«12. . .1,1771,1781,1791,1801,1811,1821,183. . .2,5652,566»
While full isolationalism can be dangerous in its own way, I tend to agree that we really had no business getting as involved in the Middle East as we have. Going after Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda made sense, going after Iraq was dumb, and it's only gotten worse from there. We really need to do something to reduce our presence there so we can, you know, start focusing on our own infrastructure again. I had such high hopes Obama would do that when he was first elected, but, like most politicians, he talked a good game but had no followthrough.
Problem was, there was no organised al-qaeda in afghanistan. their bosses are sitting in quatar und saudi arabia, the rest in pakistan.
the taliban are sitting in pakistan too, supported by the paki secret service, army and politics - and we gave that sh#t nation billions each year.
ditto
well, it was kinda obvious for me that obama was a failure. hyped and sold to the world as a second coming of jesus christ - there was no other option than failure
all what he had was his skin color and and empty promises.. what a spineless sack of slime who did everything what lobbyists told him
trump on the other hand... he will rock the boat. unlike the rest of the politcal class, he has personality, which gives me at last some hope.
but i wouldn't be suprised if he is a sell-out too
[quote=lordren;22704176Mitt Romney seems like a [b]sane[/b] choice for Secretary of State compared to all the others currently on the table[/quote]
Just because you think someone is insane, crazy, a little bit mad, or whatnot, it doesn't mean you have to dislike them.
On a completely unrelated topic, I don't dislike you :P
Post self-deleted by Lordren.
Pssh. Trump is already showing that he's every bit as prone to cronyism and corruption and listening to lobbyists as any (and almost every) other politician. As if that was ever really a question.
As for the rest -- again, I was fine with going after Al-Qaeda/Taliban, which had nothing to do with Iraq. I can understand not wanting to mess with the Saudis, as that's a pretty powerful nation, but I at least would have felt more justified hitting them and Pakistan than hitting Iraq when it was clear they had nothing to do with anything. Either way, we would have been in for a long, protracted war, but at least that would have been the right war instead of what we have now.
Jesus, when did Balder turn into Trumpchat? (._.)
Well he was just elected President, so it's kind of on everyone's mind during this transition period.
Our enemies can BRING IT. I'll stand proudly next to the Jewish Nation. Until my dying breath!
Trump doesn't even have to be a sell-out; he's a con artist. The man makes ordinary establishment politicians look like paragons of honesty and dutifulness, and before this election I would've sworn that was an impossible feat.
Can you give us an example of how he "man makes ordinary establishment politicians look like paragons of honesty and dutifulness" and some examples of who he conned and how he conned them?
Note for Easter-Egg hunters:
It's December now, so now is the time to try and get the secret Christmas issue (as it's only attainable this month).
I'm not entirely sure on the conditions to get it, only you have to put something "Christmas-themed" in one of the changeable name options for your nations, e.g. change leader to "Nicholas Santa", changing national animal to "reindeer", change currency to "Christmas presents", stuff like that (but I can't say for certain what will, and wont work).
If you do get the Christmas issue, please let me know what Christmassy names you used.
I was excused from jury duty for being legally blind! I'm not entirely sure how to feel about this. On the one hand, I've never had jury duty before and would kind of like to try it. On the other, I probably would have been excused during the jury selection process anyway, because I think too much, so one of the lawyers would have used one of their free passes to get rid of me. No one likes a juror who actually has a brain.
What number trial member were you and how many jury members were going to be picked.
My mother was number 13 of a 6 man trial. There was no way that she could have been picked.
I have no idea. The date for jury selection is coming up on the 7th, but they sent me a letter excusing me based on my initial answers to the little "survey" thing that lets you know you've been called.
Perhaps they don't give you the number until you get to the court.
I'd assume that's how it goes, yeah. Again, since I've never gone before, I have no idea. And the way they inform you may even change depending on the municipality.
I don't like the term "legally blind", I mean, are there people out there who are illegally blind?
Also not a fan of the current legal system, because neither side care about the truth, only about winning, and sometimes having an expensive lawyer can matter more than the truth (so it's basically an unfair system that favours the rich).
And having a jury of non-trained people decide the outcome just means that the outcome can be determined by emotional manipulation, misleading evidence, etc. (so again, can be determined by how good the lawyer is at playing the jury, than on the facts).
Oh, and all the stupid frivolous lawsuits and stuff, hate that too.
Lady Marian, Lordren, and Teh supremez0r
#UnBanTIR!
Yeah, it's a lousy system to have trials focus more on comparing the skill of the lawyers than on getting at the truth. I'm not sure what could fix it, though, without being even more vulnerable to corruption. We'd need a group of entirely neutral, trustworthy experts to assess evidence that would be called in by the judge, instead of one attorney or the other. Maybe disbar lawyers who get caught intentionally deceiving the jury. Of course, ideally the prosecutor would be more concerned with getting the right guy than just getting a conviction. But good luck getting any laws to encourage that through when trying to keep innocent people out of jail is considered 'soft on crime'. And the defender's job ought to be making sure that the legal rights of the accused are protected and giving them advice on the legal complexities of the situation, not doing anything possible to get them off, but expensive defense attorneys would have a hard time charging as much if that was all they did.
In Teh Supremez0r, we've got mind readers to make sure nobody gets away with lying under oath. Makes things a lot simpler, as long as you don't want any right to privacy in your own head.
As far as "legally blind", it may sound weird but it is an important distinction. Since I can still see, I'm not fully blind, but my vision is so poor compared to a normal person that it affects my ability to work. It crosses a "legal threshold" for what counts as blindness.
I think that "Legal Blindness" thresholds may vary between jurisdictions.
Post self-deleted by Lordren.
Nope. Legal blindness is part of the Federal SSA guidelines! (Insert "The More You Know" jingle here)
http://www.allaboutvision.com/lowvision/social-security.htm
Unless you mean on a country-by-country basis, in which case you're probably right. And since Fake is from the UK, his rules might be different.
«12. . .1,1771,1781,1791,1801,1811,1821,183. . .2,5652,566»
Advertisement
