF

I didn't finish Myst, just wasn't interested. But Rebel Assault, that was cool as heck back in those days. The Star Wars experience was so immersive even though the controls were simple. C&C was campy fun too. I played each and every Wing Commander, TIE/X-Wing space sim games there were. Descent & Homeworld...

Can you guess I'm a sci-fi fan? X-D

By risk aversion I meant intellectually, not financially. It would be a rarity for Hollywood to give us anything with a deep plot/philosophical in a blockbuster. Heck even a sensical plot to not easy to come by these days.

I don't expect too much in a blockbuster, it's meant to be loud, and fun first & foremost, meant to stimulate the senses more than the brain. A really good plot is an appreciated good bonus, not expectation.

I am glad GitS is doing well. Much more deserving than TF:TLK at least IMO.

Though there are plenty of things in the book that werent from the 80s themselves. Mechagodzilla is from the mid 70s. Ultraman is from the 60s. Heck Monty Python and the search for the holy grail was in the mid 70s, but it really didnt take up till the 80s. Even lepordon was from the late 70s.

The oasis had mentions of World of warcraft and stuff from Firefly. Im pretty sure Halliday would have liked the Iron Giant, the 50s or the 90s version.

From what i hear, they couldnt get the rights to the Monty python bit. So they had to fill that part with something else, possibly the race. And they probably couldnt get the rights to war games either. The movie is gonna be a whole hell of a lot different than the book, but the general premise of the plot should still be the same

I'm sure the pilots were getting a chuckle out of it too. Heck, maybe they were taking their own video from the cockpit. Hmm...

I understand the criticism; I use (am forced/ am a grateful software platform slave to Windows boxes) at work...

But...to be fair...Apple figured out how to create a handheld/phone way the heck better than Microsoft did...at least for the last decade.

I'm still at a loss on why he's waiting for a ride? Disconnect the tractor from the equipment, drive the tractor back... Heck, I'd think even once the PTO shaft was disconnected, he'd still be able to tow the equipment back using the tractor.

EDIT: Of course, I'd guess it would take a few tools to disconnect the equipment so it could drive back, or tow... so perhaps that's what he's waiting for, tools, not really just a ride, and then tow the tractor and equipment back...

I had a deuce of time understanding the title. The city is racing a rock? Someone named Monaco is racing a rock? How the heck does ANYONE race a rock?

Sigh.

I've gone to church for a few years. And I see no women staying silent, nor any man telling them to. I really don't care about "tradition" and would voice serious concern if these type of crap happens in the modern church. Believe me, my church sisters takes no crap from the brothers. And I don't really see much old-school practices except communion, and that's not far-out unacceptable a tradition considering its purpose.

I (or at least hope to) continuously carry a critical eye & mind on these social-issue things as in many others at the church. Church "doctrine/tradition" is no excuse to justify bad social/inequality/bigotry behavior. For me, discussion on why the heck Paul wrote these words is fine, it's good to find faults how those people who lived 2000 years ago and evolve the modern church practices to align better with Jesus' intention.
Overall, in my church, I think most people are pretty grounded in real-life struggles... but hey, I fully understand these are subjective opinions... we all have our blindspots. I think we're all better man/woman if we can take in criticisms.

I can't for the life of me understand the U.S. "Christian Right" (but I'm Canadian, so I'm just a passive observer, as I can't vote on US politics) nor, from my understanding of Him, Jesus (as a preacher of love & peace) could be a far/alt-right-winger. But oh, sorry, I don't mean to talk politics... just hope to convey from which side of the discussion I come from.

It's foolish (and arrogant) to take the Bible literally... so much contradictions, inconsistencies, if read this way. And really, I keep thinking - WHY LITERALLY? - I don't dare listen to my pastors and think their words MUST be what God/Jesus meant. Martin Luther's movement freed us from those chains of mindlessness from the church preachers' power over us.

Akways look to the intention of Jesus, which for me, is honestly good, relevant and much in demand, and do those as the Christian mission. The Bible can be confusing, but the message is crystal clear. And that's love & compassion towards our neighbors, go a preach THAT! Not hate/fear-filled "damn this, damn that"/"End of the World is nigh"-type rhetorics.

Seriously man, looking from a distance (again, Canadian here) those loud-voice Christian Rights in the States scare the hell out of me and most of my brothers & sisters, the general thought around me is that they've move way far out from the Christian's way that Jesus want us to be (that I know of)... makes me so sad.

The thing I don't understand about those who are attempting to starve Planned Parenthood is -- if they care so much for reducing abortions, why the holy heck don't they promote birth control?

It is insanity.

And---why the heck would you stop?? You can't outrun a bear; and you can't out climb it. You might JUST be able to stay in front of it downhill on a mountain bike.

4 weeks in and you have thrown in the towel on this man.
3 years and 11 months ago.


Give him time a fair shake. Heck not all his secretaries have passed.

HE is not emperor just a president.

He need House and Senate to form and move forward legislation.

@bcglorf
i feel i have to ask you a question,and i feel quite foolish for not thinking of asking it before.

i do not ask this snidely,or with any disrespect.

are you a neo-conservative?

because this "If he was on America soil, I'd agree with you. If he was living in a European apartment, I'd agree with you. Heck, if he was living in Russia I'd agree with you."

is almost verbatim the counter argument that was published,ad nauseum,in the weekly standard.which is a neo-conservative publication.edited by bill-the bloody-kristol.

and it would also explain why we sometimes just simply cannot agree on some issues.

ok,let's unpack your comment above that quoted.i won;t address the rest of your comment,not because i find it unworthy,it is simply a reiteration of your original argument,which we have addressed already.

so...
you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.

ok,i disagree,but the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012 actually agree with you and give the president cover to deem an american citizen an "enemy combatant".however,the region where this "enemy combatant" is not the deciding factor,though many have tried to make a different case,the simple fact is that the president CAN deem you an "enemy combatant' and CAN order your assassination by drone,or seal team or any military outlet,or spec-ops...regardless of where you are at that moment.

now you attempt to justify this order of death by "The reality is he was supporting mass killing from within a lawless part of the world were no police or courts would touch him. He was living were the only force capable of serving any manner of arrest warrant was military."

if THIS were a true statement,and the ONLY avenue left was for a drone strike.then how do you explain how this man was able to:foment dissent,organize in such a large capacity to incite others to violence and co-ordinate on such an impressive scale?

anwars al awlaki went to yemen to find refuge..yes,this is true.
but a btter qustion is:was the yemeni government being unreasonable and un-co-operative to a point where legal extradition was no longer a viable option?

well,when we look at what the state department was attempting to do and the yemeni response,which was simply:provide evidence that anwars al awlaki has perpetrated a terrorist attack,and we will release him.it is not like they,and the US government,didn't know where he lived.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.

and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

in fact,some people forget that in the days after 9/11 osama actually denied having anything to do with 9/11,though he praised the act.

so here we have the US on one hand.with the largest military on the planet,the largest and most encompassing surveillance system.so vast the stasi would be green with envy.a country whose military and intelligence apparatus is so massive and vast that we pay other countries to house black sites.so when t he president states "america does not torture",he is not lying,we pay OTHER people to torture.

so when i see the counter argument that the US simply cannot adhere to international laws,nevermind their OWN laws,because they cannot "get" their guy.

is bullshit.

it's not that they cannot "find" nor "get" their target.the simple fact is that a sovereign nation has decided to disobey it's master and defy the US.so the US defies international treaties and laws and simply sends in a drone and missiles that fucker down.

mission accomplished.

but lets ask another question.
when do you stop being an american citizen?
at what point do you lose all rights as a citizen?
do we use cell phone coverage as a metric?
the obedience of the country in question?

i am just being a smart ass right now,because the point is moot.
the president can deem me an "enemy combatant" and if he so chose,send a drone to target my house,and he would have the legal protection to have done so.

and considering just how critical i am,and have been,of bush,obama and both the republican and democrats.

it would not be a hard job for the US state department and department of justice to make a case that i was a hardline radical dissident,who was inciting violence and stirring up hatred in people towards the US government,and even though i have never engaged in terrorism,nor engaged in violence against the state.

all they would need to do is link me with ONE person who did happen to perpetrate violence and slap the blame on me.

i wonder if that would be the point where you might..maybe..begin to question the validity of stripping an american citizen of their rights,and outright have them executed.

because that is what is on the line right now.
and i am sorry but "he spoke nasty things about us,and some of those terrorists listened to him,and he praised violence against us".

the argument might as well be:enoch hurt our feelings.

tell ya what.
let's use the same metric that you are using:
that awlaki incited violence and there were deaths directly due to his words.

in 2008 jim david akinsson walked into a unitarian church in tennesee and shot and killed two people,and wounded seven others.

akinsson was ex military and had a rabid hatred of liberals,democrats and homosexuals.

he also happened to own every book by sean hannity,and was an avid watcher of FOX news.akinsson claimed that hannity and his show had convinced him that thsoe dirty liberals were ruining his country,and he targeted the unitarian church because it "was against god".

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

because,again using YOUR logic,yes..yes we do.

i am trying my best to get you to reconsider your position,because..in my opinion...on an elementary moral scale..to strip someone of their rights due to words,praise and/or support..and then to have them executed without due process,or have at least the ability to defend themselves.

is wrong.

i realize i am simply making the same argument,but using different examples.which is why i asked,sincerely,if you were a neo-conservative.

because they believe strongly that the power and authority of the american empire is absolute.they are of the mind that "might makes right",and that they have a legal,and moral,obligation to expand americas interest,be it financial or industrial,and to use the worlds largest military in order to achieve those goals.they also are of the belief that the best defense is the best offense,and to protect the empire by any means necessary.(usually military).

which is pretty reflective of our conversations,and indicative of where our disagreements lie.

i dunno,but i suspect that i have not,nor will i,change your position on this matter.

but i tried dude...i really did try.

If he was on America soil, I'd agree with you. If he was living in a European apartment, I'd agree with you. Heck, if he was living in Russia I'd agree with you.

The reality is he was supporting mass killing from within a lawless part of the world were no police or courts would touch him. He was living were the only force capable of serving any manner of arrest warrant was military.

And yes, he was supporting those mass killings. We know now that he was running a charity funnelling money to terrorists even before 9/11. We know that not 1, but 3 of the 9/11 hijackers attended his sermons, even spanning two different mosques. One of those being the same mosque he met with the Fort Hood shooter. It's not exactly rocket science to put together that his 'work' with the CIA, FBI and any other organisation opposing terror wasn't honest or open from the very start. It's pretty clear his jihadists teachings came first, not after.

As you say, anywhere within the reach of the law; courts, arrest warrants and due process all protect the public well enough.

Back the original CNN clip, I dare say I must at least insist that it's not disingenuous to point to Anwar as an example of terrorism on American soil by Yemeni dual citizen.

And after all that, Trumps order is still stupid. Just because you can find such examples doesn't count as me supporting his order. I just don't see what the need is to deny facts just because Trumps order doesn't look bad enough without trying to deny reality to make it even more worthless.

Heck yes