Official ethics complaints filed, lawsuits definitely incoming.
Felony charges in the works in two states and if just one person under 16 was sent her fundraising email, federal felony sex crime charges for sending sexually explicit images to minors!! 😂

MAGA is now a child sex offender, every one of you that reposted this…and especially you. Again, don’t be surprised if you have a knock on your door and a LONG vacation. What you did by reposting the revenge porn in a public forum where children are present is also a felony. Hunter may decide to charge everyone who reposted this and ask not for 3x5 years in prison, just a $10-20000 fine for each instance…from what, probably 20x30 million MAGgots…he’s finally going to be the billionaire you claim he is and then some with $200 billion MAGA dollars!!

Nice self criminalization for jealousy. Hunter was a hung party machine banging hot chicks and waiving guns….he’s the sigma male you look up to. If he were MAGA, you know you would be so excited you finally had a real man in the party not another whining theta male crying how everyone is unfair to him. 😂

I hear there’s an opening at jelly camp…if you’re good maybe we’ll send you. It’s clear you need it. 😂

The vote to release it passed. Its coming out.

FBI Director Christopher Wray reads the memo Sunday and Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe ask not to come back to work..Memo is coming out .

McCabe did NOT step down voluntarily, he was REMOVED!

This is only the beginning.

Not Bullshit .

Scandal at highest level.
Many more to fall.

Justice takes time.

They can, because all this reporting, is fake news. All of it. He says it is. Fox says it is. Their church tells them it is. So all this bad stuff about Trump is just a libtard media feeding a bunch of brain dead idiots who believe this stuff.

Now of course all of who actually know how to vet information and the like, know that the opposite is true and that we are in a scary situation, unlike we've ever seen before. The barest hint of this sort of stuff was enough for them to shout "lock her up" about Hillary, but here they are just "fake news!" and continue to believe he's one of the greatest Presidents ever.

It's like they don't get any of it. It isn't firing Comey was bad, it was the timing. Had he waited until after the investigation was over, then it would have been fine, if not great.

Yes, he's allowed to reveal any classified information he wants, though he did complain, during his campaign, about how we can't have somebody in the Whitehouse who can't keep a secret... It's the fact that this goes to the Russians, an enemy of the state at the moment, and the day after he fires Comey, and the fact we were asked not to give up this information, and even our closest allies didn't have it... but it's okay, because he says it is okay and Fox says it is okay, and those are the only truth out there, CNN, and all the major networks are lying and manipulating us according to those on the right.

I'm willing to let the Comey memo go, until it is proven to be true or not, as right now it is more speculation than else, but if it is true, and the Republican Congress refuses to act against Trump for Obstruction of Justice charges... sadly, that bit of news didn't slip until after they recorded this episode.

Well if you hate your country then try and fix it.
I love mine, and I hate some of the problems we got, but I'd never go anywhere else. If enemies try to attack us, then don't whine when we retaliate. And yes we've had a technical coup de tat during Roosevelt era, he ignored the standard 2 terms and stayed in 4 terms, 16 years instead of 8. It was after him that a new amendment was formed to force the 2 term limitation as before it was a honored tradition only stated verbally by George Washington, and kept until Roosevelt, then a law had to be made to stop it from happening again. Since he abused it.

become a hactivist, if you don't want to take up arms. learn sql injection, xss attacks, and use wikileaks to expose things and force changes. Or if the majority is fed up then the people have the right to coup de tat.

If you don't like how Americans on a whole do things, then in your router block the American CIDR. Go to Arin.net and you can easily firewall the entire country so you'll never see another Amercan based website again.

While I may dislike certain policies or even hate my president and disagree with occasional supreme court ruling. There's 3 things I'd have zero problems dying for. First I'd die for my son, I'd die to defend myself and my home, and I'd die for my country.
The American dream can never be destroyed, no matter how retarded and uneducated the 'political correct' mongs try, or any whining, or anything at all, will never change the American way of life.

I'll let a few founding fathers' quotes explain the ferocity of the "American way of life". I would never want to live anywhere else.

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation on Earth."
- James Madison

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom... go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels nor arms. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams; 1776


and in response to people like you who attack what we say/do/etc for not being "political correct" or whatever made up phobia they want to use this week.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine

Since when is "ask" not a nice word?

Good, so we can agree on the one possible reason for him not being shot could have been racial bias (scrawny white kid). Cool.




As for the rest:

"
- the Civil War wasn't about Slavery..
"

Propaganda is real. Believing everything you're told by a government authority who has the power to control information, and who has a vested interest in drumming up nationalism, is naive. Particularly when that authority's actions so often throughout the history of events in question have not matched their words.

I would only ask you this :
How many of your neighbors today (of any race) do you think would willingly die _for you_, a stranger to them, for _any_ reason?
How many white people do you think would have died _for you_ back then? (I use "for you" because you earlier indicated that you are black, so the question is meant to be answered not rhetorically, but actually from your perspective)
Does it make sense that the civil war was out of the goodness of white people's hearts, or does it make more sense that white people had a score to settle with one another?
Do you really think that primary schools are telling the absolute unbiased truth about the civil war (particularly given that the north got to dictate the curriculum after victory)?

My point here has nothing to do with any opinions of black people. It is squarely to do with distrust of government as an institution combined with government's history of white washing is own actions after the fact. Don't conflate the two.




"
- that white people are treated just as poorly as black people (sometimes)..

[...]

Like I said before. Fuck off with that..
"Well, cops are mean to ME TOO!!" bullshit.
"

Why would I not assert that [*some*] white individuals are [at times] treated just as poorly [or poorer] as [*some*] black [individuals]? (to be stated precisely).

Your command that I not mention harms done to whites makes it sound like you don't think those harms are worth mentioning. Maybe because you think they are not real or meaningful?

There are plenty of police brutality videos on this site depicting injury and murder of white people at the hands of police.

Do dead white people get to come back to life, because they aren't black, and so their gun shot wounds obviously aren't as bad?

Or those that went to jail for 'assaulting a police officer' after a cop beat the crap out of them, do they get to rewind their lives and get their squandered time [and reputation/job] back, because they aren't black?

Like I said, I agree that black people get fucked with more than white people - but I don't deny the suffering of anyone, and I certainly wouldn't go as far as to assume that 'it's all about me'.

In essence, being targeted more often, is not the same as being the only target.

The general problem I see with LE (that affects everyone), is the government's (police are the executive branch) lack of obedience to the 14th amendment, giving themselves privilege to harm the state (in a republic, citizens are the state) whenever their agents personally whim so.

That's a separate issue from LE officers more often using their privilege on blacks than on whites - which as I stated, is also real issue in and of itself.

Fixing this disregard for the 14th amendment would encompass everyone, so 'we're all in it together' in this regard.





"
- that the ONLY DIFFERENCE between cops arresting a MASS fucking MURDERER WITHOUT INCIDENCE..

And murdering 12 year old Tamir Rice for wielding a BB-GUN!

Is that Rice pointed a "realistic-looking" gun at cops.
"

I never even mentioned anything about this.

Was that the difference? Was it actually that Rice pointed a real looking fake gun at a cop, while this recent white kid didn't?
(I don't actually know)

If that really is the difference, then I guess I can see why the one pointing a gun at the cop would get shot by a cop.
...
Although, I suspect that the black kid never pointed a gun at anyone, and the cop lied about it, and the cop just shot the kid 'just in case' (because that's what cops do when they feel even remotely in danger, because they're trained to be paranoid and afraid of everything, and to place their own safety first and foremost). And I suspect that cops would have liked to do the same in this recent case, but their departments are probably afraid of drawing more negative attention to the police.
But, that's just my suspicion. I wasn't there.




In this recent case, what was the connection between the white kid and the church he attacked? Was it random, or did he pick it for a reason? (actually asking, not some veiled statement)

-scheherazade

I think you mispelled my usersname there.

@newtboy @GenjiKilpatrick.

FTFY

Or did you miss the part where Newt called me a smarmy dick?

I approached this new thread in a calm, polite manner.

Then, when asked not to drag our personal debate into this new thread..

Newtboy proceeded to insult me & cherry-pick a strawman argument.

Two wrongs? Eye-for-an-eye? That's perfectly acceptable now?


This is why the videosift community is a joke.

I said "legally" can't not report it.

This amnesty program is about tax cheats about to be caught. Which isn't the olly olly oxen free deal. That was about corporations working solely on foreign soil.

Although there is an interesting point buried in here....

IF Rmoney in PRIOR YEARS hadn't reported his Swiss earnings, that would show up on prior years' tax returns. 2006-2009 no Swiss earnings, then, boom, amnesty for prior years and the Swiss earnings show up.

I doubt that he would do that, though. His presidential ambitions have been blatant for years. To lie on his tax returns with the possibility of getting caught.... I doubt he would do that.

Of course, Dem Charles Rangel didn't report the rental income from his Jamaican property. Maybe Rmoney would be that stupid.

I doubt it though....



>> ^ObsidianStorm:

Well, I don't claim to be an expert on the topic but from what I have read about the 2009 amnesty program, it appears to apply to individuals with Swiss bank accounts...

From the Oct 2009 LA Times,
"Some 3,000 U.S. residents have voluntarily disclosed their foreign bank accounts to the IRS this year, compared to fewer than 100 in 2008, said one U.S. government official who asked not to be identified.
Demand for the amnesty program exploded in August when Swiss bank UBS agreed to settle U.S. criminal charges that it had engaged in a "multibillion-dollar scheme" to help U.S. taxpayers hide assets from the IRS."

Admittedly this is just speculation and I have no proof that Romney ever did this. But to state the obvious, whatever is in his tax returns is political kryptonite or he would never put up with the beating he's taking (and will continue to take) for this...

Well, I don't claim to be an expert on the topic but from what I have read about the 2009 amnesty program, it appears to apply to individuals with Swiss bank accounts...


From the Oct 2009 LA Times,

"Some 3,000 U.S. residents have voluntarily disclosed their foreign bank accounts to the IRS this year, compared to fewer than 100 in 2008, said one U.S. government official who asked not to be identified.

Demand for the amnesty program exploded in August when Swiss bank UBS agreed to settle U.S. criminal charges that it had engaged in a "multibillion-dollar scheme" to help U.S. taxpayers hide assets from the IRS."


Admittedly this is just speculation and I have no proof that Romney ever did this. But to state the obvious, whatever is in his tax returns is political kryptonite or he would never put up with the beating he's taking (and will continue to take) for this...

Yep, change happened in the Auto Industry:

"As part of the 2009 restructuring of GM, the Obama administration insisted that “innovative labor agreements” be put in place at factories building small cars. The UAW pushed through, without a vote by local union members, a provision that allowed 40 percent of the workers at Lake Orion to be paid tier-two wages. The deal also opened the door to hundreds of even lower paid contractors."

Just how much are those tier two and three wages? I hear you ask.

"Not only has the UAW sanctioned second-tier wages of $16 to $19 an hour—little more than half of what traditional workers earn. It has also opened the door to a third tier of contract workers who earn as little as $9 an hour, with no medical or retirement benefits."

and

"In the present situation, however, rather than defending workers, the UAW is functioning as a cheap labor contractor. So thoroughly has the UAW reduced wages that American automakers are now boasting they can produce cars as profitably in the US as in Mexico, China or other low-wage countries."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/dec2011/linc-d14.shtml

Depression averted: To an extent this is true, however it was averted without fixing the mechanisms by which it happened in the first place, and America is on the path to bankruptcy at the rate it is accumulating debt. In the short term you can fix just about any economic problem you want by printing and borrowing money, but in the long term you need to have a way of repaying your debt, I'm not aware of such a plan.

Iraq war ended: His promise was that ending the Iraq war would be the first thing he would do as president.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VlXfs1K04g
And while the official war is now over, the US of A has an embassy in Iraq the size of the Vatican city, costing ~$3.8 billion this year (the most expensive in the world) and they still have around 16,000 people involved in the 'diplomatic effort', the majority of which are private security contractors.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12319798/#.TytXO1z9PUc
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/18/us-iraq-usa-diplomats-idUSTRE7BH04B20111218

Looking at the bigger picture, the total defense budget, magically, despite the 'end of the Iraq war' is going to remain at similar levels, with projected spending of just under $700 billion for the next 4 years. This is of course because while you shrink your Iraq footprint, you increase it in other areas such as the Asia-Pacific.
http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/1103bm47s1.pdf

This also doesn't take into account the spending that makes it's way to the military through other channels such as emergency funds, special projects etc. In fact more than half of every tax dollar is currently going towards military expenditure according to this:
http://videosift.com/video/53-of-each-American-tax-dollar-going-to-the-military

Bin Laden dead: apparently, not really worthwhile debating this as afaik there is no proof he's been killed and no proof he wasn't.

Same sex marriage: The DADT repeal was a good change, however at the Federal level same-sex marriage is still not recognized, not that I can criticize this, it's the same in Australia.

Anyway, that's my 2c, as usual, feel free to criticize.

uh what the hell were you watching? Cause I saw the Rep doing anything and everything to AVOID answering the questions presented. He was saying he was trying to answer but the second he was given a breath, he went off in a direction unrelated to the question. When asked he would never provide any kind of direct answer, which was what O'Donnell wanted. Asked about Social Security he would never answer that directly, he would just go on and on about grant programs, never actually answering the question by saying "Yes, Social Security should be repealed", and since he never actually said those words, he can worm out of it later by claiming a differing intent behind all his kerfuffle about grant programs. Typical politician bullshit.

This is the kind of thing we should be DEMANDING from our journalists, not giving the politicians an excuse to twist their words around so that later they can spin them up into something totally different according to the situation. BOTH sides should be held accountable to their words and intent and that starts by forcing them to state categorically what it is they actually want instead of allowing them to say one thing, do another and then point out "I never actually said that" like they all do. O'Donnell might have been more tactful between each repetition of the question, but he absolutely should make them actually answer the question asked, NOT some vague nonsense that relates to it but doesn't actually answer it.

I am in a government Union job and I wholeheartedly disagree.
As it is, there is not enough time in the day to get the work done. The work never ends and has major deadlines. I work my day by starting 20 minutes early, I skip both my 15 min breaks and eat at my desk while working or skip my lunch entirely. I am often asked to work overtime and asked not to claim overtime. My Director asks that we record that overtime and take time off where we can - Time that never comes because the work never lets up.

Don't get me wrong though. I like my job so I enjoy working through my breaks. In a creative job, I can't turn it on and off according to a clock. Knowing it is a union job helps give us a little power to push back at times and say, "No - You're overloading us. If there is that much work that isn't getting done, it's time to ad a new designer to the team."

Our union has also allowed us to come to work and get parking as a benefit. I work at a large college and I shouldn't have to pay the college to come to work each day.

It doesn't matter who you are - you should have the right to stand up and say, "Hey, that's not fair"


>> ^quantumushroom:

...government employees should never, ever be allowed to organize. The need for a union comes down to this question: Do you have a boss who wants you to work harder for less money? In the private sector, the answer is yes. In the public sector, the answer is a big, fat NO.

totally agree on the "god given rights" point BRM.
i actually agree with many of your points.
that being said,dont you find the absence of dogmatic speak refreshing?
i would think an atheist at least could appreciate this type of conversation.
he is not preachy in this talk,nor is he attempting to convert or convince.

i have to say i find your conclusion disingenuine.
as i stated earlier.define god.
if you wish to call god cthulu then feel free.just names and labels.
he does not attempt to define god and i feel thats a mistake, made evident by your last comment.
which god are you speaking of.
a pantheon of deities?
judau-christian?
or any other of the 4500 religions?
i ask not to be confrontational nor to troll,but as a genuine question.

because it appears to me (and i am being presumptuous here and i apologize) that your problem is with a religious (judau-christian to be specific) god.
and i have no problem with that.
religions are man-made with texts,doctrine and dogma.
these are tangibles and being so SHOULD be scrutinized,criticized and debated.
but this mans talk simply puts forth the premise that you can not know one way or the other the existence of god.
or santa,FSM or yes..cthulu.
these are human terms and subject to scrutiny.
god is unknowable.this is the realm of faith and either you have it or you dont.
i could no more convince you the existence of a creator then you could convince there was not.
so i dont even bother.
why would i?
who am i to judge your perceptions and understanding?
that would be the height of hubris and arrogance.
i can only know what i feel/think/perceive.

so while you may disagree with this mans perception and consequent faith.
you have to admit (ok..you dont HAVE to) that his decidedly non-dogmatic approach is less...infuriating.
he gives you a window why he has faith and also understands that you may choose to dismiss his premise,but at least you may walk away understanding him a tad more.even though you may still disagree with him.
because at its heart,his talk is about faith.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

He'll never be president. He may have some populist ideas, but putting him in charge of the country would be about as bad as putting Sarah Palin in charge (only she has a better chance of winning).


You sound like a Fox News propagandist. No, really, you do. To compare Sara-lie-cheat-crazy Palin and Ron Paul... I think that is right in Beck's play book (Like when Beck compares people to Hitler that don't deserve it...)

Populist? McCain was populist. Obama? Populist. Ron Paul. Well, if that's populist, then I guess I don't know the word.

He wants to stop the drug war. To me and you, that may be a great idea; to the average person? That is unelectable. Pull the troops back? Great for Democrats, but not for his own party's supporters who vote him in. Cut regulation so that "too big to fail" businesses drown if they actually fail? Banks hate it, and the people don't care because they think this propped-up "capitalism" is actually a free market. And Gitmo? Closing it also makes his base, and most democrats, cringe too...

The best part, his most un-populist ideas (Monetary gold system for one) would never flesh out in Congress. So all that would happen is: Gitmo would close, the wars would end, social programs would be paired down, aid to other nations would fall, etc... In other words, all that would happen are the things Democrats and Republicans like...

Now if you would have said, "Ron Paul is a nice guy, more honest than most, and because of this he won't get elected," I would completely agree. To me, he is boring, he is nice, he is the lesser scandal. And so--he won't win. In fact, in a certain morbid way, I hope he does not. He deserves more than this rotten country gives.

I fail to see where his views are popular when his motto basically is, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but get off your ass and do for your country and self." There are no handouts to corporations, people or other nations... It's why he lost last time.

>> ^volumptuous:

Exactly the kind of videos I hate. Macho posturing assholes fighting to a super shit-ass, horrible soundtrack.


then why watch it?
it has been clearly labeled and tagged "fight scenes" and even the song was tagged properly.
the majority of the video was professional fighters which means they chose to engage in a physical altercation.
was your comment simply to record your disdain for such videos?
i am asking not to be confrontational but rather to understand the purpose of your comment.