The New and Improved Sam Spade Good Post Gallery.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Posts like there are why I won't stop talking about sexism.

Now to answer the OP, Hillary Clinton (normal).

WTF?  Sexism?! 

First, I had no idea that you don't stop talking about sexism--I guess I hadn't paid enough attention to your posts, but you can be goddamned sure that I'll pay attention to them now.  Be careful what you wish for.  Secondly, I don't understand why "posts like these" have anything to do with it. 

In the next breath you go on to mention that you will support Clinton?!  You support a candidate who hired thugs and bullies to silence women her husband harassed when she was First Lady of Arkansas because she put his--and, as we now know, her own--political careers ahead of justice and ahead of the benefit of the people.  The fact that you would support Hillary Clinton, a candidate I do not support for any office at any time under any circumstances, tells me that you and I are on different frequencies. 

You seem deluded, or confused.  Perhaps you misinterpreted me.  Perhaps I misinterpreted you.  From my perspective, it seems that you really, really need to get over this kneejerk reaction to anyone who points out flaws in a candidate who happens to be female.  It is okay not to vote for a woman.  It doesn't make you a sexist.  It is also okay not to vote for a black guy, or a guy with a Spanish last name, or a gay dude, or a disabled, Jewish, lesbian, one-eyed, former child porn star, confined to a wheel chair because of some debilitating disease and who just lost her parents to a terrorist attack.  It's okay.  You will continue to offend voters until you understand that there are those of us who treat women exactly like we treat men--and yes, I treat women exactly like I treat men; I'm no more or less rude to someone because of his or her sex; I'm an equal-opportunity asshole.  You cannot scream SEXIST! every time someone says he will not support a particular female candidate.  Your attitude, in fact, is arguably more sexist than mine.  After all, you are exhibiting what George W. Bush called, in 2000, "the soft bigotry of low expectations."  Mine is egalitarian.  I am not a feminist, nor a masculinist.  I have certainly voted for female candidates.  I voted for Ann Richards, for example, for governor of Texas when she won.  I strongly supported a candidate who came to my department about three years ago who happened to be a woman--not because she was a woman and not in spite of the fact that she was a woman--but because she was the best candidate at the time.  I lobbied forcefully, at the expense potentially of my own career, and turned a 4-4 vote into a 6-2 vote for her, and we ended up hiring her.  Again, not because she was a female, but because she was the best among those we interviewed.  I have also voted for females for Mayor and for US Representative.  I would consider any candidate for President regardless of gender, so long as he or she is someone with good judgment, or at least what I consider to be good judgment. 

You can call me a sexist, if it makes you feel better about yourself or about your cause, but it is comments like yours that turn people against your causes.  I can assure you that it is not because Clinton is a woman that I didn't vote for her, any more than it was because Trump was a man that I didn't vote for him.  I can't stand either of them.  I regard them both as being manifestly unfit for the office of President of the United States.  It had nothing to do with their genders.  Of course I'd prefer to vote for a Democrat or a Republican, but sometimes those parties nominate horrible people, so those of with enough dignity refuse to support either of them.  Clinton has as many flaws as Trump.  Different ones, to be sure, and she has a much better resume and is, at least on paper, much better prepared for the job as president, but she is creepy.  Frankly, you could do much better.  I tried to help you.  I am a registered Democrat and I did my best to see that you nominated someone better, but to no avail.  You nominated a flawed candidate that I could not support.

Gillibrand has a decent understanding of the law, and I have no knowledge of her engaging in the sorts of unethical activities that Hillary Clinton engaged in, but she does not excite me.  I'd say the same things I said about her if she happened to be a male, ceteris paribus.

Sometimes a candidate does not appeal because of what he or she says or does, or doesn't say or do, regardless of gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, and it's okay to point that out.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Well, if old Sam Spade thread was locked, then wouldn't it be better to use Virginia thread, that already had some more content?

It wasn't locked for any reason that has to do with the ToS.....just someone having a lil tantrum.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I've come to the conclusion that Trump needs to resign for his movement to live. I don't think he's guilty of anything, but it is clear that they're going to drag this out to the point it'll kill everything we've accomplished by death by a thousand paper cuts.

It is said that appeasement is like a man feeding a crocodile in the hope it will eat him last. This entire 'Russia conspiracy' witch hunt was based on the dubious 'Crowdstrike' report that was unverified and later shown to be based on nonsense and the obviously fictional 'dossier' which was the basis of the collaboration charge.

Showboat knew perfectly well that there was nothing there and yet he deliberately dragged out the investigation (and, by his own admission, made damaging selective leaks along the way) in the hope of finding something, anything, that could be used against Trump. As it became apparent that no evidence was showing up he's now come up with an obstruction charge, again based on a lot on nothing burgers.

The witch hunters are not going to be satisfied just with Trump. The Republican Party supported Trump in his election campaign where he campaigned on 'draining the swamp'. That is unforgivable in the eyes of swamp creatures like Comey. Trump many transgressions against political correctness also are unforgivable in the eyes of the swamp's SJW useful idiots.

These people will be satisfied with nothing less than total victory and the complete and permanent destruction of the Republican Party and the conservative movement. Any attempt to make peace with the witch hunters through appeasement or surrender is futile and misguided. There are two possible outcomes of this particular political struggle, either Trump and the Republican party win it or they both lose and are destroyed completely.

In other words you can't cut your loses, all your chips are in. You either win or lose everything.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Cross posting into Kal's Gallery -

In 2017, a team of deeply pious moderators conducted a radical experiment on a hidden subboard. The mods had theorized that a poster without access to any senses or ways to perceive stimuli would be able to perceive the presence of Dave.

They believed that the five senses clouded our awareness of eternity, and without them, a human could actually establish contact with Dave by thought. An elderly poster who claimed to have “nothing left to live for” was the only test subject to volunteer. To purge him of all his senses, the mods performed a complex operation in which every sensory nerve connection to the brain was surgically severed. Although the test subject retained full muscular function, he could not see, hear, taste, smell, or feel. With no possible way to communicate with or even sense the outside world, he was alone with his thoughts.

Mods monitored him as he spoke aloud about his state of mind in jumbled, slurred sentences that he couldn’t even hear. After four days, the man claimed to be hearing hushed, unintelligible voices in his head. Assuming it was an onset of psychosis, the scientists paid little attention to the man’s concerns.

Two days later, the man cried that he could hear his banned buddy speaking with him, and even more, he could communicate back. The mods were intrigued, but were not convinced until the subject started naming dead relatives of the mods. He repeated personal information to the mods that only their dead spouses and parents would have known. At this point, a sizable portion of mods left the subboard.

After a week of conversing with the deceased through his thoughts, the poster became distressed, saying the voices were overwhelming. In every waking moment, his consciousness was bombarded by hundreds of voices that refused to leave him alone. He frequently threw himself against the wall, trying to elicit a pain response. He begged the mods for temporary ban, so he could escape the voices by being off-line. This tactic worked for three days, until he started having severe RL terrors. The subject repeatedly said that he could see and hear the deceased in his dreams.

Only a day later, the subject began to scream and claw at his non-functional eyes, hoping to sense something in the physical world. The hysterical subject now said the voices of the dead were deafening and hostile, speaking of hell and the end of the world. At one point, he yelled “No heaven, no forgiveness” for five hours straight. He continually begged to be killed, but the mods were convinced that he was close to establishing contact with Dave

After another day, the subject could no longer form coherent sentences. Seemingly mad, he started to bite off chunks of flesh from his arm. The mods rushed into the test subboard and restrained him to a table so he could not kill himself. After a few hours of being tied down, the subject halted his struggling and screaming. He stared blankly at the ceiling as teardrops silently streaked across his face. For two weeks, the subject had to be manually rehydrated due to the constant crying. Eventually, he turned his head and, despite his blindness, made focused eye contact with a mod for the first time in the study.

He whispered “I have spoken with Dave, and He has abandoned us” and his account deleted.

There was no apparent cause of deletion.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Good posts don't always need to be a diatribe -

     The alienation of modern society, giving way to balkanization. Even on a forum like this where people across the spectrum post, genuine interaction is not as common as it should be. Rather, it is far more common to see like-minded people commiserate over how their opposition is evil and the cause of everything bad in the world. Case in point, this thread.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The Clintons have done plenty of make the Democratic party be an absolute cesspool in 2016. Democrats need to talk about the issues that affect people: jobs, healthcare, the environment, and not pretending to give a rats ass about some identity group when the same terrible Clintons scored political points bashing those groups in the 1990s. Their divide and conquer identity politics needs to die.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

When Your President Incites Violence …

How do we handle heads-of-state who encourage crimes?

http://warisboring.com/when-your-president-incites-violence/


Seems relevant.

It only seems relevant because of your own twisted hatred of Donald Trump.  He's a guy you dislike intensely.  I get that.  Do we have to talk about Democratic operatives encouraging mentally shaky folks to react to them during Trump rallies?

Scripture says to refrain from "returning evil for evil".  For the athiests and unbelievers, I would think that your parents explained to you at one time or another that two (2) wrongs didn't make a right.  (Quite frankly, if they didn't, they failed at part of their job, and if they did, but you blew it off, you failed at part of growing up.)

I'm a parent of a now 12 year old.  He's got ADHD with a bit of Oppositional Defiant Disorder.  He wants to push the limits as far as he can, and it's strenuous to have to constantly insist that boundaries and rules are what they are, and (quite often) not negotiable.  He's 12 and he's got an identifiable issue.  But here, I'm seeing a bunch of folks who, presumably, don't have those issues, thinking that they shouldn't be banned from a website for making threats, wanting to box folks as to how far they can go, etc.  It's the logic of someone who wants to know how close to the Atlantic Ocean they should build their new house during Hurricane Season, or how close to the cliff they should venture without fear of a rockslide.  They want to live on the edge, but when the edge is blown out from under them, they want it to be somebody else's fauld.

I wish Trump would quit Tweeting; he can't do it without being a jerk and he doesn't seem to want to listen to reason.  I get that, also.  But I'm not responsible for him.  I'm only responsible for me and my son; even my wife, who is also responsible for our son, is responsible for her own actions.  And if I really have to go to great lengths to explain this to folks, I wonder if these folks judgment in ANYTHING is sound, no matter how educated or experienced they may be.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The sheriff's skepticism isn't as off-base as you might think. People treated with naloxone frequently revive and walk away, seeking no further treatment, and in most cases there is nothing that law enforcement or emergency services can do to stop them.

Instead, they are relegated to waiting for the next overdose, when again they will be expected to step in and save a life or at least prevent a trip to an emergency room in the back of an ambulance. It requires minimal imagination to realize the effect that this has on their morale, particularly in those counties where naloxone injections are now administered by the hundreds or thousands annually.

Moreover, there is a sense that anyone who is outfitted with naloxone will tend to overuse it. Even trained clinicians can misjudge whether someone has overdosed, let alone a police officer with minimal background on human physiology.

(Incidentally, for both of these reasons it is not true that each injection amounts to a life saved, or even an emergency department visit prevented, although some certainly are.)

Incidentally, the sheriff is correct about the dangers involved in reviving a person who has overdosed. Even when naloxone is used to revive someone who took opioids under medical supervision and in a clinical setting, those people frequently wake up agitated and confused. It isn't unusual for them to flail and strike out at people. Nor is it surprising when you consider what is happening to the receptors on which opioids act.

As of 2015, Butler County had a drug overdose mortality rate several times the national average. They are losing more people to drug overdoses than most other places in the United States lose to car crashes, gun violence, and all suicides combined. 2016 was probably even worse.

This far from a matter of "one asshole standing in the way." This is a county that has moved beyond its breaking point. Neither medical professionals nor policy experts nor community leaders have any good answers, and even the best suggestions that they have are palliative. Narcan can prevent an overdose from becoming a fatality, but it does nothing to break addiction. If you want to understand how someone in a position of responsibility can be so callous, consider that.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I suggest that the correlation comes from the political connection at the time the issues really connected with the public. Pubs controlled the Senate at the time of the Kyoto climate agreement in the late 1990's. It wasn't a good deal for the US with respect to trade compared to India and China but the Senate could finesse the diplomatic issues by attacking the science (which wasn't so well established then).

There was a renewed push for official English language laws in the mid 90's as well, driven in part by the new Pub majorities. Laws were passed in AK, GA, MO, MT, NH, SD, VA, and WY, adding to the dozen states that responded to the original push in the 1980's. At that time the debate in most states was about immigrants, not illegal immigrants which only became the talking point after 2001.

So by the end of the 1990's many of the same Pub leaders were speaking against both climate change and excessive immigration. That message stuck with their supporters, and is now part of the canon 20 years later.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I hate to be on the same side as EnglishPete, since our views could not be more different, but all this Russia stuff stinks to me. Not because I believe Trump colluded with Russia (I'd attribute any semblance of collusion to Trump & co. stupidity), but because this all seems far too convenient for powerful American industries. Suddenly, the bureau responsible for countless civil rights violations is a bedrock of our democracy? The same intelligence agencies that were rightfully trashed under Bush for lying about WMDs, overthrowing foreign governments, and torturing prisoners to advance the interests of the powerful Congressional Miltary-Industrial Complex (which is a conspiracy insofar as President Eisenhower was a conspiracy theorist), is now the ultimate source of truth? Neoconservatives like Krauthammer, Kristol, and McCain are being lauded as rational voices? Did I fall and hit my head, awaking in opposite land? These are the same people who've never met a war, bloated military and defense budget, covert assassination, staged revolution and coup, and violation of civil liberties they didn't like.

I guess it doesn't occur to anyone that the deep state may have vested interests in beating a war drum against Russia and fanning flames of conspiracy against Trump, with which Democrats have been happy to bandwagon? Perhaps it has something to due with the growing (and what should be deeply troubling) closeness of the military industrial complex and Silicon Valley, not to mention Wall Street interests. Sure, Trump's family business interests have likely wield significant influence over his relationship with Russia, but so, too, does his lack of an invested relationship with the deep state. Can anyone point out where he has business involvements with this segment of the American power structure?

Despite all the raving about Russian involvement in the 2016 election, what did they accomplish? They didn't alter the outcome of the election in any way; at most, alleged Russian hacking revealed that the DNC was working to block Sanders and help secure the nomination for Clinton. And despite the allegations, which disappeared as quickly as they surfaced, that Russia hacked into state electoral grids, there's no concrete evidence for that either. The only genuinely worrisome hacking allegations are that Russia might've hacked into our infrastructure security and so on. Not to mention the rich irony of America - and the deep state in particular - up in arms over a country meddling in another country's election and domestic politics. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh?

Putin claims Russia wasn't meddling in our election; Assange asserts the source of their information wasn't the Russian state. Of course Putin's a professional liar, but Assange has no reason to lie for him; he still has credibility. And, honestly if it comes down to a matter of faith, I'd place more trust in Putin and Assange than the CIA, which has been perfectly happy to lie to advance certain political interests (WMDs in Iraq). As for this particular email scandal, of course Trump Jr. wanted opposition research on Clinton - every political team does it. Just not all of them are dumb enough to work with Russians, then reveal they worked with Russians. That only becomes criminal if it can be proven the exchange violated the emolument clause, which is questionable at best. Besides, if this opposition research was conducted by another country, like Israel, would it be such a big deal? Doubtful.

Basically, I remain agnostic on the subject because Trump & co., Putin, and the deep state are all habitual liars. Perhaps there is a shady connection going on that involves both the Trump campaign and Russia's meddling in the election. That's at least plausible and not outside the realm of possibility. However, it's even more likely that, the same deep state and public figures that have been trying to find a reason to initiate a Cold War 2.0 with Russia are using this as a perfect justification to escalate tensions against Russia, which benefit their vested interests. And Democrats have been happy to not only go along with that, but ally with Neoconservatives for the purpose of reviving their damaged political party by riding any anti-Trump campaign that they can. What worries me, and should worry everyone who wants world peace, is what they're preparing to do when (not if) they seize power over the state again. Considering the alliance Democrats have formed with Neoconservatives, I'd certainly expect their policies, rhetoric, and leaders to have important positions in the next Democratic administration. The result will be an extraordinary and unnecessary revelation of tension, coupled with an all-out cyber war, with Russia.

And that's all I plan to comment on the Russia-Trump stories.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Gotcha. Like I said, it really seems like the problem is a police training system that essentially encourages "Feel vaguely threatened? Better shoot first."

The fact that almost none of them are ever prosecuted for gunning people down in the more extreme situations can't be helping either. There is no fear of repercussions beyond administrative punishment or being fired, at which case many officers can just find work with a new department.

But that's the point - there are a number of issues at play here, and nothing is getting solved because tough on crime politicians and police unions refuse to truly address these problems, and actively obstruct attempts at true, meaningful reform.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Another thing that I would add is that some people here seem to think that it's inconceivable that workers would reject unionization without intimidation. Even in long-time union shops in non-RTW states, a lot of the rank-and-file don't really value their union. Even if they have things like defined benefit pensions that the union got them, they don't like things like seeing lazy stewards who are only doing it to get off the floor and get paid to do union work, the union getting too cozy with management, advancement opportunities based on seniority, etc. There are some inherently negative aspects of unionization.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

An obnoxious blowhard with no principles even by the standards of TV media hacks.  Matthews isn't liberal, conservative, or any other ideology...he's just a shill for whichever way he thinks the wind is blowing.  I mean, MSNBC's brand is "liberal Fox," but even then Matthews has been towing the company line more than anything else.  

More importantly, he can get really creepy around female reporters (look up the clip of him slobbering over Erin Burnett on air and asking her to smile more if you want an example, although there are much worse ones out there, it's kinda a thing with Matthews and even folks who watch his show generally acknowledge that it's pretty gross).  The man is gonna get himself fired for sexual harassment one of these days if he's not careful and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he goes down O'Reilly style (although Matthews doesn't strike me as a violent or aggressive guy the way O'Reilly did [pretty sure his bargain basement O'Reilly schtick is largely for effect and I suspect everyone except Fox is being a bit more careful after O'Reilly, Ailes, Shine, and Bolling went down in such a relatively short span of time...the guy on Fox and Friends who isn't Steve Doocy looked like he might in serious trouble too at one point IIRC, but idk if anything came of that or not).  

Ultimately, Matthews is a dinosaur who hasn't learned to adapt and it's gonna catch up with him one of these days.  It may not be the sexual harassment (O'Reilly), calling someone a "right-wing slut" on national television (Ed Schultz), or the stories about how he's such a pain in the [Inks] to work with that the executives decided it just wasn't worth the aggravation (Olbermann), but I doubt his career ends with voluntary retirement.  I'm sure there will be a place for him at RT though.  Matthews is the type who desperately needs the attention and feeling of validation having his own show can provide.  A deeply insecure and approval-craving man, that one.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/magazine/13matthews-t.html

The above is a really great profile of Matthews for anyone interested.  Unlike the usual fluff piece and hit-job profiles, this one really does an excellent job explaining what makes him tick and treats its subject in a fair manner (which isn't to say Matthews comes off well, he generally doesn't) despite being very much a warts-and-all piece.  Props to the author for asking Matthews some tough and direct questions about his behavior toward female reporters (including about how Matthews' wife reacted to the Erin Burnett incident).  It's pretty long, but definitely worth reading (it's also a fairly interesting read and you get a real - albeit dated - sense of the internal politics at MSNBC and NBC; Fox wasn't the only place where a bunch of big egos in a small room caused some self-inflicted wounds with their infighting).

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Everything the Clintons ever did was about furthering their own political career. There was never a political principle they didn't meet that wasn't negotiable to further their ambitions. In the 90s, Hillary was talking with a Southern Accent claiming to be a moderate, in 2008 she was slamming Obama saying he couldnt understand white voters like she can while coddling up to John McCain, in 2016 she's talking in her regular voice claiming to be a progressive. The Clinton's remade the Democratic Party to serve themselves yet she still managed to lose in 2008 and again in 2016 despite having the entire media/donor/party machine complex behind her. I mean losing to  Donald Trump is the equivalent to Usain Bolt losing the 500m dash in the special Olympics to a guy in crutches.

Whenever you hear Hillary peddling this whole ''Bernie isn't a Democrat thing,'' what they really mean is anyone who wants to run in the Democratic Party has to bend the knee to the Clinton's and do what they tell you (how else did Hillary end up SoS?). It's a big club and commoners arent allowed at the table.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

"When it first started happening, it was so soon after the election," she said. "It was hard for me to comfort somebody who was coming to me and saying, 'Oh, I wish I had done more,' or, 'I'm sorry I didn't vote' because I think this was one of the most consequential elections that we have faced in a long time." She added: "So, no absolution. But I just hope people will take what happened this time seriously and be ready and willing to vote the next time."

"I wanted to stare right in her eyes and say, 'You didn't vote? How could you not vote? You abdicated your responsibility as a citizen at the worst possible time! And now you want me to make you feel better?'" Clinton writes. "Of course, I didn't say any of that." She adds: "These people were looking for absolution that I just couldn't give. We all have to live with the consequences of our decisions."

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/13/politics/hillary-clinton-anderson-cooper-2016/index.html

This is an example of why Hillary Clinton is not a leader. She is self-righteous and selfish, and doesn't care to understand what ordinary people who don't follow politics are going through. A little reassurance could go a long way for someone's life, but she can't bring herself to offer it because all she can think about is herself. I can think of several people who would have comforted people in that situation. Obama is one.

Also, she may not have said that to those people's faces, but she just said it now, for all of them to read or hear about. It's not much different.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Trump's base approves of Trump and follows him for the reasons below:

1.  He shares their views about nationalism vs. globalism.

2.  He approves of them and judges the folks who judge them, and he does it conspicuously.

3.  He takes an assertive, proactive posture versus our foreign enemies.

On an ego level, these folks are sick of being viewed as "white trash", and Trump affirms that they aren't.  Hillary's "Deplorables" comment was the gift that kept on giving; it bound Trump to his base and it cemented Trump's campaign as a movement.  And these folks honestly believed that the US was getting pushed around in foreign affairs and was engaging in foreign involvements that sent their kids to war, but didn't do anything for the USA.  Here again, Trump gave them a reason for them to follow him.

Trump's judgment in foreign affairs is, in actuality, surprisingly good.  People gasped at his rhetoric on North Korea, but the facts are that (A) this is a can that got kicked down the road for too long, and (B) Trump appears to be speaking in the only language Rocket Man understands.   It's not Trump's fault that the Bird Brained Lunatic has the H-bomb (possibly), and he's not done anything to botch a solution to what is an awful problem for the US.

Yes, Trump is a narcissist.  Most politicians are. 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Hollywood is downright scummy. They gave an Oscar to someone who couldn't step foot into the United States because he raped a 13 y/o girl. The world would be better off without this elite class.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Even with the excessive hyperbole at the end, the first sentence says it all.

It's all about politics, guys. That's all.

If you're a conservative, you love his executive orders, you love his court appointments, you love how he's taking many Obama regulations and rightfully ripping them apart, you love how he says what everyone else thinks but that you're not "supposed" to say. The lack of political correctness is amazingly refreshing after eight years of a guy who wouldn't flat out say he loved America without adding a "but". His cry against globalism and doing all he can to tear up any globalist agenda is also fantastic.

But if you're a liberal living in Manhattan with a gay husband who believes that recycling will save a polar bear and that we should all take sabbaticals to Tibet, yeah, you're probably pissed.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

It never fails to amaze me how many people, particularly liberal and young people, do not understand the way criminal law works in the United States of America.

As someone who grew up around many policemen, went on ride-alongs until I was 21 years old, and fascinated with criminology , it pains me to see how many people are utterly clueless when it comes to the law.

Little things that regular people see and don't understand. For example, an article will be released saying, "Coroner rules police shooting of suspect a homicide". You'll have people screaming at the top of their lungs, "THE CORONER RULED THAT GUY'S DEATH A HOMICIDE! WHY WON'T THE COP BE CHARGED!?!"

They don't realize that any shooting death, even justified, is always ruled a homicide.

Do you know how many charges of sexual assault and rape are not really sexual assault and rape? Liberals cry about how "75% of rapes and sexual assaults go unpunished." What they are failing to understand is that those cases are typically not sexual assault or rape.

Girl runs into police station. She said she was raped.

What happened?

Guy offered her crack if she'd have sex with him. She had sex with him. Afterwards, he says, "Whoops...all out of drugs."

She gets mad, runs out of the house, finds a cop and says she was "raped".

No she wasn't. At all. This type of crap happens every single day. Call it trouble makers, duping, misogyny, whatever you want, but it is not rape or sexual assault.

Donald Trump was privately bragging to Billy Bush how being famous gets him laid. There is no crime there. No sexual assault, no rape, no nothing. Just a guy being boastful about his sex life due to fame and star-power.

Same thing with this NFL crap. Wanna know why all these NFL players are protesting against police brutality? Because they are troublemakers who don't like cops because cops, rightfully, put them in their place for breaking the law.

An NFL player is arrested every seven days, on average, for crimes as varied as domestic abuse and rape, gun violations, drug offenses, disorderly conduct, burglary, breaking traffic laws, and occasionally even murder. Why do you think people (since I was a teen atleast) refer to it as the "National Felony League"?

It's all about the law guys. Not "social justice" or any of this stuff that half the country doesn't even believe is real. It's about criminal law. Not civil law, not some ugly old woman in a goofy hat in Florida whining about Donald Trump, it's about CRIMINAL LAW.

Once you understand the law, you understand the way the world works. Always remember, the loudest "victims" usually are the ones with something to hide.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Still a classic:

I thought that that was fake and it's real https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/791263939015376902 Wow. Even if posted by a staffer, it sends a message of extreme hubris and that is one of the reasons Hillary lost in the end.

Anyway, happy birthday Hillary. Now go away and let new voices take the lead. (Voted for her (reluctantly) before Atlas jumps me on this comment).

Couldn't help lol at this response to that tweet

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

ICE did the right thing. Unfortunately, being a sick child does exempt one from the law, nor should it. Don't forget that the reason why her parents weren't in the medical transport with her was that they knew about the immigration checkpoint it would be going thru. Also, as an illegal immigrant, the child never should have been on Medicaid to begin with. This is not the case that those who favor relaxed immigration laws in this country want highlighted. It speaks directly to the concerns that those want to close the borders have. Her parents came here illegally specifically to get their child care at the expense of our government and our taxpayers. Both she and her parents should be deported, and I speak as someone who thinks DACA should've become law long ago and that we should increase the amount of legal immigration allowed.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Guys. This is not about sexism. This is about dementia, pure and simple. His brain is addled. I don't mean in an old-fashioned kind of way were people that generation think it's okay to call black people colored. I mean most days he probably, well, doesn't know what day it is.

Again, it doesn't make what he did right. But before we talk about assault, which is a crime, let's also remember that mental incompetency is required before someone to stand trial. Hectically, what he did is he misdemeanor sex offense at least under Ohio law. If I were back in the prosecutor's office I would never want to have to try to prove he was mentally sound enough to stand trial. And if I was his defense attorney I would be running red lights to get to the courthouse to file request for a competency exam.

This is not about tolerance for sexual misconduct like Harvey Weinstein and a certain president. And nor is it about social liberals and feminism being up an arm like a couple of rape apologist assholes on this thread try to turn it into. It is a very sad case of a guy who probably some days choirs why he hasn't seen his father in a while, as he's unable to realize the man died decades ago. My grandmother who is almost exactly Bush's age had the same conversation with me just a couple months ago when I attended my step grandfather's funeral.

So can we simply chalk this up as the actress was perfectly justified in feeling offended and violated, and former President Bush sadly isn't really sound enough to know what he's doing.

With God as my witness there's half a chance he momentarily thought it was a young Barbara Bush. Anyone needs a further picture of my explanation find the Mad Men episode where January Jones's character had to fend off a groping from her Alzheimer ridden father who mistook her at the breakfast table for his wife

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Trump = Troll In Chief.  And we fall for it by having thread after thread about whatever his latest word vomit is. He's laughing his ass off at us.

Ha ha!

He really is a "troll" when you think about it.  He knows it, too!

What I will say is that, as a Christian, a male head of household (paycheck-wise), a law-abiding citizen, I believe that Donald Trump has far more respect for me, personally, than Hillary Clinton.  The "Deploriables" comment was meant for folks like me, because of our social conservatism, which was unjustly and dishonestly portrayed as something else by Hillary and by her supporters.  So, yes, I'm glad to be considered one of Trump's "Deplorables".  A flawed man is The Donald, to be sure.  But I won't vote for a candidate whose actions convince me that she has contempt for me, personally.  That's a lesson Hillary Clinton, a sneering elitist, has never learned, and hasn't to this day.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

That post doesn't belong in this thread named after the utter creep that it is that is properly only used by fellow sexist creep Grumps most of the time instead of the proper thread that Grumps can't handle due to being named after a woman.

I use it too. Plead guilty on the sexist creep part, though.

Will I become BRTD's next obsession?  WooHoo!

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

That post doesn't belong in this thread named after the utter creep that it is that is properly only used by fellow sexist creep Grumps most of the time instead of the proper thread that Grumps can't handle due to being named after a woman.

I use it too. Plead guilty on the sexist creep part, though.

Will I become BRTD's next obsession?  WooHoo!

1. Are you a child?
2. Are you trans?

If your answer to any of the above questions is "no",  I wouldn't get your hopes up