goDel

this thread needs to be archived on tape and sealed with durex

I keep reading it as "Cheater EP".

odeggurr

yes! also, those new shirts... like the colors, but the logo on the back is ...sorry.. it looks just stupid to have a logo that high on the back. sorry. that's a dealbreaker.

Still waiting for anthony falia's review...

was probably this: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-campaign-last-days-224041 It quoted the same information as the one I saw...this is an interesting read though. The campaign managers are partly covering their asses, which I guess is necessary since that is essentially a full time career for some of them, but the leaking of internal communications seems shitty, particularly while the campaign is still technically going on. They don't need to make a big stink about how they've known and been saying Sanders is done for, everyone with half a brain knows that and has known for a month or more. Sanders being too pig-headed about things was both what got him where he is and what turned the campaign into a movement and not a real march towards the presidency. You just can't run shit the way they did, not anymore. You have to play by the rules to some extent, and that's a part of what kept him from getting the nomination. Interesting what he's turning the 'campaign' towards now though that it's essentially over...I hadn't heard about the shit with Barney Frank. Fucking career politicians are such a uniquely bitchy sort of human. Not read the article, but just want to add a couple of cents about why it is a good thing for sanders to keep going. He needs to keep going not to become the democratic (or third party) candidate, but to increase the mandate behind the "Sanders-agenda". At this point he's basically become some kind of superpac. He can still increase his political power without having an actual shot at running the white house. He can play the political game using the faulty system. This might be one of the few ways to keep Clinton on the left/progressive side of the spectrum. And my guess is Clinton might actually agree with this, because she will end up somewhere in the political middle. Because politics. And while the gop is in chaos on the looney extreme on the far right, Sanders can play an essential role to keep Hillary in some rational middle ground.

That should be Furry Twin, btw

stopped viewing after hearing how he pronounced "autechre". my god. even fandingo got that right.

*fingered

Actually interested in what the anti-clinton crowd (clington crowd?) thinks about this article, titled "It’s time to admit Hillary Clinton is an extraordinarily talented politician" http://www.vox.com/2016/6/7/11879728/hillary-clinton-wins-nomination Makes some interesting points about how the election proces is biased for candidates with male traits and why that makes clinton such a difficult candidate to like.

Cheetah1 Cheetah2 Cheetah3 Cheetah4 Cheetah5 Cheetah6 (closing piano track) Lush *fixt

any blimps in the london sky a the moment? i need more signs!

and regardless of the difference between tarp and dodd-frank, i hope people don't consider the bail-out as just doing the banks a huge favor. it was a necessary evil. no bail-out might would have caused the entire economy to crash. not just the financial system.

How would you scale getting the Dodd-Frank bill through senate/congress?

no that's a duo bonus! on another note: my current bet is on a complete implosion on the gop-side when trumpy starts to show cracks. and my guess is hillary is the best candidate to shoot holes in trumps candidacy. and her recent couple of shots might already have begun the implosion process. interesting election cycle, this is. :)

at me? so, you'd argue that a politician shouldn't take money if the politician needed it to make better policies for his/her constituents? i'd agree on paper. but that's a paper reality which in current day and age has become a fairy tale. what would be more effective: vote for the politician who'd make policies that would make the involvement of money in politics more transparent, even if he/she took a substantial amount of money from donors. or not vote at all? it surprises me how often people come to the conclusion that not voting is better than voting, btw. that's like saying that giving power to the people who do vote is better than to take control yourself. instead of not voting out of distrust of the political system, you might want to distrust the people who'd vote instead of you. every lost vote, means more power to the people who do vote.

Interesting editorial in NYT on money in 2016 race: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/05/opinion/sunday/big-money-rearranges-its-election-bets.html Most important bit is in the tail, I think. Regardless of the amounts of money involved, it might be more important to start creating more transparency about the actual influence of money on politics. My guess is, not voting for Hillary because of her donors might make things worse instead of better.

You think it's safer to have a gun in a situation where the intruder has a gun? It would be better not to have a gun, imo. If both have a gun, it's more likely someone would get shot. And i believe a baseball bat would be more effective. It's more likely you actually can hit what you want to hit. And the outcome is non-lethal while still as effective.

@audioblysk: exactly!

More or less.

The idea that people would actually consider having a gun for protection. I dunno. What would you do? Aim at someone and actually pull the trigger, potentially killing someone by a snap of your pointing finger? Can't imagine any situation outside of actual wartime or a hollywood movie where I'd even consider it a viable solution. Call me an idiot, but I don't ever want to point a loaded gun at someone. And I don't understand people who would.

wasn't that the interview with all the modular tracks, right after syro? that's as close to philosphy as yer gonna get with the rdj, i'm guessing.

lol forgot this was already released as an analord bonus track...

nice!