DC Tom

But what if you are arguing for a false flag? What if your post is a false flag post to distract from the false flag theory? That would make you...part of the conspiracy! WAKE UP SHEE-...ah, ***** it.

"I can't argue my point, so I'm going to just give up and feel superior." One of the other marks of a neo-prog Jaco-trib: you can't argue your own beliefs because you can't recognize anyone else's. Nothing but a pure, unchallenged solipsist. We're actually talking about a pending civil war - not just the future of our country, but the deaths of a great number of people.

Given that we've recently established that a fake rape charge is a rape, I'd have to say he's dead wrong.

No, there isn't. You're establishing the difference with an a priori axiom that Democrats are not violent. And you're compounding it by picking examples that only fit that axiom. You think Clinton's "no civility" ***** was a metaphor? Or Waters' call to give Republicans no peace? The results I've experienced first-hand from Waters' ***** were not metaphorical. Mainly, though, your issue is you're stuck in a dualist "good vs. evil" paradigm. You can't see the larger non-partisan context of the environment of increasingly violent political rhetoric and acts. And you won't see it, because the dualism is too deeply ingrained in you. Like all neo-prog Jacobin tribalists.

I'd actually like to see that staged: black and white guy. Black guy wears MAGA hat, white guy wears an Obama "Forward" hat. White guy gets in black guys face. Then same script, but switch hats. Tweet both. Measure time spent on each. That would actually have some value to it.

No, that's a form of logical fallacy. It requires rationality. Neo-prog Jacobins don't think through problems, they feel their way through them. Let's see... Yes, it was your argument. You LITERALLY said they're being metaphorical, not serious.

It figures this great big pile of ***** would have corn in it.

It's actually more of a Enlightenment liberal bent, with a touch of Victorian Romanticism. What you think is a "right-hand lean" is actually a complete rejection of your asinine neo-progressive Jacobin tribalism. None of which you'll really understand...because neo-progressive Jacobin tribalists never understand anything alien to their world-view.

Black guy wears symbol of white supremacy. Woke white people believe in supremacy of their opinion that black guy shouldn't recognize white supremacy by wearing symbol of white supremacy. Woke white people basically saying "We know what's better for black man than black man knows." Woke white people fight white supremacy with...white supremacy? Really..."woke" is nothing more than a dog whistle for "white supremacist" now.

Or didn't go off by complete lack of design. I'm still going with "preternaturally stupid." False flag theories are the crutch of the intellectually immature.

So...white guy oppressing black guy, because white guy doesn't like that black guy is wearing a hat that oppresses black guys with white supremacy? That guy should have his ass kicked just for being a ***** idiot. And that lithium article is STILL the stupidest thing I've seen all day.

He's not God-Emperor. What he says isn't holy writ. Hell, if he was, there wouldn't be any problem, since he has already strongly denounced political violence. So your argument is that his statements are that powerful...but no one's listening? On the other hand, we've spent the past two years subsumed in a widespread message of "Nazis must be fought, by any means necessary." Within the past three weeks, five leading Democrats have come out and actively advocated for Manichaean political discourse and the silencing, harassment, and even assault of opposition. All the denunciations of those statements combined don't amount to the denunciation of Trump's denunciation of violent rhetoric over the past two days. This isn't "Trump's stupidity vs. a random comedian's stupidity." It's "Trump's stupidity vs. an entire histrionic mob's stupidity." And you think that's an equivalent message?

Maybe. Theoretically...no. As a practical matter? A Secretary would have the authority to declassify anything generated by their department...but that becomes really fuzzy with cross-department information (e.g. something developed by a joint task force), because derivative classification rules come in to play, and those are really screwed up. State has a set of rules that essentially boil down to "We produce original documents from multiple sources, so we can decide for ourselves." So...yes, pretty much. State, Energy (because they own the nukes), Justice, and DoD are about equal in power, and only the VP and President are above them. DNI is somewhere between the two - he has the authority to declassify anything and everything, but by EO he's required to follow a process. Departments define their own processes - but because State has fingers in everyone's pies, the Secretary of State can exert wide de facto declassification authority. It's a side-effect of the post-9/11 information sharing efforts. You want to share info, you have to make ownership and classification a shared process, which will have grey areas to be abused by mendacious fascist harpies. You want to secure info, you end up siloing the info so no one can share it.

I know real people that naive. So...yeah, he probably is.

Point being that you're comparing two completely different numbers that aren't comparable. Don't compare August 2018 to FY2018. Compare Aug 2017 to Aug 2018 and see what the differences are. (Note: I don't know what the differences are. It's just a much more valid comparison.)

It's free speech, protected by the First Amendment.

Gave her money? They should have looked under the couch first...

I'm honestly not entirely sure. They're embodied in an EO at the beginning of a presidential term, as far as I know. Last time I checked them, they were pretty ambiguous. I think there's a convention that you shouldn't declassify others' classified info...but c'mon, these people, honor convention?

Democrats speak in metaphors. Republicans must be taken absolutely literally. You really don't see how pitifully stupid that is?

Certainly gives "Follow me to freedom!" a new meaning, doesn't it?

Yeah, people are idiots. As a classifying authority, Secretary of State has very broad powers to declassify information, which means the bar for criminal mishandling of classified info is extremely high. Pretty much only the President has superseding authority - his is unfettered. But withholding information from Congress...THAT, she should be locked up for.

You're not from around these parts, are you?

Nothing gets by you, does it?

It's an FCC requirement. They created it after that one time Chris Berman and Charlie Steiner tried doing SportsCenter in hot pink leather thongs.

Thanks for keeping us up to date. Don't know what we'd do without you. Keep up the great work.