Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
The GOP attacks the Constitution.

On Monday, the Republican Party revealed that its new smear campaign against Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine will double as something else: an all-out assault on the United States Constitution.

The ad constitutes a straightforward, unapologetic attack on the Sixth Amendment. With it, the Republican Party can never again claim in good faith to be the party of defending the Constitution.

The Sixth Amendment Assistance of Counsel Clause: “In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right … to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” It is a principle of American jurisprudence that it predates the Constitution. John Adams famously defended the British soldiers accused of committing the Boston Massacre, arguing that even the most reviled defendants deserved a strong defense.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Eighteen years? He paid no taxes?

Are you sure this is standard practice?

No wonder he won’t release his returns.

The bigger the losses, the more he earns.

Airline, Trump U, and casinos

All went belly-up but he knows

Loss is gain. My projection:

He’ll make money from a lost election.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Do you understand that this is where we're at now?

We're on the verge of Nuclear War... fucking World War III with Russia because of Obama and the Clintons

All of the recent Putin discussions are translated in plain english.

He wants us to know.

He wants Americans to ask What the Fuck is going on in Syria right now.

Hillary Clinton/Obama/Bush Jr./Bill Clinton/Bush Senior

They are all the same fucking person.

WAR?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
The war on coal, the Trump campaign says, is a vital part of the economic case against the Obama years. The argument: that Democrats on the national level hate coal. Trump is wrong. It is Texas and its natural gas industry waging war on coal. Trump can’t say that because he wants to win in Texas.

Although renewables have grown rapidly, they still represent a small fraction of overall power production. In fact, natural gas has inflicted far more damage on coal than wind, solar, or the U.S. government. The application of fracking, which has raged unabated during the Obama years, has liberated vast cheap supplies of domestic natural gas. The utility industry, motivated by a desire to earn profits and keep costs low, has been shifting wholesale from coal to natural gas.

Because electricity use isn’t growing that much in this country, coal and natural gas are engaged in a zero-sum game. In 2008, coal accounted for 48 percent of electricity generation, compared with just 21 percent for natural gas. By 2015, coal’s market slipped to 33 percent, while natural gas saw its share rise to 32.6 percent—a virtual tie. So far this year, natural gas is beating coal by 34 to 29 percent. Oh, and the displacement of coal hasn’t led to electricity becoming more expensive. Rather, it has coincided with electricity becoming less expensive.

Year % Coal/% Natural Gas
2008 48/21
2015 33/32.6
2016 29/34

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Remember that the theme song behind "You Asked for it, you got it" was
"I love what you do to me, Toyota".

Obviously Japan is in our hands right now. Their only lucritive industry since the mid 80s is video games.




Would you rather hear that message in Korean?

Maybe you should watch a fucking Russian "debate"?




Seriously

Go fuck yourselves.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for WWIII.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

I saw an article explaining that: “A tale of two ethics” at
www.economist.com/news/europe/21707959-why-many-germans-think-impracti
cal-idealism-immoral-tale-two-ethics

Why many Germans think impractical idealism is immoral
Oct 1st 2016

The phrases “ethic of conviction” and “ethic of responsibility” mean little to most English-speakers. In Germany the equivalent terms—Gesinnungsethik and Verantwortungsethik—are household words. Pundits drop them casually during television talk shows. Hosts use them as conversation-starters at dinner parties. The concepts draw on the opposition between idealism and pragmatism that runs through politics everywhere. But they also capture a specific moral tension that is “very German”, says Manfred Güllner, a sociologist and pollster. Anyone interested in understanding German politics, on anything from the euro to refugees, would do well to get a handle on them.

The terms come from the sociologist Max Weber, who used them in a speech he gave in January 1919 to a group of leftist students at a Munich bookstore. Germany had just lost the first world war. The Kaiser had abdicated, the country was in the throes of revolution and Munich was about to become the capital of a short-lived “Bavarian Soviet Republic”. Armed with only eight index cards, Weber gave a talk that would become a classic of political science. (“Politics as a Vocation” was published in English only after the second world war. http://anthropos-lab.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Weber-Politics-
as-a-Vocation.pdf ) The lecture ranged broadly through history, but its main purpose was to curb the Utopian romanticism then gripping the ideologues fighting over the direction of the new Germany, including those sitting in front of him.

Weber described an “abysmal opposition” between two types of ethics. Those following their convictions wish to preserve their own moral purity, no matter what consequences their policies may have in the real world. “If an action of good intent leads to bad results, then, in the actor’s eyes, not he but the world, or the stupidity of other men, or God’s will who made them thus, is responsible for the evil.” By contrast, someone guided by responsibility “takes account of precisely the average deficiencies of people…(H)e does not even have the right to presuppose their goodness and perfection.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Yanno what, SECOND? This exactly describes why you should vote for Trump.

---

Quote:

---

This whole thing has pretty much taken me off the fence of deciding whether to vote 3rd party or stay home. Seeing the incredible push by all of the DC power-brokers to have Trump withdraw over this has convinced me that it's not an act. TPTB really are scared of him and desperately want Hillary to win.

That's good enough to convince me to vote for Trump. I wonder if any others like me who didn't really buy the hype had a similar reaction. I would guess yes.

---

Quote:

---

Utah Senator Mike Lee said the Republican Party had to find another candidate or it would not win the White House.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Utah Senator Mike Lee said the Republican Party had to find another candidate or it would not win the White House.

---

GREAT!

But why does that translate to "You should vote for Hillary"? It doesn't, actually. If you really wanted Hillary to win, wouldn't you continue to want Trump in the race?

So how come you're now supporting Republicans? Does this mean that you, really, would prefer an "establishment" Republican over Trump, or even Hillary? Does this make you an "establishmentarian"? And how do you justify your own cruelty?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Utah Senator Mike Lee said the Republican Party had to find another candidate or it would not win the White House.

---

GREAT!

But why does that translate to "You should vote for Hillary"? It doesn't, actually. If you really wanted Hillary to win, wouldn't you continue to want Trump in the race?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
The crisis swirling around Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is unique, but there’s nothing unprecedented about congressional candidates distancing themselves from a locally unpopular presidential candidate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
The crisis swirling around Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is unique, but there’s nothing unprecedented about congressional candidates distancing themselves from a locally unpopular presidential candidate.

---

Sorry SECOND but the degree to which the Republicans are abandoning Trump is unprecedented.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Trump didn't crash and burn like he did in the first debate, so that is a victory of sorts. But on substance he almost literally said nothing. Every question was used as an opportunity to attack Hillary in one way or another. She's a liar; she loves rich people; her husband is a sexual predator; she has "tremendous hate in her heart"; she wants to put coal miners out of business; she ought to be in jail; and on and on. I think it's safe to say that no one in presidential debate history has come anywhere close to being as derogatory as Trump was this evening.

No ordinary debate performance was likely to help Trump at this point, so why not shoot the moon? But it didn't work. According to CNN, debate watchers thought Hillary Clinton won the debate, 57-34 percent. CNN's focus group was something like 20-1 in favor of Clinton.

But! Trump did better than expected. He didn't spontaneously combust on stage.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Every question was used as an opportunity to attack Hillary in one way or another. She's a liar; she loves rich people; her husband is a sexual predator; she has "tremendous hate in her heart"; she wants to put coal miners out of business; she ought to be in jail; and on and on. I think it's safe to say that no one in presidential debate history has come anywhere close to being as derogatory as Trump was this evening.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

And he had a loss that could (i.e might) mean he wouldn't pay taxes for almost 20 years...

Trump didn't pay taxes for 20 years...

He didn't pay taxes ....

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

And Trump, probably on advice of his campaign manager, didn't hit back. So now Hillary got a taste of her own medicine, in front of a wide audience. Boo hoo hoo for Hillary. She should realize that if she hits some people, they'll hit back.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Conservative political commentator and media personality Glenn Beck said opposing Donald Trump is a "moral, ethical" choice — even if that results in Hillary Clinton becoming the next president.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Conservative political commentator and media personality Glenn Beck said opposing Donald Trump is a "moral, ethical" choice — even if that results in Hillary Clinton becoming the next president.

---

It's amazing and fun to watch as the Republican party and it's talking heads run from trump.



____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

This guy flat out
threatened the United States:

"...but if Hillary Clinton wins it will be the last U.S. president ever."

The guy is completely mental, especially if he thinks that Russia will be left standing unscathed. In a nuclear war, nobody wins. It makes you wonder
about comments made right here in River City by our dynamic duo; of how
Hillary is the warmonger and aggressor in this equation. It takes a lot of
balls to make that bold of a statement. That or lack of mental capacity; it just might be that, like Trump, he's lost all semblance of reality.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I saw this article online in MSN News and thought that maybe it was one of those bait and switch stories that sensationalize statements made by prominent people to capture reader's attention.

Oh, it got my attention alright.

Let's put aside the chauvinistic comments for a moment. This guy flat out
threatened the United States:

"...but if Hillary Clinton wins it will be the last U.S. president ever."

The guy is completely mental, especially if he thinks that Russia will be left standing unscathed. In a nuclear war, nobody wins. It makes you wonder
about comments made right here in River City by our dynamic duo; of how
Hillary is the warmonger and aggressor in this equation. It takes a lot of
balls to make that bold of a statement. That or lack of mental capacity; it just might be that, like Trump, he's lost all semblance of reality.

Buckle up Dorothy, Kansas is going Bye-Bye!


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

This guy flat out
threatened the United States:

"...but if Hillary Clinton wins it will be the last U.S. president ever."

The guy is completely mental, especially if he thinks that Russia will be left standing unscathed. In a nuclear war, nobody wins. It makes you wonder
about comments made right here in River City by our dynamic duo; of how
Hillary is the warmonger and aggressor in this equation. It takes a lot of
balls to make that bold of a statement. That or lack of mental capacity; it just might be that, like Trump, he's lost all semblance of reality.

---

This is just part of the theatrics of the Mutual assured destruction (MAD) game.

I think Trump’s election makes nuclear war more likely than Hillary’s election. A little background for why Putin’s Vladimir Zhirinovsky is deliberately misleading you into thinking only Trump can prevent a nuclear war. It is to benefit Russia in a game it is playing with the USA.

Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender.

It is based on the theory of deterrence, which holds that the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy's use of those same weapons.

The strategy is a form of Nash equilibrium from game theory in which, once armed, neither side has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm. You can look at the rules of the MAD game at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction#Criticism

Since it is a game, the USA is only completely safe if it plays the game of MAD the way the game rules are written. If this was a game of Tennis and the President hesitates to hit the ball back once Putin serves it, the game is lost and millions die on the first serve. If the President leaves the tennis court, by disarming, the game is also lost. The MAD game is won for only as long as nobody serves the ball and everyone stays in the game. Holding the ball and acting bad-tempered toward Putin is a part of the theatrics of the MAD game for as long as Hillary does not actually serve the ball. Trump acting good-tempered and refusing to hit Putin’s serve back at him is a losing strategy in this game.

There is absolutely no doubt that Hillary and Putin understand all the rules of the MAD game. The way Trump talks, I have serious doubts he knows what kind of game is being played, but my opinion does not count as much as Putin’s opinion of Trump. Putin truly has control of his half of the MAD game. If Putin thinks Trump will not play it according to the rules Trump never learned, then the USA is risking WWIII.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I saw this article online in MSN News and thought that maybe it was one of those bait and switch stories that sensationalize statements made by prominent people to capture reader's attention.

Oh, it got my attention alright.

Let's put aside the chauvinistic comments for a moment. This guy flat out
threatened the United States:

"...but if Hillary Clinton wins it will be the last U.S. president ever."

The guy is completely mental, especially if he thinks that Russia will be left standing unscathed. In a nuclear war, nobody wins. It makes you wonder
about comments made right here in River City by our dynamic duo; of how
Hillary is the warmonger and aggressor in this equation. It takes a lot of
balls to make that bold of a statement. That or lack of mental capacity; it just might be that, like Trump, he's lost all semblance of reality.

Buckle up Dorothy, Kansas is going Bye-Bye!


SGG

---

The guys unhinged and as much as I don't care for Hillary it would be a disaster if she were to lose to him.

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
He now points a finger at "animal" Democrats for the fire bombing in NC. I think that the jury's still out as to who done it, but I wouldn't put it past his supporters to try and distract attention away from the sexual assault allegations.

I found his response a bit too quick and wrong-headed. As usual despicable.


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
There are many, many problems with hillary. She breaks countries and starts wars wherever she goes. Right now, she and obama are drumming up war fever JUST TO WIN THE ELECTION. Never mind that it's not against some small hapless country full of brown people that most voters can't find on a map. No, hillary and obama are aiming a Russia, a fully capable nuclear equal. I wonder if they've considered that the Russian response to their war-mongering might be something they can't just turn off after the election.

hillary as a president would have zero power to keep her many, many empty promises. And she knows that, but it doesn't stop her from making them anyway, because people really are that gullible. So, why not? But even more than that, hillary herself doesn't believe them, as the leaked documents show. hillary is an empty husk of a person when it comes to integrity.

hillary is completely corrupt, mixing state power with personal gain, as the leaked emails about pay-to-play as Secy of State and her toadying speeches to GS show.

And there's the billary issue - co-abusers of women and children, equal, if not worse than anyone else on the campaign trail.


But the BIGGEST problem with hillary is her finger on the nuclear button. Having left Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Syria in unfixable smoking ruins, and unable to admit or even understand that she was wrong, surrounded by her equally deluded neocons in the State Department, military and CIA who also think a nuclear war is winnable, deaf to warnings, she'd turn her attention toward Russia - with her fat finger on the nuclear button and US policy to launch nuclear weapons FIRST in her waddling hip pocket. Given her unblemished history of failure, i can't imagine anything could possibly go wrong.

---