Oops…in her court filed response to being sued by Az election officials for slander and libel Kari Lake admits she lied about election officials in the 2020 election, but is, like Trump, pretending the first amendment means slander and libel don’t exist and she can say any lie about anyone or anything even in court filings with no consequences….that’s not going to work out for her.

Twice impeached, 4 serious indictments on 91 felonies and many more to come. A rapist, public incestuous pedophile that bragged about forcing very young little girls to get naked so he can leer at them and said the thing he has most in common with his teenaged daughter was sex…fraud, charity thief, election fraud perpetrator, multiple bribe taker, man who actually publicly said we should suspend the constitution for him, and ultra top secret classified document thief and exposer, and terroristic leader, and insurrection leader…that’s why….



This is you guy. This you pick. 😂
Hilariously clueless that he posts his mugshot with the caption “never surrender” hours after getting this mugshot taken while he was literally surrendering! 😂

I'm not a liberal, nor a conservative. I'm a pragmatic moderate.

Of course, ANYONE to the left of you is a "shit liberal". There are more of you every day because the electorate is being polarized.

Unfortunately for you, there's WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more "shit liberals" everyday than people of your "ilk". Also, there's WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more people who aren't of your ilk than are, and you keep pushing everyone who isn't as irrationally conservative as you away to the Democratic Party.

Remember, people like you caused Trump to get nominated instead of Kasich or Bush, and you might have won with either of them vs Clinton. But no, you're a man of principle! And those principles led you to Donald Trump, the candidate who could never be elected, even with all the political winds from circumstance at his back. Even against the second most disliked major party nominee, only to Trump himself!

I don't expect you to bow down. I expect you to drive yourself crazy as you'll continue to fight the insane fight while you lose election after election, and destroy the Republican Party as you keep it hostage under the threat of primarying any rational members they have left, handing election after election to Democrats until conservatives and the Republican Party become irrelevant and powerless.

That's what you can do. You keep that fight up! Never give up, never surrender! No matter how far you feel yourself sinking in the quicksand, between millennials completely rejecting your ideology, growing populations of minorities who reject you, demographics that show that eventually large electoral vote rich states like Texas will become competitive and will flip and turn blue. Nevermind the GOP has managed to win the popular vote one time in the last six elections, soon to be a seventh. Next time, keep thinking going down this path will work!

But don't you stop fighting! Keep struggling! I expect nothing less! This isn't about this election anymore. It's about wreaking havoc against your own side for decades to come! Nominate Trump in 2020 again! Primary the traitor Paul Ryan!

Mwa ha ha ha ha ha!

MWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

Constant vigilance! Never surrender.

Congratulations! Your video, Never quit; never surrender..., has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 17 Badge!

Your video, Never quit; never surrender..., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

*promote the never surrender mentality of rally racing.
You can only be sure you've lost if you've quit.
The first off road race I ever saw was a short course race in the LA Coliseum, and the front runner completely lost a front wheel with 2 laps to go...and continued on to win the race. I was hooked from then on.

Unfortunately things aren't so simple.

My understanding is that the land in question is traditional Native land which was never surrendered to Canada.

Rulings by the Supreme Court of Canada and lower courts have established a duty to consult and accommodate aboriginal people when development is considered on their land, even non-reserve traditional lands. This was either not done, or wasn't successful.

There is also some suspicion that one of the individuals who set fire to the police cruisers is an RCMP informant. But I haven't found satisfactory evidence of that yet. If true, it would not be the first instance of police provocateurs infiltrating protests in Canada.

@xxovercastxx

I apologize for my tardiness. I'll try to slice my way through your response while the aftertaste of this thread still lingers. It's rapidly fading from memory.

1. Relating to the proposition that prioritizing issues is invalid

This seems to be an argument that arises logically and naturally. Starting from the top, the quantity of world resources exceeds the requirements of any given problem at any given time. The idea that lesser issues ought to be sidelined until we have resolved the greater ones, amongst which we might consider genocides, global warming, poverty and disease, strikes me as both bizarre and having no logical foundation to stand on.

I share, completely, the concerns and convictions that relate to those greater problems, and they are indeed deserving of all of our collective attention. However, the human species, and its capacity for problem solving, are not analogous to a single-core CPU; we are capable of confronting more than one thing at one time. We need not be exclusivist, dealing with issues in a step-by-step manner until we've worked our way down the chain of strife, and to contend that lesser issues are not even worth our time while greater evils remain is daft and short-sighted.

2. Consent

You mention Yogi's point about the voluntary nature of joining and participating in the Church of Scientology. Many of the techniques that Scientology employs to keep people in the church, to keep them isolated from information and criticism of the church, and to disconnect people from those outside the church are outlined in the very video to which this thread belongs. I do not believe that consent makes legitimate the manipulation of people in the church to stay in the church. I do not believe that consent granted by someone of compromised judgement is legitimate. I don't believe that these premises give me a legitimate moral basis for acting contrary to people's wishes, when their judgement is compromised and consent is ill-given, but I do think it must negate the idea that these people are acting autonomously, sensibly, intelligently and with their best interests in mind.

Basically, I say that their choices are sometimes invalid in cases where their independence has been compromised, but I also say that I have no right to intervene and contradict whatever free will they're exerting. Manipulation, propaganda and indoctrination are they key words, and they're techniques being used to enormous effect in the CoS, as the documentary above illustrates quite well.

3. 9/11 conspiracy comparison / straw-man assessment

"Look I get you want to be up in arms about this, it's something you've put a lot of stock into. It's pretty much like 9/11 conspiracy theories. You can talk and post and tell people they're full of shit when they question why this is such a big deal but you've missed the point. You've been completely neutralized, we don't have to worry about you actually bringing about any sort of change that's meaningful since you're going after this silly Religion."

I still don't think I overplayed it. I understand what you're getting at, but I believe my interpretation is closer to what he meant.

> Look I get you want to be up in arms about this, it's something you've put a lot of stock into. It's pretty much like 9/11 conspiracy theories.

This statement stands by itself. It's not connected to the following except by proximity, which is :

> You can talk and post and tell people they're full of shit when they question why this is such a big deal but you've missed the point.

In the second portion of this, Yogi is referring to the current discussion, and both my and Genji's disagreement with the idea that the CoS is no big deal. Thus the second sentence is self-contained and the 9/11 conspiracy statement is concluded immediately after it's mentioned. Logically, this must mean that a connection, even if vague, is being made between two very different positions : he's saying that our, or mine, or Genji's objectivity is compromised to the extent that we are almost fanatical. That is the comparison being made, and the comparison to which I have been referring.

When I say that Yogi was suggesting our objectivity was compromised, several things give it away. The biggest is "want to be up in arms about this". "Want to" implies a personal investment that we'd not be willing to surrender and that the participation goes beyond a moral assessment, and into the realm of the irrational. "It's something you've put a lot of stock into" suggests, again, a personal investment that mandates never surrendering in argument, and having an irrational attachment to your position. Thirdly, "it's pretty much like 9/11 conspiracy theories". There are several ways you can interpret this, but it suggests to me that he thinks the opposition is fundamentally irrational, disconnected from reality and deeply biased to a particular outcome, irregardless of the actual conditions from which you draw your moral conclusion about the CoS. Thus, he seemed to think that the sentiment was immovable and the argument was only doing the bidding of an invulnerable bias.

I disagree with you. I don't think it was a straw man that I installed, I think it was a valid and accurate interpretation of what he was saying. I will concede, though, that it's easy to misread me as misreading him, based on what mention I made of the 9/11 thing. If that makes sense.

4. Genji suggesting Yogi was an irrational, thick-skulled, sick fuck who might kill kittens

I wasn't shocked. I thought it was in bad taste at the time, and I still do. I'm not used to the dynamics of debates that aren't 1-on-1, and I make no apology for it.

5. The Genji-won't-do-nothin'; the twisting of a statement

> "You've been completely neutralized, we don't have to worry about you actually bringing about any sort of change that's meaningful since you're going after this silly Religion.

You won't help anyone, you won't effect anything, you'll just stamp your feet and get all pissed off over the internet about things that simply aren't important. Now run along and keep doing that, I'm going over here to feed these homeless people some sammiches"

This comment, to me, suggests and suggested that Yogi was implying the following, and forgive my shoddy paraphrasing:

"You are absorbed by a non-issue. You could be investing your time in an actual problem, and perhaps be contributing to a resolution. You will have no effect on anything important, because you are involved in something that is a waste of your time; an irrelevant problem."

"You won't help anyone, you won't effect anything" needs no interpretation or translation of any kind. Surely this statement is unambiguous. Was I really twisting his statement? Perhaps I could've articulated myself better, but was I wrong? I say not, and I think as I did then.

6. My First Hypocrisy : An adventure in target management, Drive-by commenting, etc.

You're right that I should've commented on what GK actually said. It's not hypocrisy, but it was unfair and unbalanced.

I was referring to you with the drive-by assessment comment. I felt as if you had installed yourself into the discussion and had promptly left it, when there seemed to be no need for moderation. I think, in light of the scope of the post I'm responding to, I'd be happy to apologize for that.

I didn't realize you meant GK. Now I do. Woo.

I think that's it. Thanks.

We shall fight on the papers, we shall fight on the talking bubbles, we shall fight in the frames and in the strokes, we shall fight in the ink; we shall never surrender

i saw then three times:
allied forced (this video)
never surrender
and thunder seven.
they just rocked and yeah.live footage but thats where they excelled.they sounded great live.only band i think sounded better was pink floyd.

I find it amazing, that a network would endorse things like this.

I think the whole political system is a tool to keep us divided and bickering with one another so we don't rise up against who is really pulling the strings. Liberal or Conservative - they both play the role as puppet governments for big cooperations - And I suspect if we were to ever get through the red tape - they have the same puppet master!

So they keep throwing this crap at us, so we continue to post it, view it, debate it, argue over it, blog over it, form opinions, argue again, choose sides, create videos etc... And all from the safe comfort of our homes, never leaving our cushioned chair at our computer desk!

We Shall Never Rise-Up as We Never Surrender!
(rant, rant, rant, rant )

Government doesn't care about you directly. Government is there for one reason - to perpetuate itself (re-election). They only 'care' about people insofar as they consider people to be population blocs that generate tax revenue and (occasionally) vote.

Private companies don't care about you directly either. They are there for one reason - to make a profit. They only 'care' about people insofar as they are engines that generate market share.

The THEORY is that both these entities (public/private) will ultimately behave themselves because they can't afford to antagonize the people that their 'market share' attitude so routinely dehumanizes. The real issue here is that government is FAR more insulated from the people than any private company. If you get a bum rap from a company you can sue them, or take your business to a different company, and (best) tell anyone/everyone what happened and cause lots of other people to not patronize the business.

But when you are oppressed by the GOVERNMENT you are far less able to hit them where it hurts. You can't stop paying taxes. You can't throw someone out of office except once every 4/6 years (and even THEN it isn't a given). Even if you do get ONE guy thrown out, there are hundreds or thousands of others still in that government who you have ZERO ability to influence (Senators from other states, cabinet members, appointees, judges).

Right now the polls show athat about 65% to over 70% of the people do NOT want Obamacare. If the Democrats just say, "screw you - you're getting Obamacare like it or not" then there is literally nothing that can be done about it. Even if the Dems lose the house/senate in the midterms it can't be undone. Even if Repubs take the House, PoTUS, and Senate in 2012 it is very unlikely they would repeal it. They'd just want to be the ones 'in charge' of it.

It is a FAR better choice to never let the government take over health care in the first place. They cannot be trusted with that kind of power, because they would never surrender it. American helath care is fine. People who need care get it. The problem is one of disproportionate costs. That problem can be handled far more effectively with a non-public solution that does not give over immense power to a goverment .

I would say that the military incursion into Gaza has been largely a failure for Israel, not simply because of the negative world wide publicity from the large number of civilian deaths but also because it didn't achieve the kind of results that the IDF used to generate when dealing with Fatah in the past.

Back then Israel would bomb the shit out of Fatah and it's resistance would ebb away very quickly, Arafat would reach out and discuss a truce, a wedge would be created between the Palestinians and the Fatah government.

This was not the case in Gaza, resistance continued right up to the time of the cease fire, the Palestinians did not oust Hamas as Israel hoped in favor of the discredited Dahlan, Hamas never surrendered.

This has been a build up ever since the IDF failure in eliminating Hezbollah, the Arab world is rife with talk of defeating the once undefeatable Israel which with all it's high tech equipment, man power and bombs has not been able to silence Hamas or Hezbollah.

There has also been a large world wide reaction to Israel's acts, which in all its shock and awe only managed to kill 2 high ranking Hamas members, which is ineffective now since after years of IDF assassinations resistance groups have learned to operate in cell structures with no centralized power figure.

Never Surrender.