US Mid-Term Elections

[thelerner]

hahaha ... what? I'm not sure what I've written to be labelled crazy or partisan.

just thought you'd feel left out if I didn't include you.

[Vmarco]

Some have commented that the recent US election had the lowest percentage of voter participation since 1942"

 

1942 is an interesting date.

 

Trivia:

 

According to people such Herman C. Weber, DD, an expert in religious censuses and statistics, that few early Americans were members of a Christian church. In the 1933 Yearbook of American Churches, for instance, it says that just 6.9% of U.S. citizens belonged to a church in 1800. By 1850, religious membership had risen to 15.5%. By 1900, Christians had doubled their percentage to 37%. However, not until 1942 did Christian affiliation exceed 50% of the U.S. population.

 

It was also in 1942 that the majority of politicians put their Faith-based agendas before their Oath to the Constitution. In 2002, all members of the Senate and Congress put their faith-based agendas before their Oath to the Constitution,...and thus all current Federal politicians should be stripped of citizenship under the 14th Amendment, Sec 3,...preferrably being sent to some faith-based Country.

 

 

"the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion". President John Adams, 1797 Statement drafted by George Washington, unanomously ratified by the Senate, and signed into law by President John Adams in 1797, is a law because the US Constitution says all such statements are the law (According to Article VI of the United States Constitution.

 

 

Only 36.3 percent of eligible voters cast votes in the recent election. Thus,...the new laws following this election were approved by less then 20% of voters.

 

After the Tea Party win in 2012, Christocrat’s pushed through over 40,000 new intrusive laws spawned in Tea Party Legislatures,…many aimed against women,...while projecting an image of concern over Big Government.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Vmarco

[Marblehead]

I would be stunned if Hillary is really how you characterise her. To me ... if I were to be critical she looks like a chancer .... she wants power ... and she'll say anything, do anything, to get it. If I really thought she was genuinely committed to community organisation I would pray she got elected.

 

There I've said it. LOL.

Well, I'm glad I managed to avoid saying it.

[Marblehead]

Only 36.3 percent of eligible voters cast votes in the recent election. Thus,...the new laws following this election were approved by less then 20% of voters.

 

After the Tea Party win in 2012, Christocrat’s pushed through over 40,000 new intrusive laws spawned in Tea Party Legislatures,…many aimed against women,...while projecting an image of concern over Big Government.

And four of every three people think that American politics is dirty.

[joeblast]

 

 

 

Only 36.3 percent of eligible voters cast votes in the recent election. Thus,...the new laws following this election were approved by less then 20% of voters.

 

After the Tea Party win in 2012, Christocrat’s pushed through over 40,000 new intrusive laws spawned in Tea Party Legislatures,…many aimed against women,...while projecting an image of concern over Big Government.

here in ct, its a little different than "voting" elsewhere. I was working and then looked at the news at 8:30 and saw all the voting irregularities out of Hartford and said son of a bitch, the election is getting stolen again, I'm not freakin bothering.

 

I dont know if its even close to this bad in other states, but if you live in ct, you might as well not even bother voting, because if they think its going to be close then there wind up being these "voting irregularities," see. last governor election it was many thousands of votes in bridgeport found in plastic bags that shifted the election to malloy & blumenthal's favor. (senate...and incidentally this was another way the bankers broke the government, by taking away the states' representation in the federal government by passing the 17th amendment.) and this time again we have a bunch of places in densely populated areas where people specifically paid to do an election job cant even show up where they should be when the ballots should arrive, panic ensues, guarantees that you'll be able to vote, we'll get those extra ballots and keep the polls open late, because yeah, we care about the integrity of the vote!

 

although I should have gone just to vote against something on the town ballot....one of our favorite golf courses got sold and the dude put up a bunch of mcmansions, now it turns out the sewer to the area was put in m ind that there was golf course and swamp, and the jerk wanted the town to cough up 4-5 million to put in the proper sewer for the mcmansions he built. well, that got rightfully shot down anyway.

 

 

 

 

haha apech...of course she wants power, she's been on powerlust her entire career. community organizer? she was fired from the watergate investigations by her supervisor for "lying, unethical behavior" back in the day, made some amazing bets in cattle futures that made them a ton of money ( with no inside information, I'm sure she'll insist)...its quite a story....real winner, this one. It reminds me of my high school english teacher when we were reading hamlet, I dont know to what extent he may have been mysoginistic about it but he said all of these tragedies, because the woman's ambition winds up driving the men, ultimately to ruin. If you havent read all of the shady crap out of arkansas...you'll be asking yourself just who are they friends with to have so much cover provided for them.

 

 

 

hillary should have had her balls nailed to the wall after that benghazi fiasco - but of course it was more important that the populace stay in the dark about our government running guns to syria through benghazi and turkey so as to chip away at assad for....right, that pipeline that has to go through syria, come hell or high water. some number of lives meant absolutely nothing to her, because some certain inconvenient information needed to stay hidden...call me crazy but that is a well established pattern with the clintons...

 

 

 

 

anywho, I'll leave everyone with this:

 

[Vmarco]

here in ct, its a little different than "voting" elsewhere. I was working and then looked at the news at 8:30 and saw all the voting irregularities out of Hartford and said son of a bitch, the election is getting stolen again, I'm not freakin bothering.

 

I was a Poll Watcher, more than once, and the voting irregularities, and outright trashing of provincial votes, were quite disturbing. The polling in the US is so outdated,...which of course, benefits the precinct people for the Two Parties. I like Iceland's democracy,...nearly 100% participation. A 36% turnout is not democracy,...IMO it's a Country whose people are media-ted to follow the current groupthink.

[Brian]

Speaking of Pravda, I thought this open warning from 2012 might be of interest to some:

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/

 

"...it is about power and a total power over the people."

[thelerner]

hillary should have had her balls nailed to the wall after that benghazi fiasco - but of course it was more important that the populace stay in the dark about our government running guns to syria through benghazi and turkey so as to chip away at assad for....right, that pipeline that has to go through syria, come hell or high water. some number of lives meant absolutely nothing to her, because some certain inconvenient information needed to stay hidden...call me crazy but that is a well established pattern with the clintons...

The problem is people are so willing to believe a lie that confirms there bias's and do nothing to check out the truth. Also the truth takes some reading and a few sources to get to the truth while a good lie done well is a blurp and picture. Frankly I think Fox news is infotainment and people who watch it the most know the least about current events. Its hyper partisan and truth is secondary or third to any rumor that goes along with its pre-ordained narrative. CNN isn't much better.

 

Take the picture above. It only takes one or two minute or research and you find out its hyperpartisan bullshit. Certainly both sides do it.

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/benghazi.asp

"

Claim: Various critical statements about the September 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya:

 

FALSE: Administration officials watched the attacks unfold in real time but did nothing to intervene.

 

FALSE: Requests issued by U.S. personnel for military back-up during the attacks were denied.

 

FALSE: General Carter Ham was relieved of his command for attempting to provide military assistance during the Benghazi attacks.

 

FALSE: Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette was relieved of his command for attempting to provide military assistance during the Benghazi attacks. "..

The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's 15 January 2014 review of the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi viewed video footage documenting the dispatch of a security team to the Mission compound within 20-25 minutes of the first report of the attack, and they found that no "stand down" orders were issued to the security team at the Annex:

After the Diplomatic Security (DS) agent in the Tactical Operations Center at the Temporary Mission Facility alerted the Annex security team that TMF was under attack at 9:40, the Chief of Base called the [redacted] "who advised that he would immediately deploy a force to provide assistance," according to a September 19, 2012, cable.

 

Two armored vehicles were prepared so the security team could respond from the Annex. Approximately 20-25 minutes after the first call came into the Annex that the Temporary Mission Facility (TMF) was under attack, a security team left the Annex for the Mission compound. In footage taken from the Annex's security cameras, the security team can be observed departing the CIA Annex at 10:03 p.m. Benghazi time.

 

The team drove to the Mission facility and made their way onto the Mission compound in the face of enemy fire, arriving in the vicinity of the compound at approximately 10:10 p.m. Benghazi time. The Committee explored claims that there was a "stand down" order given to the security team at the Annex. Although some members of the security team expressed frustration that they were unable to respond more quickly to the Mission compound, 12 the Committee found no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the Chief of Base or any other party.

General Carter Ham headed the U.S. Africa Command during the attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi. A late October 2012 rumor claimed General Ham declined an order to "stand down" and attempted to provide military assistance during the attacks, only to be relieved of his command "within a minute" of doing so, and Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette was likewise relieved of his command for ordering his forces to support those ordered into action by General Ham. That rumor was fueled by an 18 October 2012 announcement that President Obama had selected a nominee to replace General Ham (who subsequently retired from the U.S. Army in April 2013) as commander of the U.S. Africa Command:

 

President Barack Obama will nominate Army Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command and Marine Lt. Gen. John Paxton to succeed Gen. Joseph Dunford as assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced.

 

In announcing Ham’s successor, Panetta also praised the work Ham has done with Africa Command.

 

"Gen. Ham has really brought AFRICOM into a very pivotal role in that challenging region," Panetta said. "I and the nation are deeply grateful for his outstanding service."

However, Secretary of Defense Panetta stated during an October 2012 press briefing that General Ham was one of the military commanders who had judged it too dangerous to send troops to Benghazi without a clearer picture of events on the ground:

The "basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," [Panetta] said during a joint question-and-answer session with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey.

 

"As a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation," Panetta said.

On 29 October 2012, General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also asserted that this rumor was false:

The speculation that General Carter Ham is departing Africa Command (AFRICOM) due to events in Benghazi, Libya, on 11 September 2012 is absolutely false. General Ham's departure is part of routine succession planning that has been on going since July. He continues to serve in AFRICOM with my complete confidence.

General Ham himself testified before the House Committee on Armed Services in June 2013 that the decision not to deploy close air support during the attack was made by him based on his assessment of the situation at the time, not because he was ordered to "stand down":

I will admit to giving a lot of thought about close air support. And in the lead up to September 11th, in the discussions about what forces should we have available, it was my determination, obviously with advice from others, but the responsibility was mine as the commander, was that close air support was not the appropriate tool in this situation.

 

And as I look back on the events of that night and say ... and think in my own mind would air have made a difference? And in my military judgment, I believe the answer is no. It was a very uncertain situation in an environment which we know we had an unknown surface-to-air threat with the proliferation particularly of shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, many of which remain unaccounted for. But mostly it was a lack of understanding of the environment, and hence the need for the Predator to try to gain an understanding of what was going on.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/benghazi.asp#XkPwJ5vz61OdYsuw.99

Edited November 13, 2014 by thelerner

[Brian]

Thank you, thelerner.

 

It is perhaps worth pointing out that the two other memes in that same post are factually accurate.

[joeblast]

snopes will toe the line on things when they are told to. as will the general, you think he would not get up and testify "what should be correct?" otherwise we have a big government crisis and its exposed that they are doing nefarious things, running weapons and starting wars? please, I saw enough evidence to know that "being under oath" means jack crap, its just a chance to reiterate the official story that needs to be repeated as often as possible. snopes says a double tap to the back of the head is a passable suicide also wrt/ the clintons, its all just coincidence and some crazy right wing conspiracy, right, lol - and hell, search snopes for "was 911 pre planned" or "was 911 an inside job" gets no hits whatsoever and all of the 911 bits on there are stupid joke things like did a tomato dial 911. oh, there's one about what hit the pentagon, and snopes is unequivocal in asserting that a 757 hit the pentagon - funny, those 6000 pound whirling chunks of titanium didnt seem to even scratch the walls, while the soft nose went through 3 levels of pentagon? have you ever seen a picture of a plane superimposed next to the pentagon :hand: sorry, get that bullshit out of here.

 

at any rate, all that needs to be shown to know whether 911 was an inside job or not is building 7, no point in getting mired in technical ambiguities on other targets when we have such a blatant perfectly executed demolition in building 7. snopes is strangely silent there. search wtc7 and you get nada!

 

stopped watching fox many years ago, I saw it recently and laughed.

[CloudHands]

Sorry I cannot resist, Joe throwed me a line. The funniest part about 911 is to me the fact that WTC towers collapsed supposedly because of crashes' heat but they found the supposed terrorist's password in the rubble. Hilarious.

 

I leave, I promise, maybe...

[Brian]

Sorry I cannot resist, Joe throwed me a line. The funniest part about 911 is to me the fact that WTC towers collapsed supposedly because of crashes' heat but they found the supposed terrorist's password in the rubble. Hilarious.

 

I leave, I promise, maybe...

Some rather curious details surrounding the whole thing, eh?

[joeblast]

"'When it becomes serious, you have to lie'"

-Jean-Claude Juncker

[Marblehead]

 

"'When it becomes serious, you have to lie'"

-Jean-Claude Juncker

About the only thing my politicians are good at. Apparently everything is serious.

[CloudHands]

Some rather curious details surrounding the whole thing, eh?

 

I meant passport...

[Brian]

 

I meant passport...

Yep, I understood.

[Brian]

 

hahaha ... what? I'm not sure what I've written to be labelled crazy or partisan. I made a couple pretty good suggestions as to why the political climate in the US is the way it is, and I reacted to a statement from Brian. But that's about it, far as I remember.

 

Nobody replied to my suggestion that the country would benefit from an independent, publicly-funded media system. So let me elaborate:

 

If I had the magic wand, I'd create, overnight, a TV, radio, print and web network, fully funded (to the tune of billions a year) by public money, and completely immune to governement or commercial interests.

 

A system like this was created by the allies in Germany after the war because they recognized the power of the Nazi propaganda machines. The propaganda was coming from government and commercial/industrial sources, and both of them were colluding with one another to make the misery as, well, miserable as possible.

 

The system as it exists today is pretty complex, with regional systems and national systems running independent of one another, but sharing some programming.

 

That means we get incredibly high-quality reporting on the governmemt and on industry, and they can do nothing about it.

 

We pay a tax for this system and it's one of the taxes I genuinely support and wouldn't mind seeing raised.

What keeps bias and corruption out of the coverage, s c?

[joeblast]

Sorry I cannot resist, Joe throwed me a line. The funniest part about 911 is to me the fact that WTC towers collapsed supposedly because of crashes' heat but they found the supposed terrorist's password in the rubble. Hilarious.

 

I leave, I promise, maybe...

what I found hilarious is when the NIST put 400 pounds of thermite in a bag on top of a car, saw it melt the roof just a tiny bit since the entire reaction was uncontained and went straight into the atmosphere, then declare "there's no possible way thermite cut those steel girders"

 

 

All the papers for the SEC's investigation into Enron were in building 7. Look at who owned and rented most of the building.

 

The floors on 1 & 2 that "had work done to re-fireproof the steel girders after removal of asbestos" ...curious that they were the exact (range of) floors hit on each building...hey, they were under the same tenant too, how's about that? what's that tell you - that remote control did not allow remote overtake of the cockpit just yet, so the cockpits had to be secured in order to be remote controlled - seeing as how it was rather doubtful these guys were able to fly that well. if they were, it is rather immaterial, seeing as how we have unequivocal evidence of a controlled demolition on 1, 2 & 7.

 

Lo and behold we see articles just before 911 talking about this capability, then articles after, saying we need to be able to remote control commercial anything...

 

 

I mean, one has to be willfully ignorant at this point in time to still think this was all a ragtag bunch of zealots that did not have the operating and organizational capacity of the largest terrorist force on the planet behind them.

 

 

anyway, 911 is just litmus test stuff at this point. is one deluded, or does one believe his lying eyes?

 

while snopes may be straightforward on things of little importance...things of big importance.... why, so patriotic, it would jeopardize national security if the people knew, after all.

Edited November 13, 2014 by joeblast

[joeblast]

What keeps bias and corruption out of the coverage, s c?

what's the opposite of money

[thelerner]

Thank you, thelerner.

 

It is perhaps worth pointing out that the two other memes in that same post are factually accurate.

I don't know, the Hillary one is filled with back story conjecture from 40 years ago. Mostly what they said, they said in 1974, but didn't think enough of it to actually write it down or file any charges. Its gets down to two people word from 40 years ago who are hard core political pundits. Then there quotes are picked up by partisan players and quoted like a gospel.

 

Without a smoking gun, the lesson may be that politics is dirty and getting dirtier.

 

Here's what I get:

from http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2014-03-08/story/fact-check-was-hillary-clinton-fired-watergate-investigation

synopsis:

An email says that Hillary Clinton — then Hillary Rodham — was fired for lying and being unethical when she was a 27-year-old working on the Watergate investigation. Is this true?

The viral email is mainly derived from a column published on March 31, 2008, by Dan Calabrese, founder of North Star Writers Group, according to fact-finder TruthOrFiction.com. North Star was a newspaper syndicate that provided services until early 2012.

..So what are we to make of all this? Calabrese’s interview with Zeifman has been published around the Internet and repeated by pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and Neil Boortz. But there is nothing to out-and-out confirm Zeifman’s rendition. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t be true, but it makes it difficult to arrive at the truth."

 

Here's what the Snopes site says about it.

 

Zeif-geist

Claim: Jerry Zeifman fired 27-year-old Hillary Clinton from the Watergate investigation.

FALSE

Example: [Collected via e-mail, 2014]

Is this true or false?

As a 27 year old staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigation, Hillary Rodham was fired by her supervisor, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman. When asked why Hillary Rodham was fired, Zeifman said in an interview, "Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer, she conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the Committee, and the rules of confidentiality.""

Origins: Former First Lady Hillary Clinton is no stranger to political scandal and controversy, and a specific accusation concerning her work as a young lawyer on the Watergate investigation has dogged her political career for more than a decade. The claim originated with Jerry Zeifman, under whom Clinton worked in 1974 as a member of the impeachment inquiry staff for the House Committee on the Judiciary during the course of the scandal.

 

The notion Hillary Clinton was fired by Jerry Zeifman for "lying" and "unethical behavior" has circulated across social media and in e-mails for years. The belief that Clinton's early career was marked by this buried scandal is widespread, but is there any merit to the claim?

 

By Zeifman's own admission there is not. Statements made by Zeifman himself contradict the claim he fired Hillary Clinton. During a 1998 interview with the Sacramento Bee in which he discussed his work with Clinton on Watergate, Zeifman not only stated he hadn't fired her, but he didn't even have the authority to fire her:

If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her.

 

Ten years later, Zeifman's story had shifted. When asked by radio host Neal Boortz in April 2008 if he had fired Hillary Clinton from the Watergate investigation, Zeifman hedged by stating Clinton had been let go, but only as part of a layoff of multiple personnel who were no longer needed:

 

Well, let me put it this way. I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were — we no longer needed, and advised her that I would not — could not recommend her for any further positions.

Following Zeifman's 2008 interview with Boortz, a column by Dan Calabrese ("FLASHBACK: HILLARY CLINTON FIRED FROM WATERGATE INVESTIGATION FOR 'LYING, UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR'") cemented the belief that Hillary Clinton had been "fired" from the Watergate investigation in political lore:

 

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation — one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman's 17-year career.

 

However, one need only go back to the source of the rumor and Zeifman's own statement that he did not have the power to fire Hillary Clinton to discount that now common version of political lore: the evidence indicates that, whatever Zeifman may have thought of Clinton's behavior, she was let go from the Watergate committee because she was one of a number of people who were no longer needed as the investigation wound down (and Nixon's resignation made the issue moot), not because she was "fired" over ethical issues.

 

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp#l8gp5jIIJgtbrlRL.99

 

 

later addon: I hate to come off as too one sided. I've just spent half the morning arguing against left wing conspiracy theories with my left wing friend The truth is both sides play this game. I've found if you investigate often the best and the very worst of political accusations are full of it.

Edited November 13, 2014 by thelerner

[Brian]

Find a copy of Zeifman's book...

 

[thelerner]

The talk about building 7 always blows my mind. You've got people (whoever) who crash jumbo jets into several buildings and yet they're spending time rigging another building for collapse? Its like mastermind criminals are going to rob 3 banks at the same time and spend a vast amount of time and effort to sabotage shoe store number 7 and make it look like an accident.

 

The only thing to gain from all the alleged time and effort is well.. nothing. No matter who did it or why, its nonsensical, but because it collapsed they need to make it part of a plot that actually didn't happen. Matter of fact, why plant any explosives, you've just crashed jumbo jets into the frickin buildings, you don't have to do anything else to create outrage. It's done and why complicate a plan a dozen ways and involve dozens or hundreds more people?

 

Ridiculous.

[joeblast]

The talk about building 7 always blows my mind. You've got people (whoever) who crash jumbo jets into several buildings and yet they're spending time rigging another building for collapse? Its like mastermind criminals are going to rob 3 banks at the same time and spend a vast amount of time and effort to sabotage shoe store number 7 and make it look like an accident.

 

The only thing to gain from all the alleged time and effort is well.. nothing. No matter who did it or why, its nonsensical, but because it collapsed they need to make it part of a plot that actually didn't happen. Matter of fact, why plant any explosives, you've just crashed jumbo jets into the frickin buildings, you don't have to do anything else to create outrage. It's done and why complicate a plan a dozen ways and involve dozens or hundreds more people?

 

Ridiculous.

the point is, all 3 buildings were rigged and demolitioned.

 

the planes would not have taken down those buildings if it werent for the demolition. they were designed explicitly to withstand such a thing happening . not that design and implementation is infallible, but again the data does not even come close to matching the story presented.

 

far as I've been able to tell, building 7 was the main target, given the SEC's entire repository of all their investigations, the stuff on the S&L scandal, enron, you name it. that was huge stuff. it was all there, and for some if not most of it, surprisingly, the only existing copies resided in that location. ...the only thing to gain, you said?

 

which is why flight 93 was headed for building 7 - then it would have actually "had some reason to"...uh...implode...not fall down, not tip over, but neatly and perfectly drop like just about any other demolition of building of a similar design...? if what was in building 7 was not so preposterously important, why take the risk of exposing the operation and dropping a massive building when there was no plausible reason within the bounds of rational sanity for that building to have fallen, much less in a fatefully picture perfect pirouette of sorts?

 

and look at what information was stored in the pentagon where it was hit, some obscure naval investigative unit? and the....craft....did a full 270 around it and screamed in at what did they say, 400, 500 mph, nevermind what they said a 757 did there is just this side of impossible for that aircraft, much less with a less than expert pilot? a hole, but no wing holes? steel is not as hard as concrete, within reason, yes? what were the outsides of the WTC made of? the wings punched right through, as did the engine. the pentagon? how much concrete we talking? and the engine nor the wings....left....any marking whatsoever? and the fbi immediately confiscated the sole private security camera from the gas station that filmed it, we've never been allowed to see it? this all passes your logic test?

 

as far as the complicity of however many people, I have no doubts they were sufficiently bought or part of the process more intimately anyway. this and the above is exponentially more logical than what was in that official report. even when people know that report's bullshit...they still dont want to look at it a little more deeply...

 

 

I know, I know...I didnt want to believe it for a while either, until I thoroughly went through AE911truth...and started objectively considering what the evidence told me.

 

sad to say, my worldview on what's up with this planet is not quite the same, I am disgusted, not to mention, disgusted that people still question nothing, the outcome's just not going to be good when not every outcome can be managed for smoothness and consistency.

 

another reason why I cant sit around here yapping about bullshit like this every day

[silent thunder]

what's the opposite of money

great freaking question...

[thelerner]

An Online Debate That Isn't a Complete Gong Show

I kinda like this picture. It kinda captures the spirit of some of these more contentious debates.

from Cracked.com http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-seemingly-normal-things-that-are-inexplicably-hard-to-find_p2/

Edited November 13, 2014 by thelerner