goDel
-
Posts
13,202 -
Joined
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Downloads
Store
Everything posted by goDel
-
That's irony right there! ;D
-
Not sure what media headlines have to do with this. This is about experience with people with heart conditions. Healthcare issues like these simply don't fall out of the sky. And don't disappear like snow either. This will impact his condition, and it's really not obvious to think he will simply move past this and continue campaigning. Even if "the prognosis is very good". Bernie is not like most patients. As most patients don't work in the conditions Bernie works in. And "prognosis" usually says something about survival. Not condition. Saying he'll live another 10 years is not the same as believing he has the condition to campaign a couple years and be president thereafter. I don't think you're interpreting those quotes the right way, tbh. And again, this has nothing to do with media framing my views. (i spend my professional life focussing on healthcare, btw) edit: i'm not saying he can't continue. just saying there's a real chance he won't.
-
I was assuming his primary was finished given his heart problems, btw. Do you really think he's in a condition to keep on campaining for another couple years (primaries and national)? Doesn't seem realistic to me.
-
track first appeared on the '95 peel session. so from the sound of it, likely made between '93 and '95.
-
i don't see how flints local government should be equal to "american government", btw. you mean the federal government? or just that all kinds of governments of all regions in america function equally? so ny government is same to flint government? i'm not sure if i want to continue this argument, btw. i'm only seeing vast generalisations going all over the place. and i'm really not interested to chase all the rabbits you're going to pull out of your hat. this will probably come across as disrespectful. but please understand that from my perspective, it's just a bunch of generalisations based on stuff that's on the internet or in the media. so yeah, you don't trust your government. or any government. fine. point taken. lets leave it at that. i'm not going to bring you to different ideas. coming back to the beginning of the argument: governments are built on and operate within legal frameworks. if they don't operate within those, they're corrupt. which is what appears to the case in flint btw. and which is also why i don't understand your "flint government = american government". as that implies the corruption systemic throughout america. if that's your position, fine. i'd respectfully disagree and hope we can leave it there.
-
i'd put it on an extended on ep. doesn't seem to fit on any afx or caustic window releases, imo. so on ep with a bunch of extra tracks, to the extent you'd have an album worth. might be an awesome album. ?
-
this looks like a "glass is half empty" kind of reasoning. the government of flint fucks up, so governments in general can't be trusted. that's just very bleak and a poor generalisation, imo. to me that's similar to having a bad experience with a person and concluding all people must be equally bad. not sure how you can overcome any set back in life with that kind of reasoning. sorry, i don't buy it. we just have a massively different outlook on life and the world etc. better to leave it at that, imo. wish you all the best, btw. and honestly a bit more positivity.
-
i think you need to make a distinction between "could" (or "technically possible") and "is". the whole snowden ordeal basically showed that already. and because of it, even US law have become more strict. in the sense that it is illegal for the us government to profile you without a good reason for doing so. but the reality of this current information age is indeed that if you're on the grid, you'll leave traces of information. but i'd be surprised if germany did collect everyones data, btw. as that goes against the recently activated EU laws on privacy (GDPR). and germany tends to be more strict in its privacy laws. even within the eu. btw, a phone "secretly" pinging towers is basically a necessity for making a call possible. because you could be moving while calling. and for people calling you, to be able to establish a connection with your phone the network needs to now which towers to use to connect. it's inherent to mobile phones. without localisation info, the entire system would overload because every call needs to be sent to every tower in the network. it's a matter of efficiency. there are many examples of things going wrong. flint is a nasty one in the sense that the problem was man-made, completely unnecessary and badly solved, as far as i can tell. but the thing is, the water used to be fine in flint. and in most modern western societies, it's the norm that basic stuff - like water/electricity/sewer - is running fine. and arguably, more stuff is actually working perfectly fine as opposed to not. so from where i'm standing, i think you're using a broad brush when you use examples like these and basically ignore all the stuff that is actually working fine. it would be healthy to have a broader perspective on stuff like these, imo. and having a broader perspective doesn't mean ignoring the stuff that goes wrong or needs improvement, btw. You can have it both ways. of course, i don't live in flint but in some EU country. so i'm a bit privileged in that aspect. but if you're ignoring the progress made in the last 100 years, the joke's on you, imo.
-
Nebraska, apart from the explanations others have already given you, I'd like to say your logic seems extremely cynical to me. It's like you're saying fundamental human rights are irrelevant because you can't trust anyone, or any institution. So in a way you've basically given up on civilisation and reduced humanity to animal territory where the laws of nature hold. You've reduced human rights to mere fiction, if you argue like that. If this is how you see the world, you've got a very bleak view, imo. Depressingly so. Are you OK?
-
biden was one of two subjects that was discussed in that call. the other was about ukraine helping dnc to make it look like russia messed with the 2016 election. the cloudstrike/crowdstrike thing. this would be relevant to barrs investigation into the justification of the russian investigation. also, barr goes beyond the ukraine call. (eg australia call...)
-
I thought it was publicly well known that the DOJ was investigating how this whole "Russia"-intelligence thing was started. Don't think it's too "out there" that the DOJ would contact foreign intell. agencies/governments. It looks to me that he had a clear mandate to contact foreign intell for his investigation. So imo, Barr is more in trouble with the apparent legal advice to move files to the super secret server. Or his direct involvement in Trumps calls with foreign leaders. If indeed the AG was involved in this, btw. If he wasn't, Barr should be safe. Sorry yalls. Nothing might happen with Barr.
-
Was thinking the same thing actually. Pompeo is the 4th stooge. Sidenote: I'm getting lost in the current newscycle. This shit is unhealthy. Too much ...argh
-
;D
-
We'll see. This whistleblower complaint seems like a well orchestrated attempt to get some heads on the chopping block. Almost too well orchestrated. But who knows...
-
but also...
-
I understand. Again, I think this doc was written by multiple people. Not by one. Based on the way it is written. Not necessarily due to the content (multiple sources), if you know what I mean.
-
The document with the complaints by the whistleblower looks like a product of multiple people, instead of one single person. The way it is written, suggests to me people with different backgrounds were consulted during the writing. Legal, intelligence and perhaps even some diplomats. Don't take my word for it, bit this document has been written by a group of people.
-
nice work. one tiny detail though...that alternative saw 85-92 playlist got p-string on it!? how on earth got that track on there. shouldn't be there, imo. (disclaimer: i like the track! it just doens't belong on the alt SAW1 playlist imo...)
-
Fair. I just don't agree with veryhonests take of the situation. And must say, I think it was a fairly short session as well. Given the sensitivity and the complexity of the mine field this situation presents. It was two hours? One? It was nowhere near Hrc/Bengazy levels of infuriating. So imo, people are getting too hyped up about Maguire. The irony might even be that Maguire might have been pushing in the background to get here. If my memory is correct there is some reporting that he needed to do some work to get in a position to talk freely with the intell comm. And in a public session as well, I might add. There were also several mentions of him working with Schiff in the background while he was trying to clear those hurdles. Maguire was in a similar position as Comey was when he sent the letter about HRCs emails short before the 2016 election. Perhaps not a wise move. But thats not the same as a malicious move. It's better to focus on those 12 people involved in those Ukraine calls. And I suspect some of those people were consciously talking with the whistleblower to indirectly "whistleblow" themselves. As I suspect there isn't a legal whistleblower framework for the white house which is similar to that of the intelligence community. So this was the safest option for them. This indirect account of events is simply too close to the actual events as far as I can tell. Barr however needs some explaining. I'm having a hard time seeing him weaseling out of this turd.
-
Had to look that up. Gotta admit I don't want a windmill in my backyard though... /nimby out ;D
-
I'm only saying it can be explained in a benign manner. which is confirmed in this youtube: at 5:45 Please, keep your pitchforks at home. I just don't think Maguire is the big villain here. Relax.
-
schiff was asking different questions. and making various insertions which maguire had to correct. that's all, imo. first the thing about second opinion. and btw, from maguires first answer you could already deduce he first went to the white house. he didn't deny that. and next schiff asked whether he needed to ask the white house whether or not to give the doc to the intell comm. was again schiff making assertions which maguire had to correct. as that simply wasnt his question to the white house. those questions of schiff showed maguire sticking to his story and making him more credible, imo. schiff was - imo - purposefully asking questions with various assertions to test whether maguire had a strong story or would bend his story. which he didn't. that's my read.
-
the position he was in was a hard one. saying something stupid will cost his head. so he was in a pretty tough spot. regardless of his intentions. malign or benign. his behaviour could be explained even if it was benign. which i still think it was. not sure why you think he was clearly trying to mislead the viewers. some comments from the reps were misleading as far as i'm concerned. maguire was limited to the extent he could answer some questions. and those seemed pretty well explainable to me. it's not like he was playing tricks like barr was during hearings earlier. barr was obviously going into the legalise in order to avoid questions. maguire didn't do that here, imo. he just tried to give a good an explanation as possible. his explanation for going to the white house was in my eyes sincere. the only question he didn't really answer was if he didn't think it was concerning given barr's implication. what didn't get out pretty well, i think, was that those contacts were on a different level than directly through barr, btw. this was through the so-called career people, instead of the politically appointed people. even though it's likely barr was made aware. but thats my read. you can have a different opinion of course.
-
I guess I was making a broader point. Influencing politics is not just through financing single campaigns, btw. Like specifically Warrens campaign. I mean, it's not that Wallstr will be putting money in a single basket. They're investing through all kinds of baskets. On different levels. And opposite sides of the isle. Money is rarely ideological. Or principal even. It's pragmatic. (edit: rather opportunistic)
