Juror#8

Honest question, you don't feel like the attention around the email scandal was inordinate? You don't think the live look ins when she testified in front of Congress around the emails or around Benghazi was attention that very much tended to cast her in a negative light? Or the constant questions about "why doesnt the American people like you?" I don't think that she has gotten pumpkin treatment. Trump's gotten a pass on his taxes and largely around Trump University, and his defrauding people in his business dealings for the better part of 40 years. When his shady past comes up it's usually as some side editorial or ancillary story (like comments about Indiana judges) that the media won't probe into any more than superficially. They cover him more as an entertainer than someone that they should be vetting for office. Some of this may be a function of Clinton being in public office but the general campaign narrative seems to be around emails particularly more than it is any skeletons in Trump's closet. I don't think that she will help black America. I think that she'll use black folks for votes. She can't win without us. She is an opportunist. Im not sure that any of those emails demonstrated "actively rigging the system for her;" and either way I think that it's a stretch to say she had anyone doing anything. I think that the dnc is an establishment and saw Bernie as an outsider. So they talked **** on him musing around ways for him to go away apparently after she had all but locked up the nomination (considering super delegates). I agree with you that Trump fought against the rnc establishment nearly the entire campaign. And I agree that he is the challenger "liar" versus her being the mainstream and establishment "liar." If Hillary had said that about Russians hacking some republican's email, the right would be crying "sedition." You can book that. And many here would too. The double standard is sad.

Your post relies on so many declarative statements and presumptions that I honestly can't begin to answer. And I honestly don't know what you're asking because the only context is you telling me that you read two sentences.

This is 100% correct. It goes both ways. But on this board, the predominant venom is spewed towards Clinton and *many* of those same folks give Trump a pass for fundamentally the same behavior that Clinton is lambasted for.

Woooooooooooooooow your conditions are getting real attenuated to make this distinction. It's not enough that Donald Trump has lied, or that he has lied to the American public. He has to have done both those things while also holding public office for it to be credible and to meet your threshold of significance. No matter that he has lied to the American public while endeavoring to seek public office. That's not "scummy" enough. And I won't get into the lies. They're well documented during this campaign. And that's to say nothing of the crap that he has done pre-campaign. He has basically lied, and cheated, and bilked, and swindled, and repudiated, and stolen, and pillaged his way through life. And if anything, I'm probably understating things. So no, I don't see much difference if any at all. And I also have a fundamental problem trying to value and devalue lies. When you're arguing about which person's lies are the best or at least the least significant, you have two crap candidates, party notwithstanding, and you should probably go back to the drawing board or abstain from politics for a cycle. The people around here just seem to dislike Hillary and are putting their facts together to justify that dislike for her after the fact. Because any principled dislike for Hillary, because of her well documented lack of fidelity with the truth, can't also come with any earnest and sincere support for Donald Trump. That would require the worst type of logical assymetry. I would love to read Doc or bman square that incongruity for me. I'll save you the suspense, they can't. Good dudes both of them but they really can't. Because Trump and Clinton are the same scummy type of people/politician. Both of their scummy histories belie any objective, non-partisan effort to extricate them. But I'd like to see someone, anyone try ... Otherwise, slamming Hillary for being scummy and lying and then trumpeting Trump seems hypocritical to the umpteenth degree. Read about Trumps mentor, the late Roy Cohn. Google his and Trumps name. I think he even screwed him over. But seriously, a really enlightening read if you want to understand a guy like him.

This I agree with. She is a liar. He is a liar. She did it publicly and probably at the expense of national security. He did it to advance his own wealth and screw anyone else out of jobs and livelihood. They're both dirty.

So mothers of shooting victims who are talking about the deaths of their sons in what is a racially charged environment that they feel Hillary Clinton can assuage is the same as having families of victims do nothing but affirmatively attack the other nominee for what they perceive, from their civilian vantage point, as a foreign policy blunder? That parallel is exact? Was Trump's name even mentioned in that entire 13 minutes that the mothersmovement were speaking? I didn't listen to the entire thing so I wouldn't know. But the few minutes I did hear, it sounded like testimony and enveloping a support note for Hillary. I didn't hear anything in the way of attack. But hold on, they're the same such that one tweeter's mention of both demonstrates a categorical media bias? Well !@#$ context, I guess. Wow, some people would just feel better if the idea of "nuance" just didn't exist. And the people who keep calling Hillary a liar, are they just saying that kind of like "in addition to Donald Trump being a liar and swindler" or do they just emphasize her because she's been below board in a public capacity? Just wondering because anyone here that has the audacity to call Hillary dishonest but Trump honest and square-dealing, I will gladly come to wherever you are and call you a fucccccing intellectually challenged dolt to your face and then buy you any size coffee you want as charity to show compassion for your profound levels of immutable fucccing stupidity. Any takers? Let's compare honesty levels ... Anyone prepared to make the case for Trump's honesty vis a vis Hillary? Everything on the table. All the facts, rumors, and all the dirt. Compare and contrast. Someone is going to be exposed as either exceedingly stupid or so bone-headedly partisan that they can't see straight.

About to look it up. Never heard of it. Is it a foreign film?

Not the best. But some more memorable ones ... "Man are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." Primer Raoul Duke - "look there's two women over there !@#$ing a polar bear." Dr. Gonzo - "don't tell me these things. Not now man." Fear and Loathing

It's not obscure but it's an indie flick. If you read my opening paragraph and then the old threads on this topic, it's indie, obscure, esoteric, etc. I believe that movies like "Primer" and "Lost Highway" and "The Limey" and "Schizopolis" and "Upstream color" and scores of others have the best content and are more entertaining movie experiences but they don't have the budget to appeal to the majority of the movie watching audience. So that's what this is more about.

Would love to hear your thoughts on Primer. By Sunshine are you referring to Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind? If so, I agree, great movie. Should have led to Carrey getting more serious looks in Hollywood.

Cool. I'll admit to being way out of the loop on that stuff. It's something that I've heard mentioned but never really understood the context. I honestly assumed that it was a way to make cell phones more interactive.

Might as well have a 2016 edition. I have free time during the summers with vacation and such so I like to binge watch obscure, esoteric, indie, movies. And not just porn ... I went back to the old 2011 topic that I started and the 2013 version and unfortunately they're archived so I couldn't reply as a continuation. If anyone is interested in obscure or indie movies, they should search for it ("Any Obscure Movies ..."). Some folks had some excellent recommendations and my collection grew extensively afterwards. A couple that I've seen recently that I absolutely think are worth mentioning: 1. "Birdman" 2. "Barton Fink" And one of my personal favorites that I've consistently recommended to anyone who wants a good mind screw and ditch the formulaic Hollywoodization of movies - "Primer."

In fairness, and I could be setting myself up here, but are there everyday applications of either that would be a technology advancement that has a greater benefit outside of an esoteric group of folks? What do you mean? I think that the transistor was invented in the late 40s (to be fair the basis for all modern technology) but outside of that, tech was relatively stagnant for those forty years. What am I missing? Similar to what I responded to Joe. Is there an application that has a benefit to the masses or is it a more esoteric technology that most people will ever utilize the benefits of? Though I've heard the term, I've never heard of it in a pedestrian sense and couldn't tell you what it refers to. Also haven't researched it.

Ha Ha

Or maybe a toilet that can sense the size of a shlong and adjust the water down accordingly. That water is typically cold and deep when I'm standing at the urinal. Much appreciated. I'm almost home and I'm going to watch the linked vid on my iPad. I'm actually really interested in this self driving car thing. I've been talking to my fiancé about it as we've been driving and she doesn't believe me so we will both watch it. Exactly ... the new trend seems to be modifying things to make existing things more quick and efficient rather than creating new experiences. The self driving car and the vehicle related tech that's been mentioned seems, at least, strongly evolutionary if not revolutionary. I've been reading about Amazon delivering things same day with drones. That seems to be on the verge of something revolutionary. Imagine the implications of that ... Seems to me the nextstep before on demand and same day services. Will a car that you find the best deal on in California be capable of delivery same day? Stud like that ... Crazy. This vehicle tech is all new to me.

This is interesting and a new one to me. I've seen the Google cars driving around nova with the cameras on the hood. Just figured it was for street views to improve the Google map experience. That would be truly freakin cool if a self driving car became a possibility.

I've been waiting for greengrass and Damon to return to Bourne for nearly 10 years. That's an opening nighter for me.

It just seems like technology isn't as inventive as it was 30 years ago. Apple and most other manufacturers seem to be at a place where it's making improvements on the existing user experience rather than an introduction of a new paradigm. Apple used to be about "I'm going to show people what they won't be able to live without" and it seems technology isn't trailblazing like that anymore. Almost as if we hit a plateau. Was wondering if others saw it differently.

But you think the sounds your refrigerator makes has been a revolutionary technological leap?

Not sure what sensor technology is? Like the taptic thing included on the iPhone's? I did hear a while ago about holographic technology for phones as a possible inclusion to visualize the phone operating experience outside the purview of the phone screen. Agreed. From the bag phone to today, the leap has been extraordinary. But ... say in the last 10-15 years, since Internet has been accessible on mobile phones, what's been the last truely meaningful evolutionary technology jump? A decade is a lifetime in the technology world.

I thought that robotics could only operate to stop a car based on determination of fast approaching road obstructions or park a car based on limited stationary circumstances. Didn't know about a self driving car and honestly cant even conceive how that can happen with the number of variables present on an average drive.

There was basically no motion on the technology front from the 40s through the 70s - a tv, a radio, and a phone is what folks had. There were just minor evolutionary changes to those devices for forty years. Then the 80s comes and just destroyed paradigms with respect to invention (Internet, cell phones, video gaming, multi media devices, home computer, etc.). And there have only been incremental improvements on those existing devices for the last 30 years but nothing revolutionary. Have we reached an inventive plateau? From a technology standpoint, can things get appreciably better then they are now? Sure, phones and devices will get faster and more vibrant, but have we peaked as far as "big things" to come out of the technology sector?

Bwahahahahaha!!!! Yea yea. I tried to make a point of saying "above-board."

I left 30 minutes ago. But I think her name is Heather. Whatever her !@#$ing name is, she is legit. If I can ever get an above-board picture (when we do one of our Friday nights here monthly), I'll post it. **** why not ...

Brother I'm in a place where I'm aggressively humping the monkey breasts out of the American Dream. And I'm now in the vortex; I'm serious, I found the main nerve. Why the ballsack would I slow down or turn around now?