How could they be Official State Histories when there was no Official State? (which was my point exactly) That you see the Scriptures themselves as political documents indicates your personal bias, nothing more. My comment was mostly directed toward ardvark71 who appears to believe, as i do, that there are powers greater than the State.

What is one to actually believe, then? The authoritative statements of an LQ Guru?

Yes, I would vote "No Confidence" or "None of the Above"

For years, I've spoken about elections where "None" was available. Candidates were required to get 50% plus one vote or more to gain election. In the case of those running un-opposed, they would be out of office without the 50%+1 tally.

I've firmly believed that the lack of House and Senate "term limits" was a major oversight in the writing of our Federal Constitution.

This!!!! It won't really matter who the president is when you have congressmen/women and senator in power for their entire life, and they are ripped of real life because of their sheltered place in government.

Also it seems the democRATS are scurrying about, because of these new Clinton revelations seems that the Clinton camp are hard at work at obstructions: http://ijr.com/2016/09/687917-federa...on-of-justice/

I like neither candidate, but when Mrs. Clinton actually MET with the prosecutor on the tarmac 'all of the sudden' - and all the revelations since then - well - she does not even deserve to be running (inb4 Trump "lock her up" mantra) - the FBI needs to keep probing and not be swayed by any of her connections.

Seems to me they are also so desperate that they are trying to say it was the Russians behind all this - lets dispense with the lies shall we?

It must be recognized that anyone who wishes to influence peoples' lives (outside the family circle) is morally and emotionally screwed up. The more power-hungry, the more screwed up. From this it can be seen that the fatal flaw in our political system is that only such screwballs can be elected, like the scum rising to the top of a boiling vat full of dirty socks. George Washington was the last decent president because he was the last one who didn't really want the job. The more time that passes, the more the vat boils, the dirtier the scum.

So here's the next revolution: an open source random selection process. 3 names selected at random for each office, in September. The names are published, with brief bios and viewpoints of each candidate. The election is held in November without a single caucus, convention, or campaign. Once the term is served, the person is exempt from all further service and can return to normal life.

A write-in vote for 'Tux' would be a vote for such a system, as well as a 'None of the Above' vote. Let the revolution begin!

"Nevertheless(!), if I may politely say, both(!) of you," appear to be quite-willingly caught-up in this trap(!) that neither(!!) of you actually need bother(!!!) to be caught-up in.

Fact is, at no(!) point have "your electoral choices" actually been confined to "just (one of, specifically) two."

Although this lie happens to be "a multi-billion-dollar lie," it remains just as un-true as ever it was.

Throughout this entire electoral process, it has always(!) been the case that f-o-u-r equally-qualified names would confront your "almighty pen."

Go ahead. "Choose."

Go ahead. "Choose freely."

Go ahead. "On Election Day, be an American." "And let their damnable 'multiple billions of dollars'™ be damned."

...

No, I'm not a fan of this option at all

Well, I was told that RT is not a reliable source, but how come other more 'reliable' sources didn't show this at all?

-edit

Well, if Assange confirmed that the Russians have no hand in this I guess the Clinton camp needs to finally shut the hell up already about the Russians... Not going to happen, the American people are too stupid not to fall for the Russian 'threat'.

Because reliable sources don't treat Assange as one. Duh.

BTW, I see that a) your show of being familiar with anything other than RT lasted exactly one day, and b) you've declined to elaborate on where your bias in favor of Russia (and China, which you were asked about years ago) comes from. This is an interesting pattern, as we've had another poster (Sigterm) who I also suspect was intentionally hiding a Russian background.

How is Assange tied to Putin?

What is a reliable source anyhow? I think we can all agree that all 'sources' have some sort of bias, but still... As Mr. Assange stated when asked on the video, wikileaks have released plenty of documents about Russia - so naturally you would think RT wouldn't have anything to do with any of this, let alone show an interview like this.

So, if Wikileaks released documents about the skeletons in Russia's closet, just as much as the west's, - yet only the west is barking loudly about how bad Assange is, and how is is mostly a 'Russian mole' or pawn, or whatever (sources please?) - how would the Russians benefit from having their own atrocities laid bare? You would think they would be just as in a tizzy to get at Assange as well.

Or is it because, we should only be focusing on how bad the Russian are? I already know how bad they are, but hey I have to give them the most credit. They've not really said much about the documents, not really pointed many fingers about the west, yet the west like to point finger at them the most 'look how bad the Russkies are' (so that you do not see what we are doing behind your backs).

The part you quoted didn't say that. I've since edited it, but what I meant was that reliable sources don't take Assange or Putin at their word.

Tell me again how Russia's state-run media was the only one good enough to air an interview with Assange, and how that proves that Assange and Russia obviously have no connection.

Ok noted - I don't take Putin at his word, although yes I give him more credit than most other politicians only because he has said nothing; only the western media/government are the ones shouting the loudest. "Look what the Russians are doing in Syria, ...Nevermind the mess we've made for the past decade"

I don't have to take Assange's word - I can just troll the wikileaks site and make my own conclusion.

If wikileaks exposes information on various states even on the Russians, then why would it be in RT's interest to even have anything to do with Assange, or the Kremlin? If it also exposes the West's misdeeds, then hey that is a rather shrewd move if you ask me - the Kremlin knows they have skeletons in their closet but letting it go because the west has just as much perhaps more - not a bad move IMO. Besides, this isn't Правда(PRAVDA) we are talking about here.

Again, shrewd move by the Russians - I don't think the Russians appreciated the leaks of the abuses carried out - I am sure they would have preferred also that remained quiet.

https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:...blowers/Russia

Which country's media just gave Assange an interview, Jeebiz? And which country did you just say he exonerated in that interview?

From the description of the video:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pilger



Uh, Pravda?

Show me anywhere in the wikipedia article that John Pilger has any ties to RT, or the Russians.... Please by all means.