Thank you, blarman...

"Weren't they actually different? You could couldn't say all believers in Communism at that time were essentially a monolithic force."

Same principles, just different people trying to implement it. That's why I don't see a huge discrepancy between Hillary and Bernie. Did Sanders get jobbed out of the nomination? Absolutely. I just shake my head at Democrats who are complaining that somehow it should be fair when their own system is so obviously rigged by the inclusion of super-delegates.

"I'll be shocked if I one-day realize I was wrong and there was something to this. If there is, I am completely fooled. I see nothing at all there."

Selling raw uranium to a political and ideological enemy is bad enough, but 1/5th of the entire US raw storage and to an entity which knows exactly how to turn it into the very weapons to destroy us? And that that sale had to be approved by the State Department - who was run at the time by Hillary Clinton and who not-so-coincidentally was receiving large donations to the Clinton Foundation and who's husband was paid $500,000 to speak to the Russians and none of this even smells the slightest bit fishy to you? And then the revelations that the FBI knew all about the Russian who was bribing to gain influence and get the deal done, and then covered up and whitewashed the investigation - even threatening a whistleblower with Federal prison time? And the chain of who knew about the deal covers EVERYONE of any substance in the Obama Administration.

If you can look at all that and still say you see nothing wrong, then to put it quite bluntly, you are a fool.

"Sanders v Clinton as a huge disagreement? That's like saying Mao's communism is different than Stalin's communism. "
I don't follow this. Weren't they actually different? You could couldn't say all believers in Communism at that time were essentially a monolithic force.

"There is a five-alarm fire blazing on this one."
I'll be shocked if I one-day realize I was wrong and there was something to this. If there is, I am completely fooled. I see nothing at all there.

Sanders v Clinton as a huge disagreement? That's like saying Mao's communism is different than Stalin's communism. And what I would ask of you is to seriously consider why you would support a political party whose mechanics of super-electors encourage the very behavior Clinton took advantage of to secure the nomination?

"I think the Uranium One deal is a total nothingburger, pure politics."

CG: Pull your head out of the sand. There is a five-alarm fire blazing on this one. You really shouldn't so casually disregard it. It is the blackest of stains on the Democratic Party because it is the very corruption and foreign-government influence peddling they accuse of Trump and his campaign - and it was covered up far worse than Watergate. And the one prosecuting the Trump campaign was right in the thick of things when it was happening.

Well, good for you, I have had the same "If you don't like it move" comment from a County Commissioner, who was more interested in preserving an idiots right to shoot guns on my property line, than the state law on noise. My interaction with the cops was better, as they agreed that no one has the right to let their noise leave their property, hence the "suggestion".

You can say anything you want in public, though some places have laws about threatening speech and some phrases (big topic including business and personal signs and sizes of them, advertising , etc.). On private property, you can only say what the owner permits, otherwise you can be expelled from the property. Remember that liberty on private property is by permission only, on yours you are free as long as the action is totally contained within the property, otherwise you need permission from the owner for things like economic externalizations. That may be a problem in a society without public areas and very time consuming getting all the permissions for life off your property. Being free in action is not the same as having liberty to act. The latter is a legal matter dealing with laws or rules of groups which have control. enumerated rights tend to be liberties, while rights are actually in the 9th amendment which does not state any rights. Free action is something that one must decide if it is worth the trouble of being opposed. Acting freely only means that one has the capacity to act and not whether the action is acceptable to others or even to other animals or in nature for that matter. One's body can act but as in all actions, one needs to choose whether it is worth acting. There is the problem of repeating an action over and over trying to rectify a repeating situation and only resulting in reinforcing a subconsciousness to produce a stronger and stronger emotion the next time the mind sees a similar situation until one is totally ready for some psychiatric help. With me, I had tried to quite things down by police calls but found that they could do nothing. In one case, loud drumming from a neighbor, I quoted the law to the officer but he said "How dare you question my understanding of the law.", so that was it with the police. Trying to quiet neighbors just ended in stronger emotions about the situations. In a more recent case when the village permitted a charity rock concert two blocks away where I live, to talk in front of my home, I had to yell to be heard. I complained to the village and was told that if I didn't like it, I should sell my home and move away. This year, though, my complaint must have gotten to the right person and I could hardly hear the concert, even outside.

Another place we will disagree CG, major politicians ARE blatantly corrupt.You are missing the fact, the Republicrats are incredibly mute on the Hillary is a criminal issue, despite a never ending stream of evidence that demands she be put in jail. Obama and his administration were so blatant in their law breaking, to not demand they be held to account is to live in a state of absolute disbelief. That is your right, it is just I cannot make myself that naive. I am absolutely suspicious of anyone and anything connected to politics and government, because there have been no, none, 0 evidence to convince me they give a rats ass about anything but their own pockets, and special interests.

Your last statement reinforces that, it is the reason there IS such a huge corrupt edifice called "The fed" followed closely by 51 little corrupt, evil children called "state governments".

"I am willing to bet you were an isolationist who believed Hitler and Japan were none of our business, "
I am such an isolationist right now. If the choice is between maintaining a standing army plus permanent weapons industry or pulling an armaments industry together as needed as in WWII, I'm unequivocally for the pre-WWII model.

"you can't PROVE they didn't send you a check, right?"
What does this analogy mean? Does it mean you know to a preponderance of the evidence that major politicians are blatantly corrupt, but our institutions are unwilling or unable to put together a case, so they continually get away with it? I don't think that's true. If it is true and only part of the population that I'm not part of sees the problem, I wish they'd put together a fix. I wish they could explain it in a way that doesn't sound like just echoing politicians' self-serving claims that their opponent is a crook. The simplest explanation by far is that the claims are just politics, and our institutions for catching corruption are decent. I'm more concerned about all the money in politics that's legal but gives the appearance of impropriety. I don't know how to get rid of it. I think the whole idea of a gov't that's a big chunk of the economy is fundamentally the problem.

Your points are valid, I am not advocating any other, my point was " no right requires permisiion from governing law", and so, I should be able to say anything, anywhere, in any form I want, yet I have to get permits, etc, 1st Amendment was manipulated to say corporations can give all the money in the world to a candidate (basically legalized graft) and that is legal, and money does not speak, last looked. It makes no sense. I do agree the fundamental rule is everyone has a right to do whatever they want, unless it is impinging on others (like the amplified noise). In fact, I have fought that issue with my idiot neighbor, who was running jet engines. After 10 years of battling with a dysfunctional state, I had a deputy tell me "Why don't you get a very loud stereo, and point it at his house, and play it until he gives up" (Because there is no noise ordnance in this county, which is why they couldn't do anything to him). I did , it took 2 years of stereo war, and he has quit the jet engine thing, and the gunfire on my property line thing, as he knows I will nuke him. MAD is a beautiful tool when used. In your case, I bet if you find the money trail, you will find connections to the law that allows others to abuse you with noise. Oregon has a very detailed noise law, they just laid off the 3 people who could enforce it (in 1998) and never rehired them, so no one will enforce anything.

I agree with you points, except the "nationalistic" one, and not because I believe in that particular idea, but because I believe there has to be some sort of relationship between citizen and state. It is just the damn state has become such an abusive monster in the last 200 or so years, but the fundamentals were sound, for their time.

Boy CG, in another life, I am willing to bet you were an isolationist who believed Hitler and Japan were none of our business, until the bombs started dropping Dec 7. Clinton is indeed a criminal, and the whole Obama admin are too, it's just when you lie, lie, lose harddrives, lose papers, burn them, "I forgot" and "I can't recall", then you can reasonably expect SOME people to do the "Ican't believe that happened". I assume that in your business you don't mind when customers tell you they sent you a check, and one never arrives? I mean, you can't PROVE they didn't send you a check, right?

"You have the Freedom Coalition, the Old Guard, and the RINO's at the very least, with a smattering of libertarians"
That's true. I didn't mean to suggest there were monolithic. I was saying that authoritarian-govt zero-sum group struggle thing defines their brand for me, even though they have libertarians and other groups.

"The Democrats - on the other hand - are monolithic "
They're only monolithic in being disgusted by President Trump's antics and the alt-right. They have many huge disagreements. The most obvious example is Sanders vs Clinton.

I think the Uranium One deal is a total nothingburger, pure politics. I'm glad people have a political motivation to look into things like this. I wouldn't want a one party system. Right now I see nothing at all there. The two parties are supposedly deeply divided, but the main thing they're divided on is that they see the other has having committed some crime on technicalities like undisclosed conflicts. It sounds like nothing to me.

Some people have that attitude. I do not believe that you have a right to force your smoke on other people, anytime, anywhere you want. I do not believe you have the right to force your (yuckh!) cigarette smoke on other people in a closed-in space. (This, of course, depends on who owns the space. I am against government laws prohibiting smoking in privately-owned res-
taurants; but in a place owned by all people there, such as a jury room, that would be different). I do not go along with the "nationalistic" attitude. Irving Berlin, who wrote "God Bless America", was a Russian-born Jew.
And so, for that matter, was Ayn Rand.

The freedoms that the First Amendment innumerates are anti-government dealing with certain human actions. You do not have freedom to force your religion, speech on others, so some in society make laws about making it possible for some to force their speech through music, protests, etc., by requiring permits. For example, in the village where I live, it has been decided by the government that some ordinances prohibiting forcing amplified band instrument noise to be allowed for certain groups, such as the local resort, by permit, kind of a might makes right approach. I personally would like quiet all the time except for traffic, property maintenance, and construction. Would you prefer that there just be freedom to force your ideas and pleasures on others without any redress by government or private property considerations? I understand that government is necessary to keep uncivil persons from forcing themselves on others and self government actions such as door locks to help keep honest people honest. Otherwise, one should be free to believe whatever crap one wants, speak as one wants, one who is a member of the press should be free to report but not to violate private property, etc.

That is true the Obamanation did indeed legitimatize every idiotic idea that can be floated....except facts and truth...

Agreed, which is why they stay as far from facts as possible.

Then why do you need a permit to exercise your 1st Amendment right?

Government never acts by rights. It, when legal, acts by permission of the law. Only individuals have rights, despite what some here consider to be rights rather than permissions under law. No right requires permission from governing law.

There is one thing we should give Obama credit for - empowerment. Oh, not for whites, or people who work and pay taxes, or Christians, or conservatives, or even Republicans. No, he empowered all of the radical, leftist, racist, socialist, communist groups to go after all of the above groups with guns blazing, and made them believe that the End Of Days is here for all of these groups and traditional America.
By doing this, Obama has done us a great favor by having them come out of the shadows and expose themselves. We now see more and more of them in all their hateful, hypocritical glory. Like Hollywood now falling apart due to sexual misconduct, or the Antifa fighting fascism by being fascist and beating people up in the streets. And like the author of this piece who wants to believe that all white people have no right to fight back or stand up for their rights and liberties.
We see these people more and more, and find out just what lunatics they are.
So thank you, Barack. You have at last been of some service to your country! Oh........wait. That’s Kenya. Ok, so you’ve done that service for MY country. Works for me either way!!

The chief weapon of the left seems to be emotional manipulation leading to sanction of the victim. Emotional manipulation is not effective when the discussion is based on facts. A is A regardless of how one feels about it

The legal system in the USA rests on basic flaws in the constitiution unfortunately- such as very inconsistent protection of private property. It’s not ok for me to steal from you, but it is ok for all levels of government to steal from both of us for example to do what it wants

Nicely put, Storo.

The link to the self-hating professor is quite telling of the liberal hate all white people racial ideology. It seems to promote white self genocide. Actually, if you take her quotes and substitute the word "white" with any other race/ethnicity the results is just as asinine. She's definitely brainwashed into the new Jim Crow.

Thats the key, you need to make sure you can handle the rear axle weight. As long as that is a priority, look for that Allison, or whatever they use now, as it has been pretty good. I have 188K on it, and have finally reached the end of the adjustments for the bands, so I guess an overhaul is next.

I’m not a fan of dual wheels either, but I’ll need it for the payload towing the fifth wheel, will probably be about 3000 lbs on the rear axle. I definitely agree otherwise, it’s why I’ll keep a daily driver pickup.

Labels, labels labels, none of them earned or appropriate.