I haven't watched the hearings. To me it's still a case of bread and circuses. They can't convict, so all of this is just an attempt to burn these images into a voting publics mind that forgets events longer than 6 months ago. This won't even be remembered by the average person by the next votes in 2022. Just like most people don't recall the riots that were sort of incited by liberals in 2017 prior to and during the inauguration. Admittedly, they didn't storm congress, but they did break into buildings, burn cars, and injure people.

Did Trump probably intend for violence? Probably, but proving his thoughts are going to take a lot more than words he used. Thankfully we haven't started putting people away for thoughtcrimes yet or I would be fucked.

Awesome.

I often recall this episode and tell my kids about it, though I've never actually shown them this episode.

I'll have to be sure to play this for them tomorrow.

On her debut album for Philips, Nina Simone in Concert (1964), for the first time she addressed racial inequality in the United States in the song "Mississippi Goddam". This was her response to the June 12, 1963, murder of Medgar Evers and the September 15, 1963, bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, that killed four young black girls and partly blinded a fifth. She said that the song was "like throwing ten bullets back at them", becoming one of many other protest songs written by Simone. The song was released as a single, and it was boycotted in some[vague] southern states.[31][32] Promotional copies were smashed by a Carolina radio station and returned to Philips.[33] She later recalled how "Mississippi Goddam" was her "first civil rights song" and that the song came to her "in a rush of fury, hatred and determination". The song challenged the belief that race relations could change gradually and called for more immediate developments: "me and my people are just about due". It was a key moment in her path to Civil Rights activism.[34] "Old Jim Crow", on the same album, addressed the Jim Crow laws. After "Mississippi Goddam", a civil rights message was the norm in Simone's recordings and became part of her concerts.

As I recall, the most insane part of Mavericks isn’t the size of the waves there, it’s the penalty for failure. In the trough, rocks are just below the surface in many areas, making it ripe for a Greg Brady style head smash.

Not enough by far, by design. Only 1/4 of the capitol police were on duty for this advertised riot/attack on democracy. Offers of backup from DC police and the national guard were refused. Normal non violent events usually have at least double that number, the non violent BLM protests at BLM park (the whitehouse) had over 7500 law enforcement officers stationed for days, this advertised armed attack and trial by combat had what, <500? Almost half of those were diverted to the two seperate live bombs the terrorists set, yet they still refused offers of more officers and didn't even call in off duty capitol police....good thing, they were busy being part of the riot. The FBI had many indications the Trump crowd planned unprecedented violence, dozens if not hundreds of messages calling for murder of BLM and Antifa members, murder of representatives, murder of anyone trying to stop their coup. "Either we get our president or die fighting for him" was a typical message. Rally points in other states discussed. "This is not a March, not a protest, it's war, come ready for battle." Read numerous others.
Turns out in many cases the barricades were useless because cops refused to use them and allowed people to walk through or around. They have been successfully used uncountable times before, but we’ve never had capitol police themselves be part of the mob, and with so many off duty cops and military in the crowd they thought, like at their job, the rules don’t apply to them or those with them. They talked their coworkers off the line in MANY instances, flashing their badges to gain entry then helping other rioters through.

Even if they weren’t stopping everyone, that’s not a reason to remove them so they stop no one. That’s asinine, I suppose you leave your front door open because your windows won’t stop a determined home invader?

Is your point that a fence that has openings is useless....hmmm...I recall someone else that was willing to divide and bankrupt the nation over a 1/2 of a fence...who was that?

I can't agree with that. They seem to fly about 20 different flags, plus numerous bastardizations of the US flag. I saw one rioter with one American flag patch with a rifle silhouette over it, and a few inches lower another American flag patch with a different image over it (I can't recall, but remember noting how freely they corrupted the flag). The rioter seen in Pelosi's office laid the American flag he'd been carrying on a damned filing cabinet to get his photo op with his feet up on her desk.

I feel that their disrespect for the flag, and their putting it on an equal footing with "Trump 2020 Stop the Bullshit" flags and other such idiocy means they haven't "captured" it. Actual loyal Americans can still fly it respectfully, it's our symbol and will never be theirs.

I remember when the 16oz first came out.
They looked huge and it was quite a luxury to buy one for I think 25 cents back in the day.
There was nothing about it being meant to share with 3 people though that I can recall.
Back in those days as kids we did pass it amongst ourselves if someone felt generous.

in general, hindu eschatology resembles the big bang/crunch. the cycle of expansion from a single point only to collapse to another single point and another expansion. these cycles are billions of years apart. (also some idea - that's too fuzzy to recall in detail - about matter changing and slipping into an alternative dimension might be a model of the great beyond)

will use Russell Bertrand - although not a poet, have read poetry that echos this thought (not gonna search) almost verbatim - when he said, “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.” this was pretty much summed up the Dunning-Kruger Effect. (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/355363-one-of-the-painful-things-about-our-time-is-that)

the other you noted. meditation is healthy. of note, Sufism tends to focus on intense focusing, in music and song...and some of the musicians are peachy keen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QRivHR0c28

and the poetry is beautiful (EX: Rumi). so religion has spawned some good things, too.

in short, religion is no more destructive than the person implementing it. do believe in ideas. whether it comes from a white cassock or lab coat. such is the freedom to keep a mind free.

or take it up w/René Descartes*. he seemed to be better at it than I.

*Descartes died when he was run over by a horse-drawn coach. This is where the saying "Don't put Descartes in front of the horse."

BTW: Earle song?

You're kidding. You can get good care (I assume anything non surgical?) For $1800 a year and you don't?!? I pay that three times over for insurance that pays almost nothing until I'm $4500 out of pocket, and compared to today's market here that's a bargain.

Here I'm lucky to have a doctor at all. We have a huge shortage, always have since I've lived here.

Do you really see it getting better without the aca? Can you tell me why, since normally any improvements wouldn't go to patients or level of care but instead to higher profits?

I sure don't recall when advancements of any kind led to lower health care costs on average...my thought was the aca just spread the pain of paying for the indigent, and gave them preventative care to lower their need for expensive treatments we pay for either way, with higher insurance rates covering care for the poor and lowering overall costs or with higher care cost, leading to higher insurance and more unhealthy poor skipping out on higher bills.

I absolutely think single payer is best. Costs can be negotiated by the entire country, leading to lower costs. Everyone gets basic care, no one skips on their bill, leading to lower costs. 20% that the insurance industry takes from every medical dollar goes away, leading to lower costs. Like other nations with universal healthcare, anyone who chooses can buy supplemental insurance that covers better, more comfortable care like private rooms or choice of top doctors, so nothing's lost for patients. The only issues I see are ideological.

I just have a feeling. Could be wrong, could be right. It could be argued that since all 3 are supposed to be separate branches that congress adding more justices would be tampering with checks and balances. Then again, precedent might count in favor of it.

War/Secession isn't only a purview of the conservatives. I recall many people saying similar things when Bush/Trump was elected. Especially Trump, as I recall people saying California should leave the union etc. As I've told you before, I honestly think it might be the best solution at this point. Half of us bitterly disagree with the other half and it's getting worse every single election/year.

I'm old enough and jaded enough at this point that I figure it couldn't hurt. The USSR broke up, might as well be our turn.

Remember, the ACA was barely passed and had to be watered down so red state democrats would vote for it, then the states had the option to opt in or out of federal assistance. Those that opted out all had terrible experiences with higher insurance costs, states that opted in had relatively stable costs and millions insured, lowering medical costs across the board (because they didn't have to eat 30% of bills and pass the cost to the rest of their patients). Should have been universal single payer. (Side note, my insurance went up 5-10% before Trump, and more than doubled under Trump. I've had the same policy since 08.)

Funny, the people I recall claiming Daesh was a nothing burger were all Republicans, Democrats were pushing to take them on immediately when they emerged in northern Iraq. You do remember who took us into Iraq with no plan to leave, right? Not Obama.
Wasn't it Bush who decided the rules for war in Iraq, like everyone's a combatant? Obama failed to fix them and that's why he lost my second vote, not doing enough...granted he had a pure obstructionist Senate so was stimied, but I expected more.

I feel like people's political memories only go back through Obama now, and that's just dumb. Our history is much longer, our memories should be too.

This has nothing to do with her capability. It never has been. It has to do with people pissed because there is a nominee during this time.

News flash, it doesn't matter if Trump wins or loses. He can nominate someone even after he loses. Until he is replaced, he is THE President of the United States.

No judge is required to have a photographic memory of the Constitution. I bet you could ask SITTING judges on the Supreme Court and have them miss a question. That is what clerks and research people are for.

What this comes down to is two basic things.

1. Merrick Garland never made it onto the court. People are still bitterly pissed off that he didn't. But what they forget is that he WAS nominated and did not get through the process due to a Republican majority. It was perfectly legal and was allowed. It sucks if you wanted him, but that is the way the game works.

2. People are STILL scared that Roe v Wade is going to go bye bye or the ACA is going to get kneecapped. News flash, SCOTUS has been majority Conservative leaning judges for YEARS. When Gorsuch was picked, all I recall hearing was OMG OMG, THE SKY IS FALLING, ROE V WADE IS DEAD! Same thing as when Kavanaugh was picked; although they were pissed about his supposed rape as well, every news site was repeating the mantra about Roe V Wade now dead.

It isn't going to happen. Not at a Federal level. It would be suicide for years. Conservatives, by and large, do not give a fuck about abortion. It's only the squirrelly ultra right wing pricks that care and Republicans sadly have to cater to them verbally to keep their votes. States, yeah, some will pass laws and then those will get turned away from SCOTUS like they have been for a while. The appellate courts will set the precedent on those rulings and they solidly rule for Roe v Wade.

Same thing for the ACA, although personally I wish that would die a fucking quick death. As I've said before many times, that little gem has fucked the value of my family insurance from work into the ground. I didn't get to keep my doctor unless I wanted to pay 2k+ per person per year, because he and a shit ton of other doctors went to Concierge fees to cover the money they were losing under the ACA. Now I have to go to either:

A. Doctor's who have horrible ratings for their practice, ie ones that suck or just don't care.

B. A clinic setup where I 'technically' have a 'family doctor' but in reality I can be bumped to others on staff or, most likely, a PA. There is no feeling that I know my doctor because, even if I do get to see him, they just run me through as fast as possible so they can get another patient in.

I have pre-existing conditions, so I empathize with those who are on the ACA. But the act itself is fucked up beyond repair. It needs to die and get replaced with a true national insurance. If not that, something that lets me go back to feeling like I have a real doctor and not just whoever is johnny on the spot at that moment.

It isn't going to be killed at SCOTUS though, they don't want to legislate. They will let it survive and if you think otherwise you are drinking the liberal koolaid that they are serving to round up voters.

I like the Youtuber and do agree with his other videos. I do not agree with this. I can diagnose a Macbook Pro right now if I had to, even after being away from Apple for around 8 years. But I might need to pull up a damn schematic or reference manual to know how much resistance I should be looking for on the PPbus if it isn't present when trying to power the thing on. If I and everyone else had photographic memories, we wouldn't have reference material. Wikipedia wouldn't exist. This is simply a nitpick because people are worried and still pissed.

Bob, your mental capacity has diminished so much you don't recall what you said 10 days ago...

10 days ago bobknight33 says...
Joe was alert and presented himself well.

Likely not.

Wait.
You're saying there's video of him being chased from his gun toting friends by one guy with a pistol? For blocks? And none of his friends helped him at all? That might change my mind completely....but only if they essentially dragged him away, not if he followed along arguing, and if they physically forced him away from his friends, why didn't his friends try to help?

Again, I'll need some evidence of the pepper spray to believe it, because the videos of him running he wasn't acting like a person who had been pepper sprayed, not that it would excuse killing someone else, and I'm assuming the spray came after the first homicide.

(Edit: if the pepper spraying happened, and happened before he shot, then he has zero excuses for any of them. He couldn't see, so had no idea what was happening around him, who threw what, what was thrown, or who he was shooting. You can't see after being pepper sprayed. That makes every shot fired attempted murder of any random person in the area, not self defense. To be self defense, you must know who and what you're defending yourself from. If he was sprayed, he couldn't possibly know, nor could he properly aim.)

A plastic bag mistaken for a Molotov? Not by any American kid, all boys over 7 know what a Molotov looks like from movies and video games, they don't resemble empty plastic bags.

I think you're being biased. I may be too. I'm not excusing any threatening acts by protesters before he killed one, but do excuse any acts committed trying to apprehend him afterwards. (Edit: anything they did at that point would be real self defense, not just in their own minds.)

I can't find any way to excuse him, from going armed looking for trouble to leaving his group where he felt safe to mistaking a harmless object for a deadly one and killing someone out of fear to running away armed to shooting at his pursuers to not reporting it, every act indicates intentional murder and an attempt to escape. He might have had a reason, he may have even feared for his life, but he had no real reason, put himself in the situation that scared him, and opened fire for no GOOD reason.
Children often do things for bad reasons, that's one reason they shouldn't be let loose with firearms unaccompanied, especially not in high stress events like this.
It's not that he had no reason, it's that his reasoning was flawed on all points. He had no legitimate reason, and no legitimate excuse.

Btw, in case you don't recall, I'm not anti gun at all. I am anti armed groups traveling the country intent on killing unarmed people they disagree with, even if those people are being mean and scary, even if they're stealing. If they're committing arson, well maybe, that can be mass murder.

If you find a still live version of him being chased by armed protesters away from his friends, or threatened, I would be interested in seeing them. I find it impossible to envision. It's not that I'm not open to new info, it's only that I've seen none that excuse his killings.

(Edit: I'm looking at it like this....If a 17 year old kid wants to do extreme mountain climbing with little to no training, gets on the mountain and gets panicked and, thinking it will make him safer to have two ropes disconnects his partner's harness and they die, he had a reason, but not a legitimate reason, and not an excuse. This kid wanted to do extreme policing totally untrained, he panicked, people died because of his panicked actions. It's really that simple to me.)