I think the e-mail scandal is a big deal. I also Hillary is very calculating, but she also has a tendency to keep things from the public as long as she can. This is probably because of her history where she has been hounded by the press for many years (e.g. Whitewater).
Hillary is a strong candidate in many ways, but there are also reasons to be sceptical. If I was an American citizen (I'm not), I would consider voting for the LIBERTARIAN candidate who was experienced, respectable, stable and seemingly sane.
As I pointed out earlier, this part of the post is wrong (Obama never invaded Iraq and Afghanistan):
Obama has bombed both. Obama also promised during his 2012 campaign to withdraw all US forces from Afghanistan by 2014. The US defeated the Axis powers in under four years; Afghanistan is in its 15th. The intent of this war is to wage war, not to win. That much is obvious.
First of all: It's bad form to quote another member's post and change the content of the member's post. In this case you changed Republican to LIBERTANIAN
Second: Are you refering to Gary Johnson, the man who belives a president should know little of the rest of the world because it's less likely he will start a war? BTW: Johnson is a wonderful candidate by this standard )
But I live outside the US and I want him/her to know and care about the rest of the world.
The theory is also wrong. Bush jr. knew very little about foreign affairs, but he still started two wars.
As I pointed out earlier, this part of the post is wrong (Obama never invaded Iraq and Afghanistan):
Obama has bombed both. Obama also promised during his 2012 campaign to withdraw all US forces from Afghanistan by 2014. The US defeated the Axis powers in under four years; Afghanistan is in its 15th. The intent of this war is to wage war, not to win. That much is obvious.
He did bomb both, and I have made it clear in other posts that I know this. I aslo made it clear what I ment was wrong inside the brackets. I guess I should be glad yopu didn't change my post in your qoute this.
What you think was Obama's intent in Afghanistan is speculation, IMO.
First of all: It's bad form to quote another member's post and change the content of the member's post. In this case you changed Republican to LIBERTANIAN.
Second: Are you refering to Gary Johnson, the man who belives a president should know little of the rest of the world because it's less likely he will start a war? BTW: Johnson is a wonderful candidate by this standard ajb007/lol
But I live outside the US and I want him/her to know and care about the rest of the world.
The theory is also wrong. Bush jr. knew very little about foreign affairs, but he still started two wars.
First of all: It's bad form to be (a) ignorant of; and (b) indignant at; the very common and accepted Internet practice of doing exactly that as the most concise and effective manner of replying to a previous post.
Second: as I pointed out upthread, the other candidates have made equally, if not more, egregious gaffes regarding international relations. If you want to selectively browbeat Gov. Johnson whilst giving Mr. Trump and Sec. Clinton, then at least acknowledge that your faux outrage is merely a mask for your naked partisanship.
Finally, Gov. Johnson has stated that he will respect the Constitution's requirement that Congress declare war rather than acting unilaterally as President to do so.
I didn't object to you qouting me. It's a common praktiserer and I sometimes do it my selv.
What I have a problem with is that you changes the wording of my post when you qouted me. You didn't even make it clear to other readers what you had done.
I made this clear in the earlier post, but you still called me ignorant. Again, bad form.
I think the e-mail scandal is a big deal. I also Hillary is very calculating, but she also has a tendency to keep things from the public as long as she can. This is probably because of her history where she has been hounded by the press for many years (e.g. Whitewater).
Hillary is a strong candidate in many ways, but there are also reasons to be sceptical. If I was an American citizen (I'm not), I would consider voting for the Republican candidate who was experienced, respectable, stable and seemingly sane (but there isn't)
The irony is that she was on the watergate commission (which she got kicked off of! ).
Nobody knows what really is in these emails and as long as she wasn't bribed, sold her country etc - it's hardly the big thing that the conservatives are riding on.
Nobody knows what really is in these emails and as long as she wasn't bribed, sold her country etc - it's hardly the big thing that the conservatives are riding on.
I ask both of you to continue this in DM to avoid continuing derailing this thread. -{
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,693MI6 Agent
I now hope that Donald Trump wins. I don't trust the Clintons as far as I could throw them. America needs something different and Trump, a non-politician, fits that. Hillary Clinton is more of the same and she is already tainted by the actions of Bill Clinton. I don't believe in political dynasties and anyway, we already had that with the Bushes.
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
I ask both of you to continue this in DM to avoid continuing derailing this thread. -{
Thank you, Mr Truman.
I'm debating with the other admins whether this thread is worth keeping open. If discussion can be limited to the intended direction and personal sidetracks can be avoided then it will have more chance of that.
I ask both of you to continue this in DM to avoid continuing derailing this thread. -{
Thank you, Mr Truman.
I'm debating with the other admins whether this thread is worth keeping open. If discussion can be limited to the intended direction and personal sidetracks can be avoided then it will have more chance of that.
As you do so please keep in mind that supporters of Gov. Johnson didn't go whining and crying to the mods when the thread was opened even though the thread title doesn't include the names of all the candidates who are qualified to be elected. We could have b!tched and moaned but we don't believe in playing the Special Snowflake card.
That's not why there have been problems with this thread. The possibility of other candidates being elected is a valid point, and worth being discussed.
What is the standing of the Green Party in the US?
Did the FBI director do the right thing.?
Should he have waited?
Should he have issued more and more detailed information?
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,693MI6 Agent
I think those other candidates really have zero chance of ever being elected President though in all honesty, going on previous elections. If Ross Perot couldn't do it in 1992 and 1996 then no one can. He was even allowed into the Bush-Clinton 1992 presidential debates.
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
It's not a political discussion when you are simply throwing one-liners without making a claim.
Your first picture:
It seems that the Cilnton camp is worried that Clinton's permission for the Uranium One deal is investigated.
The second line is already manipulative because it makes a false statement: "Where Hillary sold 20% of America's Uranium to Russia".
Fact is (and don't you like facts?) that she gave permission that US Uranium is sold to Uraninum One, a former Canadian Company, which has been sold to Russia. That was in 2010.
3 Years earlier - 2007 - the former Uranium One Owner gave 32 million to the Clinton Foundation.
Hillary Clinton was not the seller (!) - her Department had to approve the sale of US Uranium to Uranium One.
But it was not only Hillary and her ministry who needed to sign off that deal!
The State Department was one of nine government agencies, not to mention independent federal and state nuclear regulators, that had to sign off on the deal!
So, what is your point and why don't you make it instead of simply throwing oneliners here?
The second pic shows a statement from one of her speechwriters, so again what is your point?
Let's summarise that the FBI boss (possibly unlawfully) announced that they are investigating further emails.
He's not saying
- if these emails are new to the FBI after the previous investigation
- if these emails are from Hillary and/or their camp
- what the content of those emails is about?
- if there is any content which proves (and that would be then subject to an independent investigation and court trial) that the emails are unlawful and prove anything negative about her.
Amazing how some hate- and fear-loaded parts of the US population can be mobilized by something like that.
Hysteria - that's my only word for it - and where has the good old "in dubio pro reo" gone in a state of justice?
Summary: Instead of posting bold oneliners from biased media, it pays off to research a little and to understand the corellations and facts.
I've now taken a lot of time and efforts to research the conditions and corellations of the Urnium One Deal, it should be you to do this work before simply throwing around with suggestive oneliners in a manipulative and irresponsible manner.
I am still not sure, if you simply copy and paste them and are not knowleadgable (being clueless would be your excuse then) or if you know the background and try to fool us all here.
"The charity watchdog group Charity Navigator gave the Foundation its highest possible rating, four out of four stars, after its customary review of the Foundation's financial records and tax statements.[8] A different charity monitor, CharityWatch, says that 88% of the foundation's money goes toward its charitable mission"
"In April 2015, the New York Times reported that when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, the State Department had approved a deal to sell American uranium to a Russian state-owned enterprise Uranium One whose chairman had donated to the Clinton Foundation, and that Clinton had broken her promise to publicly identify such donations.[75]The State Department "was one of nine government agencies, not to mention independent federal and state nuclear regulators, that had to sign off on the deal."[76] FactCheck.org notes that there is "no evidence" that the donations influenced Clinton’s official actions or that she was involved in the State Department's decision to approve the deal,[77] and PolitiFact concluded that any "suggestion of a quid pro quo is unsubstantiated.""
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
What is the standing of the Green Party in the US?
Did the FBI director do the right thing.?
Should he have waited?
Should he have issued more and more detailed information?
That's a good question and it shows that the world is not black - or white and right - or wrong like most of the rightwingers suggest.
First of all - nobody knows if these emails are new after the first investigation - if they are from Hillary at all and what the content of them is.
So, the FBI Director (who's Republican) had no easy choice.
First of all it may be unlawful (there are different opinions about this) that he made this public
Then - if he remained calm, the conservatives would have slammed him for widthdrawing important voter info (remember Trump whining that this election is manipulated - it would follow along those lines)
Now that he came out with it, the Hillary Camp accuse him having stepped above his competences and to release info, which may suggest something that is not really the case (nobody knows what these emails are all about and by whom).
I have no reply - if that was right or wrong - I would have preferred, if he'd come up with more details because like things are now I have the feeling, that the "new emails" don't have any new substance and it's just about making a suggestive claim.
Remember that EBOLA hysteria that's been built up by the Republicans prior to the last Senate election?
The day the election was over - nobody from that Camp was even talking about it!
It seems to me, that the Conservatives desperately are looking for a topic which could do the same - no matter what it's really all about!
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
This has to be the most entertaining US election in ages... it's the gift that keeps on giving. Quite literally, if it's true that Trump will contest the result come what may.
Some aired snaps of La Clinton in her teenage years got thinking, who does that remind me of? ?:)
It's Meg Griffin off Family Guy!
Never does anything much you remember her for, not much actually liked by anyone. You can imagine Peter Griffin saying, 'You're likeable enough Meg..."
What about the mom, Lois Griffin, in Family Guy? That would be Elizabeth Warren, esp when Lois Griffin eventually gets angry with her husband and starts letting him have it with both barrels:
"Nasty women have had it with people like you, Peter!"
But who would be Peter Griffin? Moronic, obese, sex-obsessed, clueless about foreign policy all round bozo? Oh come on!
But pick of the bunch? Well, this has to have been done before, but it's the notorious sex hound Anthony Weiner, whose indiscretions led to the latest Hillary email furore. He just keeps it coming and has no inhibitions!
I think those other candidates really have zero chance of ever being elected President though in all honesty, going on previous elections. If Ross Perot couldn't do it in 1992 and 1996 then no one can. He was even allowed into the Bush-Clinton 1992 presidential debates.
Perot dropped out of the race for a while in 1992, and he'd never held elective office, and his selection of running mate - the first important decision a candidate makes while the world is watching - was an absolute blunder.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
edited October 2016
I think we're about to find out whether there is truly a limit to the corruption that will be tolerated on the part of a Democrat candidate for president...we know that the bar for Republicans is a good deal lower, thanks to the Dem's allies in virtually 80% of all major media outlets. I naturally concede that anyone who is fine with Hillary's rich history of swivel-headed, shady double-dealing will also be fine voting for her with the full knowledge that they may indeed be voting for Tim Kaine by default...if Hillary is rewarded with the presidency with all of this baggage weighing her down, she will be so preoccupied with defending herself from investigations and legal challenges that she will end up impeached, or stepping down 'for health reasons.'
Whoever wins this macabre and torturous election will inherit a sh*tshow, and it will require their undivided attention.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
What his statement also conveniently leaves out is that the Republican Party Congress Majority are fundamentally blocking virtually any decision which would be pro Obama in the last 8 years.
That's the way the US government works. We do not have a dictator who uses our military as his own personal force. We have checks and balances, and our Constitution puts the powers to raise armies and declare war with the Congress, not with the President. It the people do not like how Congress is doing its job, they can vote for a new House of Representatives every other year.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
For the record, Obamacare passed without any significant Republican support to speak of The Democrats had a sufficient majority, and own that one lock, stock and barrel.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I think we're about to find out whether there is truly a limit to the corruption that will be tolerated on the part of a Democrat candidate for president...we know that the bar for Republicans is a good deal lower, thanks to the Dem's allies in virtually 80% of all major media outlets. I naturally concede that anyone who is fine with Hillary's rich history of swivel-headed, shady double-dealing will also be fine voting for her with the full knowledge that they may indeed be voting for Tim Kaine by default...if Hillary is rewarded with the presidency with all of this baggage weighing her down, she will be so preoccupied with defending herself from investigations and legal challenges that she will end up impeached, or stepping down 'for health reasons.'
Whoever wins this macabre and torturous election will inherit a sh*tshow, and it will require their undivided attention.
Now then Loeffs, I thought you'd be sore, haven already reluctantly cast your vote for Hillary, only for this new email controversy to emerge. Serves you right for jumping the gun!
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
I think we're about to find out whether there is truly a limit to the corruption that will be tolerated on the part of a Democrat candidate for president...we know that the bar for Republicans is a good deal lower, thanks to the Dem's allies in virtually 80% of all major media outlets. I naturally concede that anyone who is fine with Hillary's rich history of swivel-headed, shady double-dealing will also be fine voting for her with the full knowledge that they may indeed be voting for Tim Kaine by default...if Hillary is rewarded with the presidency with all of this baggage weighing her down, she will be so preoccupied with defending herself from investigations and legal challenges that she will end up impeached, or stepping down 'for health reasons.'
Whoever wins this macabre and torturous election will inherit a sh*tshow, and it will require their undivided attention.
Now then Loeffs, I thought you'd be sore, haven already reluctantly cast your vote for Hillary, only for this new email controversy to emerge. Serves you right for jumping the gun!
She wouldn't get my vote if one of her henchmen were standing with me in the voting booth holding the barrel of a .38 against my head. I'd tell them to pull the trigger, and get it over with. -{
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
rich history of swivel-headed, shady double-dealing
And for a second I thought that you are talking about Trump
I won't defend Trump; he's on his own. Hillary and Bill Clinton have created the muck they're hip-deep in, and it's fascinating to watch.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
Fixed.
Obama has bombed both. Obama also promised during his 2012 campaign to withdraw all US forces from Afghanistan by 2014. The US defeated the Axis powers in under four years; Afghanistan is in its 15th. The intent of this war is to wage war, not to win. That much is obvious.
Second: Are you refering to Gary Johnson, the man who belives a president should know little of the rest of the world because it's less likely he will start a war? BTW: Johnson is a wonderful candidate by this standard
But I live outside the US and I want him/her to know and care about the rest of the world.
The theory is also wrong. Bush jr. knew very little about foreign affairs, but he still started two wars.
He did bomb both, and I have made it clear in other posts that I know this. I aslo made it clear what I ment was wrong inside the brackets. I guess I should be glad yopu didn't change my post in your qoute this.
What you think was Obama's intent in Afghanistan is speculation, IMO.
First of all: It's bad form to be (a) ignorant of; and (b) indignant at; the very common and accepted Internet practice of doing exactly that as the most concise and effective manner of replying to a previous post.
Second: as I pointed out upthread, the other candidates have made equally, if not more, egregious gaffes regarding international relations. If you want to selectively browbeat Gov. Johnson whilst giving Mr. Trump and Sec. Clinton, then at least acknowledge that your faux outrage is merely a mask for your naked partisanship.
Finally, Gov. Johnson has stated that he will respect the Constitution's requirement that Congress declare war rather than acting unilaterally as President to do so.
Keep things civil and impersonal or this thread will be closed. This is a general comment not aimed at any one member.
What I have a problem with is that you changes the wording of my post when you qouted me. You didn't even make it clear to other readers what you had done.
I made this clear in the earlier post, but you still called me ignorant. Again, bad form.
The irony is that she was on the watergate commission (which she got kicked off of!
Huffington Post, hardly conservative:
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/26/clinton-foundation-donors_0_n_7441486.html
Mother Jones, hardly conservative:
Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals
Slate, hardly conservative:
Repressive Regimes Donated to Clinton Foundation, Got Federal Approval for Arms Deals
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/05/26/clinton_foundation_state_department_weapons_deals_donations_approval_coincided.html
What other word would you like me to use to describe knowledge gaps such as your being unaware of the practice of using "Fixed"?
http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com
Changing somone else's post against their wishes is simply wrong. Writing" fixed" or anything else in your own post doesn't make it OK.
Thank you, Mr Truman.
I'm debating with the other admins whether this thread is worth keeping open. If discussion can be limited to the intended direction and personal sidetracks can be avoided then it will have more chance of that.
As you do so please keep in mind that supporters of Gov. Johnson didn't go whining and crying to the mods when the thread was opened even though the thread title doesn't include the names of all the candidates who are qualified to be elected. We could have b!tched and moaned but we don't believe in playing the Special Snowflake card.
(Btw, "bitched" is ok)
What is the standing of the Green Party in the US?
Did the FBI director do the right thing.?
Should he have waited?
Should he have issued more and more detailed information?
It's not a political discussion when you are simply throwing one-liners without making a claim.
Your first picture:
It seems that the Cilnton camp is worried that Clinton's permission for the Uranium One deal is investigated.
The second line is already manipulative because it makes a false statement: "Where Hillary sold 20% of America's Uranium to Russia".
Fact is (and don't you like facts?) that she gave permission that US Uranium is sold to Uraninum One, a former Canadian Company, which has been sold to Russia. That was in 2010.
3 Years earlier - 2007 - the former Uranium One Owner gave 32 million to the Clinton Foundation.
Hillary Clinton was not the seller (!) - her Department had to approve the sale of US Uranium to Uranium One.
But it was not only Hillary and her ministry who needed to sign off that deal!
The State Department was one of nine government agencies, not to mention independent federal and state nuclear regulators, that had to sign off on the deal!
So, what is your point and why don't you make it instead of simply throwing oneliners here?
The second pic shows a statement from one of her speechwriters, so again what is your point?
Let's summarise that the FBI boss (possibly unlawfully) announced that they are investigating further emails.
He's not saying
- if these emails are new to the FBI after the previous investigation
- if these emails are from Hillary and/or their camp
- what the content of those emails is about?
- if there is any content which proves (and that would be then subject to an independent investigation and court trial) that the emails are unlawful and prove anything negative about her.
Amazing how some hate- and fear-loaded parts of the US population can be mobilized by something like that.
Hysteria - that's my only word for it - and where has the good old "in dubio pro reo" gone in a state of justice?
Summary: Instead of posting bold oneliners from biased media, it pays off to research a little and to understand the corellations and facts.
I've now taken a lot of time and efforts to research the conditions and corellations of the Urnium One Deal, it should be you to do this work before simply throwing around with suggestive oneliners in a manipulative and irresponsible manner.
I am still not sure, if you simply copy and paste them and are not knowleadgable (being clueless would be your excuse then) or if you know the background and try to fool us all here.
*Clinton Foundation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation
"The charity watchdog group Charity Navigator gave the Foundation its highest possible rating, four out of four stars, after its customary review of the Foundation's financial records and tax statements.[8] A different charity monitor, CharityWatch, says that 88% of the foundation's money goes toward its charitable mission"
"In April 2015, the New York Times reported that when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, the State Department had approved a deal to sell American uranium to a Russian state-owned enterprise Uranium One whose chairman had donated to the Clinton Foundation, and that Clinton had broken her promise to publicly identify such donations.[75] The State Department "was one of nine government agencies, not to mention independent federal and state nuclear regulators, that had to sign off on the deal."[76] FactCheck.org notes that there is "no evidence" that the donations influenced Clinton’s official actions or that she was involved in the State Department's decision to approve the deal,[77] and PolitiFact concluded that any "suggestion of a quid pro quo is unsubstantiated.""
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
That's a good question and it shows that the world is not black - or white and right - or wrong like most of the rightwingers suggest.
First of all - nobody knows if these emails are new after the first investigation - if they are from Hillary at all and what the content of them is.
So, the FBI Director (who's Republican) had no easy choice.
First of all it may be unlawful (there are different opinions about this) that he made this public
Then - if he remained calm, the conservatives would have slammed him for widthdrawing important voter info (remember Trump whining that this election is manipulated - it would follow along those lines)
Now that he came out with it, the Hillary Camp accuse him having stepped above his competences and to release info, which may suggest something that is not really the case (nobody knows what these emails are all about and by whom).
I have no reply - if that was right or wrong - I would have preferred, if he'd come up with more details because like things are now I have the feeling, that the "new emails" don't have any new substance and it's just about making a suggestive claim.
Remember that EBOLA hysteria that's been built up by the Republicans prior to the last Senate election?
The day the election was over - nobody from that Camp was even talking about it!
It seems to me, that the Conservatives desperately are looking for a topic which could do the same - no matter what it's really all about!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Some aired snaps of La Clinton in her teenage years got thinking, who does that remind me of? ?:)
It's Meg Griffin off Family Guy!
Never does anything much you remember her for, not much actually liked by anyone. You can imagine Peter Griffin saying, 'You're likeable enough Meg..."
What about the mom, Lois Griffin, in Family Guy? That would be Elizabeth Warren, esp when Lois Griffin eventually gets angry with her husband and starts letting him have it with both barrels:
"Nasty women have had it with people like you, Peter!"
But who would be Peter Griffin? Moronic, obese, sex-obsessed, clueless about foreign policy all round bozo? Oh come on!
But pick of the bunch? Well, this has to have been done before, but it's the notorious sex hound Anthony Weiner, whose indiscretions led to the latest Hillary email furore. He just keeps it coming and has no inhibitions!
It's Quagmire!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Perot dropped out of the race for a while in 1992, and he'd never held elective office, and his selection of running mate - the first important decision a candidate makes while the world is watching - was an absolute blunder.
Whoever wins this macabre and torturous election will inherit a sh*tshow, and it will require their undivided attention.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
That's the way the US government works. We do not have a dictator who uses our military as his own personal force. We have checks and balances, and our Constitution puts the powers to raise armies and declare war with the Congress, not with the President. It the people do not like how Congress is doing its job, they can vote for a new House of Representatives every other year.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Now then Loeffs, I thought you'd be sore, haven already reluctantly cast your vote for Hillary, only for this new email controversy to emerge. Serves you right for jumping the gun!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
She wouldn't get my vote if one of her henchmen were standing with me in the voting booth holding the barrel of a .38 against my head. I'd tell them to pull the trigger, and get it over with. -{
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
And for a second I thought that you are talking about Trump
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I won't defend Trump; he's on his own. Hillary and Bill Clinton have created the muck they're hip-deep in, and it's fascinating to watch.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM