From Trump people the shooter is another registered democrat.
https://twitter.com/NathanDWilsonFL/status/741992040414773248/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

ISIS also announced 3 days ago that Florida is to be targeted.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 5 months ago by bnw.

TSRF wrote:

Yes to Windows 10.

I finally broke down about a month ago and clicked “Download” on the “Upgrade to Windows 10” tab that was popping up every day.

I have all the files backed up on CD. I’m gonna reload them and see what happens.

I knew it. Sorry it happened to you.

Windows 10 user? If so it is not uncommon.

Billy_T wrote:

WV makes an excellent point above, one that hit me right after I read your post, bnw.

It’s a major misconception about abstract artists that they do X because they don’t have the “talent” to do Y. Y being, usually, copying nature like a Xerox machine, give or take.

Pretty much every single great painter or sculptor generally called “abstract” worked for years and years to get to that place. They started their training doing “representational” art, copied the masters, copied, perhaps, their teachers, drew, painted, sculpted from “life,” and then decided to go in a different direction. They didn’t do it because they had no other choice. They did it because the artist in them pretty much forced them to. They were driven to express themselves in a different manner, one outside the contemporary box. They did what all great artists do, in all the arts: Add another step on the ladder of human/expressive possibilities. Build upon the past and carve out their own place in the progression. Add their name to the legacy of the new, built upon the old.

Also: in reality, all art is “abstract.” All of it is an abstraction from internal/external “nature.” A vision informed by both, simultaneously. Emphases are generally quite different. But all artists attempt to render their personal vision which comes from within.

IOW, “abstract” artists render their own internal vision, informed by the external and internal. It takes just as much “talent” to do what, say, Kandinsky or Picasso did, as opposed to, say, Raphael. The felicity of their expression, their vision, should tell the tale. Not whether or not someone can “copy” things from the external world like a photo — that guy on NPR can do that, and, to me, his stuff isn’t “art.”

To me, in the post-photographic world, the “abstract” is more and more important. If someone wants photographic “realism,” for example, why not just look at photos? Painting and sculpture can give us something photos — with exceptions — can’t generally do: Bring us a direct vision of internal life, connect us with that vision, directly.

I will agree that talented artists sometimes do go on to abstract expressionism but that doesn’t make their abstract work art in my mind. Art is personal and all of us know it when we see it with this one caveat that it is seen without attribution or explanation. Without attribution or explanation I submit that 99.9% of people wouldn’t see abstract expressionism as art as opposed to say realism or impressionism.

I sometimes see value in post impressionism works but I find abstract expressionism a joke only outdone in lesser talent by Pop artists like Warhol.

Abstract art is ridiculous. The lack of true artistic talent collides with separating the wealthy want to be abstract art patron from ridiculous sums of money. A no talent talent so to speak. Geometric designs of whimsy is art. Monkeys flinging their poo on a large canvas is Pollock.

Real art is appreciated. Abstract art is interpreted. Take for instance the very recent,

“High school art project from 1970s mistakenly valued up to $50,000 on Antiques Roadshow”
High school art project from 1970s mistakenly valued up to $50,000 on Antiques Roadshow

and then theres the myriad of Pollock fakes since anyone can drip and sling paint. A cottage industry of faking Pollock has now created a CSI like approach to disproving claims of a Pollock. From computer programs designed to follow known Pollock geometric progressions of painting to catalogued ID of all paints found on his studio floor and walls in the order of his using them. I find it amazing. Pollock must still be laughing in his grave.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 5 months ago by bnw.

Billy_T wrote:

You don’t like The White Album, Abbey Road and their last album, The Beatles?

Last album was “Let It Be”. Their “white album” was titled “The Beatles”.

Billy_T wrote:

You really take the cake. Your lack of sincerity and my wasting my time addressing it sure makes me the fool. Have you been living under a rock since Obama was elected?

You’re making it personal, bnw. I’m absolutely sincere in what I’ve written.

No you’re not. You’re playing rope the dope and I’m the dope.

Billy_T wrote:

Democrats are now the “true conservatives in America”? Interesting. So actively ignoring immigration law is conservative? Going around congress to get the ACA is conservative? The Iran Deal is conservative? Blaming the police is conservative? Appointing Sotomayor and Kagan to the US Supreme Court is conservative? So many others.

What immigration laws have been ignored? Be specific, please. And the ACA was passed by a majority in both houses, after nearly two years of debate, negotiations, compromises and so on. It was done within Congress, not outside it, and it was done according to Congressional rules. I don’t like the bill. But saying it bypassed Congress is wildly false.

The Iran Deal is traditional American policy. America gave up absolutely nothing and gets to monitor Iran’s nuclear programs in return for that nothing. It gets to impose its will on Iran, force it to obey “or else,” for no other reason than it can.

And what on earth do you mean by “blaming the police? For what? When, where, etc. etc.? Again, please be specific.

As for Kagan and Sotomayer. They’re both moderates who would have been acceptable to the pre-Reagan GOP, easily. But, since the GOP is no longer “conservative” at all — being much further to the right than that — moderates are seen as “far left.” They aren’t. They’re both mainstream judges who uphold traditional American jurisprudence and generally take the side of the Establishment over everyone else.

In short, yes, the Dems are the true conservatives now. The GOP is well to the right of that.

You really take the cake. Your lack of sincerity and my wasting my time addressing it sure makes me the fool. Have you been living under a rock since Obama was elected?

So many articles to choose and this makes it clear in the first few paragraphs.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/01/29/presidential-power-vs-congressional-inertia/presidents-cannot-ignore-laws-as-written

Presidents Cannot Ignore Laws as Written

Elizabeth Price Foley

Elizabeth Price Foley is a professor of constitutional law at Florida International University College of Law. She is the author of “The Tea Party: Three Principles.”

JANUARY 29, 2014

As every grade-schooler knows, Congress has sole authority to make laws. The president has a corresponding duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” When one branch of government exceeds its authority, separation of powers is violated, and representative government breaks down.

Presidents have power to fill gaps or ambiguities in laws passed by Congress. They do not, however, have power to ignore laws as written. For example, when President Obama unilaterally raised the minimum wage for federal contractors’ employees, he directly contravened the Fair Labor Standards Act, which says that “every employer shall pay to each of his employees” a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

Executive orders can erode the separation of powers, breed disrespect for the rule of law and increase political polarization.
President Obama has shown a penchant for ignoring the plain language of our laws. He unilaterally rewrote the employer mandate and several other provisions of the Affordable Care Act, failing to faithfully execute a law which declares, unambiguously, that these provisions “shall” apply beginning Jan. 1, 2014. Similarly, in suspending deportation for a class of young people who entered this country illegally, the president defied the Immigration and Nationality Act, which states that any alien who is “inadmissible at the time of entry” into the country “shall” be removed.

wv wrote:

Well there’s been five posts so far — six including mine — and no-one has said anything about actual real Trump POLICIES. I dont think thats an accident.

Reagan got elected by being vague on real, actual policies. He just kinda tapped into…somethin…’shining cities on hills’ and stuff.

w
v

My post answered each question. I addressed his policy regarding ILLEGAL immigration and its effect on the US worker. Could have addressed its effect upon the US taxpayer but that wouldn’t have mattered with you.

wv wrote:

bnw wrote:

zn wrote:

JackPMiller wrote:

The Rams need to make the playoffs for Jeff Fisher. If they don’t, I cannot see why Fisher would deserve a new contract. Another losing season, for me, should be looking for a new Head Coach. One that wins.

I doubt that’s the way Stan is thinking.

And I submit to you that no coach wins if he has to deal with the kinds of things thet Rams have had to deal with the last 2 years.

.

Dick Vermeil won in ’99.

———————
Well to ‘me’ DV is a perfect example of what a coach can and cant do.
DV won four games in 97. Four games in 98. He was a great coach. Still couldn
t even win half his games.

In 99 he had
a hall of fame QB,
two hall of fame WRs,
a hall of fame OT,
and a hall of fame RB.

And most importantly, he had a team that
didnt have key injuries all year long. Very very healthy team.

Now, give Fisher five hall of famers, and a healthy team all season long,
and I’d bet he’d at least win ten games

w
v

Yet in ’99 Vermeil only had Faulk who was top tier talent. Trent Green went down in preseason replaced by a very unknown Kurt Warner at QB. Pace was beginning to shine at LT. Holt was a rookie. Bruce was a known commodity. Marty brought all of it to bear and while the injury bug wasn’t a major factor for starters that season it was Vermeil’s guidance that kept things running smoothly.

The Dick Vermeil of ’99 could have won.

wv wrote:

Mackeyser wrote:

I decided that I’m not only going to vote for Dr Jill Stein, but I’m gonna donate enough to get a t-shirt so I can wear it around town.

Do Greenies make cool Tees? I’ll wear a whack Tee, but it’d obviously be better if it were cooler.

——————–
Yeah, after the Calif result, I guess its time i took down my Bernie sign, and made a big green Jill sign.

Maybe I’ll get a Tee shirt too. Or maybe I’ll just get some green textile paint
and a white shirt and make my own. Maybe have a green paint party.

bnw has to be loving this — we’re gonna get Trump elected, LoL.

Well, so be it.

w
v

So you guys finally won’t vote for the democrat while I can finally vote for a republican.

zn wrote:

JackPMiller wrote:

The Rams need to make the playoffs for Jeff Fisher. If they don’t, I cannot see why Fisher would deserve a new contract. Another losing season, for me, should be looking for a new Head Coach. One that wins.

I doubt that’s the way Stan is thinking.

And I submit to you that no coach wins if he has to deal with the kinds of things thet Rams have had to deal with the last 2 years.

.

Dick Vermeil won in ’99.

BS! Obama has been a monumental fuck up. ACA is NOT a conservative program. It wasn’t passed in a conservative manner either. Romney wasn’t a conservative either. To someone as far away from the center as you Obama and Romney appear conservative but not to a conservative voter.

Almost a bullseye.

Economic Left/Right: -1.0
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.26

zn wrote:

bnw wrote:

zn wrote:

bnw wrote:

Did you really say “the left critiques both parties”? Too fucking funny. Honestly thats pee the pants funny.

Well, see, my guess is, you think dems are “the left.” Which is a typical mistake in narrow-band america. (Not in the rest of the world.) That’s a typical mainstream trap some get caught in.

The left is invisible in the USA, they don’t HAVE a major party, but it exists. And they are not dems.

Read the people you’re posting with. Sooner or later, it will become clear.

Most of us here are not dems, and this goes way way back. As I said lefties don’t have a major party in the USA and as I said yes we critique both. This goes way back. For years and years. Here on this board, most of the core participants have known one another more than 15 years. When I say the lefties on this board critique both parties, I know whereof I speak. Have an open mind and follow the discussion. Don’t be so quick to dismiss what frankly you don’t know yet.

BS and you know it. There are smaller leftist parties to the left of the democrat party leadership but they remain insignificant. However the democrat party is left as in its voters are left of its leadership and these voters have the numbers to elect candidates throughout the nation at the state and national level. The Bernie phenomenon shows this well. (The same thing Trump has shown within the republican party from the other end of the political spectrum.) Why its voters continue to vote for leadership that throws them a social issue bone once in a while to chew on but screws them over on jobs and purchasing power while fostering dreater dependence only democrat voters can answer. that. I suspect most don’t look past the (D) behind the candidates name.

Yeah I said major party and I meant it. I was referring to the dominance of the republocrats and demicans. Look back at me on this board discussing the greens. I know about the small parties…they’re not major. Hence, no major parties. That was the whole point.

One tenet of actual leftists, speaking for ourselves instead of being described by an outsider, is that to us, there is nothing “left” about the democratic party. Hear that, and you will begin to have a better understanding of the people you’re posting with. In europe the american dems would basically be right-wing moderates. That’s how I see them. They are as a rule better on social issues than the right, which is frankly (in my eyes) still stuck in the late 19th century, but that’s about it.

As for the rest of your things…even though it’s supposed to have this “listen up here’s the truth” tone to it…I still just see it as one narrow perspective among others. It’s also an invitation to debate, but, for me personally, I am just not engaged enough. I am pretty sporadic about that kind of thing. Others may feel inclined to engage.

I don’t have a “narrow perspective” about Hill’s email scandal. Anyone else would have been prosecuted by now. GUARANTEED.