You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#3721 Re: Guns N' Roses » Guns w/ Adler, Dodgers Stadium, LA - 08/19/16 » 507 weeks ago
Brett wrote:I know an AFD reunion is a good idea in theory... but it seems like an idea that would apply to a more washed up band to celebrate an album. I mean, they already play everything good off AFD right now, Izzy in the mix would be great, but you still have an issue on drums for the UYI shit, so it's still kind of a gong show.
I think the regular fans just want to see the best GNR show they can get, the reunited lineup is still new, to like, have one album (as great as AFD was) dictate the whole show when it's already and always has been heavy in the set list.
GN'R is a washed up band.
Why are you here if you feel that way? Just like to shit in other's cereal?
#3722 Re: The Garden » 2016 Presidential Election Thread » 508 weeks ago
bigbri wrote:Smoking Guns wrote:Stein is fucking Johnson. For the love of God, she needs to drop out so we can have a 3rd party up there. Very selfish of her. Needs to see the greater good.
Agreed. She has some bizarre views too.
Her most bizarre being how she wants to gut the military, mothball our carrier groups, close all our foreign bases, and have the National Guard defend us.
Have no idea how any politician would dream of having such a stance.....much less one who dreams of being the leader of the free world.
She's a nut job and only attracts other nut jobs. Look up her bio. She was a mediocre doctor who saw an opportunity to represent the super progressive, self lobotomised, lions are friends with lambs crowd.
Johnson is more sane and while libertarian positions are attractive to most people, most people don't want the responsibility that comes with freedom.
You want to make change, get involved with your local government. Join the party of your choice and advocate common sense positions. Bitching on the Internet is exactly what the establishment wants, cause it accomplishes nothing but making you feel good.
10-1, a Cruz type is the GOP nominee in 2020. I expect a Hispanic to run for the DNC in 2024, but all their appeals to every special interest is going to implode. You can't tell everyone they're special and your priority for too long before they catch on.
#3723 Re: The Garden » 2016 Presidential Election Thread » 508 weeks ago
buzzsaw wrote:Unfortunately disastrous would be best for Clinton as well, but people keep living in the imaginary world where she's a good idea.
It's going to be another shit 4 years for you, isn't it?
I'm sure you said the same thing about Obama too... So weird how you guys are all down in the dumps, yet retirement accounts have done nothing but go up for 7 years. Real estate has appreciated, often by double digits in many markets etc etc. I guess you prefer the W years where your money was on fire and your home value was cut in half? Is that better?
That's a bit unfair. The quality of life under Obama for the average citizen is no different than it was under Bush. Perception is everything. Bush had nothing to do with the housing bubble burst, just as Obama has had no impact on jobs. We all know this, but it's an easy escape goat to blame or give credit based on your political leanings.
But let's play your game. What has Obama done that improved the housing crash? Can you give any specifics that tie back to actual change?
More people are on public assistance than before. You can't tout Obama's job numbers and then turn around and bitch about minimum wage. That's a contradiction. You can't bitch about labor being exported and then advocate for more union membership and power. That's a contradiction.
Obama's legacy will solely be the Affordable Care Act. As we're seeing, insurers aren't interested in keeping up with all the people that hopped on board. It won't exist 10 years from now.
50 years from now Obama will be celebrated as the first black president, and nothing else will be thought about. He'll be another nameless President in the grand scheme of things.
#3724 Re: The Garden » 2016 Presidential Election Thread » 508 weeks ago
Anyone who thinks Trump is going to win short of Clinton being abducted by aliens is deluding themselves.
#3725 Re: The Garden » 2016 Presidential Election Thread » 508 weeks ago
I still say if Trump becomes president then we are all well and truly fucked...the race itself has had amusing parts, sure, but...if he is elected to office i really doubt that there will be much laughing
Running his own businesses repeatedly into bankruptcy, conning people out of money time and time again to buy into his shitty products/services, the repeated lies and deceptions over his entire career and his shameless exploitation of virtually anything to make a buck should be making anyone shiver at the shear possibility of this man controlling the most powerful country/military/economies on the planet
American society is far too infatuated with celebrities...just cuz the guy is famous doesn't mean he can even lead a dog to water ... let alone lead the United States ...
Ignoring the false claim he repeatedly ran his businesses into the ground (how many business failed out of his total population and what is the average failure rate for someone in his position - I don't know the answer to these, but as someone who works in the WHQ for a Fortune 100, trial and error is the name of the game), everything you said applies to Clinton as well.
Lies, deceit, fraud and stretching the law to its breaking point. If you don't see that or acknowledge this (as virtually all the Clinton fanboys on this site fail to grasp) you're not an objective or informed person, just a cheerleader.
#3726 Re: The Garden » 2016 Presidential Election Thread » 508 weeks ago
Just an FYI on that story, it's entirely based on Rasmussen polling, which is one of the most right-leaning pollsters out there. It only gets a C+ on Nate Silver's ranking of pollsters.
And I keep reading "the race is close."
Where is it close?
Will someone answer that? I'm begging you.
The battleground states aren't even battlegrounds at this point. Washington Post poll just released has Hillary up by 7, 8, 9 or more points.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/page/201 … DPpMbWibQ#
The great thing about the poll above is you can change it based on different responses, likely voters, registered voters, democrats, etc. Take a look. She gets 88% of Dems to vote for her; he gets 77% of GOP. She gets 39% of Ind.
Alarmingly, she gets 87% of the black vote and 69% of the non-white vote.
I'm not saying Trump will win, but you can't bash Rasmussen as a right wing puppet and then precede to quote the Washington Post.
#3727 Re: The Garden » 2016 Presidential Election Thread » 508 weeks ago
Maybe I'm a dumbass, but I went back 5 pages and I'm still not sure what those 2 are arguing over.
#3728 Re: The Garden » 2016 Presidential Election Thread » 508 weeks ago
I saw a million dollars on tv once
#3729 Re: The Garden » 2016 Presidential Election Thread » 509 weeks ago
Randall Flagg wrote:misterID wrote:Those were not democratic leaning sites. No one was protecting her, it was fact checking, and it is very telling that you took that position when presented with the facts. And now you want to dismiss human error misclassifying articles as confidential, while others were retroactively classified. Okay... And its pretty disingenuous of you to ignore an independent journalist, while at the same time only listening to journalists who want to attack and destroy her. That's very hypocritical.
No, I'm saying my opinion is more valid on this very unique subject than a journalist who spent a week writing an article. Hillary was sure to yuck it up and toss plenty of misinformation into the public discourse. Nothing was retroactively classified. That's now how classification works. I know this because I have an intimate and personal relationship with this very unique situation. Information is deemed classified if it originates on a classified system (all the drone images her aides shared is de facto classified because all drone systems operate on a classified network). Information is also automatically classified when you combine several key facts into one document. Saying I'm going to Afghanistan is fine. Saying I'm going to Afghanistan at 1300 tomorrow on flight 4576 departing LAX and Landing in Kandahar at 1430 local time is classified.
There isn't some magic button that makes something classified. There's not a man in a suit in a backroom with a stamp that marks things Secret or Top Secret. That's now how information classification works. Clinton knowingly had aides take classified information, remove their "Secret" markers, and send them to her. That is a crime. That she turned over information to her lawyer (to protect her) who lacks a clearance, where said information had classified material is against the law.
That our standards of what is classified are too stringent or that something didn't have a big red mark on it at the time is not part of the discussion. If you knew how our classification system works, you'd know this, but instead you read articles by someone who doesn't even know what color cable a Secret network runs on (may seem trivial to you, but huge deal in the government) and allows Clintons lies and distortions to affect your article.
I have no reason to continue discussing this point with you, other than to show you that maybe there are people out there more informed than you are. Clinton broke the law. The FBI said she acted recklessly and mishandled classified information. Any citizen would be charged for that. Clinton is able to walk around and continue to lie. Feel free to lookup the fact checkers and how they rate Clinton on this issue.
But it's done and over with. She won't be charged and nothing will change that. Feel free to think she did nothing wrong and it was all a conspiracy, or recognize she broke the law and there are 21 year old kids whose name isn't Clinton doing hard time for mishandling information in the same manner she did. I know, cause I helped send them there.
Just curious...and I admit that these things are at best loosely related....but do you hold the Bush/Cheney administration to the same standards?
They didn't leak information - but they sure did lie a lot - or spread misinformation as you call it.
You'd have to be more specific, but in general, yes. I assume you're referring to Iraq and their possession of WMDs.
Everyone believed they had them and Sadam's behavior certainly indicated he had them. But do I believe Bush intentionally misled the public in the same manner Clinton misled is regarding her emails or the root cause behind the rise up in Benghazi, no I do not.
That doesn't mean I agreed with our action there, despite spending 12 months of my life in the most violent regions of Iraq. But making a decision on conflicting intelligence is different than intentionally making false statements you know to be false.
#3730 Re: The Garden » 2016 Presidential Election Thread » 509 weeks ago
Randall Flagg wrote:So we have to prove her mishandling of classified information resulted in harm? I guess as long as i don't plow into anyone, I can drive drunk.
This is what I did for 7 years - protect classified information. The opinion of some journalist trying to defend Clinton is meaningless to me. There is no such thing as incorrectly classified. If it originates on a secure system, it's classified until the originating authority declassifies it under protocol.
She encouraged her employees to scrub markings and send classified information over an unsecure, unclassified network. End of discussion.
If you want to ignore it or have wave it, just say you don't care. Don't try to pretend she didn't violate the law.
Those were not democratic leaning sites. No one was protecting her, it was fact checking, and it is very telling that you took that position when presented with the facts. And now you want to dismiss human error misclassifying articles as confidential, while others were retroactively classified. Okay... And its pretty disingenuous of you to ignore an independent journalist, while at the same time only listening to journalists who want to attack and destroy her. That's very hypocritical.
No, I'm saying my opinion is more valid on this very unique subject than a journalist who spent a week writing an article. Hillary was sure to yuck it up and toss plenty of misinformation into the public discourse. Nothing was retroactively classified. That's now how classification works. I know this because I have an intimate and personal relationship with this very unique situation. Information is deemed classified if it originates on a classified system (all the drone images her aides shared is de facto classified because all drone systems operate on a classified network). Information is also automatically classified when you combine several key facts into one document. Saying I'm going to Afghanistan is fine. Saying I'm going to Afghanistan at 1300 tomorrow on flight 4576 departing LAX and Landing in Kandahar at 1430 local time is classified.
There isn't some magic button that makes something classified. There's not a man in a suit in a backroom with a stamp that marks things Secret or Top Secret. That's now how information classification works. Clinton knowingly had aides take classified information, remove their "Secret" markers, and send them to her. That is a crime. That she turned over information to her lawyer (to protect her) who lacks a clearance, where said information had classified material is against the law.
That our standards of what is classified are too stringent or that something didn't have a big red mark on it at the time is not part of the discussion. If you knew how our classification system works, you'd know this, but instead you read articles by someone who doesn't even know what color cable a Secret network runs on (may seem trivial to you, but huge deal in the government) and allows Clintons lies and distortions to affect your article.
I have no reason to continue discussing this point with you, other than to show you that maybe there are people out there more informed than you are. Clinton broke the law. The FBI said she acted recklessly and mishandled classified information. Any citizen would be charged for that. Clinton is able to walk around and continue to lie. Feel free to lookup the fact checkers and how they rate Clinton on this issue.
But it's done and over with. She won't be charged and nothing will change that. Feel free to think she did nothing wrong and it was all a conspiracy, or recognize she broke the law and there are 21 year old kids whose name isn't Clinton doing hard time for mishandling information in the same manner she did. I know, cause I helped send them there.
