Wait, were you thanking me for the clarification that I have yet to post?

Or did you self-clarify my post yourself and then call me an idiot because your clarification sucked? I'm going to assume that you weren't confessing to being the self-identifying idiot, but that's not clear either ;)

Anyway, I'm saying that the FBI is not beyond reproach, and they enforce the law inconsistently and unfairly, and thus dishonestly. They have quite the sordid history, and often its not clear exactly who made the call or why. Of course, sometimes they get it right; this is the basis of their glorious stature in our society. But when they get it wrong, it's usually a fucking disaster, like with the supreme court...no more appeals.

In this case, you gotta be fucking kidding me if you think they got it right. Why won't they make a case? Are they so brilliant that they can accurately predict the case is so flawed that it would fail in court? Are they so cynical that they don't agree that it would be valuable to prosecute the case regardless of the outcome, in the interest of justice and/or accountability? Are they underfunded/understaffed and cannot mount a proper case due to an inadequate investigation? Would working this case threaten other cases, or (golly) national security somehow?

Give me a fucking break. I don't need to prove their motivations---or even fathom any guesses---to know when they are fucking up. This case is clear: the FBI has done a disservice to the American people here.

As far as your sarcastic "protect some random low level local government employee" theory...yeah, actually that is spot on. In another context, it's called the Blue Shield or whatever. Professional courtesy, from another point of view. The FBI is supposed to step in when the local authorities cannot be trusted to serve justice, which very much sounds like the case here. Is there pressure to keep the FBI from prosecuting local law enforcement due to apparent incompetence or corruption? Fuck yes, how naive could you be? That's like the nuclear option, and they use it about as often, for about the same reasons. I can only assume in this case, the FBI were like, "meh, we're busy, call us when you got a terrorist". Too bad, because lay people looking at this case are like "this is fucked up and represents everything wrong with government" and we are all losers as a result.

Well, I don't even make a legal turn on a red light when there are "red-light" cameras...totally legal, but I'd be a fool to get mixed up in fighting a bad ticket if i could avoid the entire situation?

I also make sure to pull over whenever a cop is behind me. I'm not into that "tailing me for 20 minutes see if I make a mistake" game. If they want me, I'm ready, phone on record. If not, I continue on my way, usually right behind said cop. Which makes for a nice ride, actually.

It's like I have my own personal plea bargains, lol.

"Are you honestly saying the FBI will not prosecute..."

YES YES YES

I am honestly saying the FBI is not honest. In this case, in particular, totally dishonest. And this is not new, it's just Tuesday.

"The items are then sent for safe recycling."

That would be nice, if actually true. But against all odds.

Same old apologies, different president, same reasons.

I call bullshit. Well he's better than X? Yawn.

But what interests me is that maybe this time---maybe the betrayal of Obama is so great---people will finally commit to "wasting their vote" on a 3rd party.

Or are we doomed to the best of two evils, never anyone good? Is this really the government we deserve?

That crap comment got modded Insightful +4 ?

Lol, D+ at best. Aka FAIL

Playboy has better articles and features than it does naked models.

In fact, it makes no sense to get Playboy for the nudity. Sort of a ripoff, especially if you're not into big buxom blonde white women.

The articles are definitely worth reading, as far as magazines go.

Every issue has relevant and insightful political commentary, and one of the very rare publications that directly oppose police corruption and brutality. If nothing else, you ought to support them as a last bastion of sound and reasonable popular American politics...their platform very much aligns with the young progressive internet generation.

Should I go on? The playboy advisor is almost always spot on. They publish celebrity nip-slips, a fave of mine. Every issue has at least one serious non-fiction article, and usually a good fiction, too. Popular sports analysis and predictions...what the fuck do you want from a men's magazine?

It's called making the rent.

aka: i dont want to be homeless

No thanks, I wish we could go back to [some arbitrary time when the world was simpler and therefore better and somebody get those damn kids off my lawn]

You're so right...and lazy developers, too? Suddenly a category will shake out as they all compete on bandwidth efficiency?

Of course, Apple would never allow the likes of an "adblock" app?

"Second, this is about the safety of everyone else sharing the road with you."

FTFY.

I agree. Who cares about data speeds when you can't rely on your PHONE to make calls?

"dang, this is taking a little longer to download."

"WTF?!? HELLO? HELLO? ARRGH!!! I was on hold for a hour to talk to that rep!!!"

One of these scenarios irritates me, the other makes me want to murder death kill.

Why, are you named My Corporation?

I see your point but your analogy is bunk. Nobody is claiming ownership, and Grayson isn't going after the domain. He is accusing her of misrepresenting her Political Action Committee as some sort of grassroots organization when it's just a front for Grayson's opponent.

It seems inappropriate for Grayson to make a fuss like this...until you look into the shysty-ass crap the other side is pulling. Transparency is good and should be not only encouraged in politics but rigidly enforced.

I do not think Grayson is afraid of being exposed, that dude has Colbert-sized balls. Anyone who dares speak truth to power has my support, even if it's a wacko like Ron Paul.