@MilkmanDan

i do not want to speak for eric,so i will just explain why i downvoted.

this video attempts to explain the syrian crisis,with almost zero critical examination.the video practically regurgitates the current american political narrative and never mentions the conflicts of information.

let me explain:

1.the video states this all started due to the arab spring,but totally fails to mention that the MAIN reason for the continued conflict is not arab spring,but the fact the both qatar and saudi arabia have been pushing syria to allow them to build a pipeline through syria in order for those countries to sell oil and gas to europe.

which would be in direct competition with russia,which is the main provider of oil and gas to europe.

2.this video claims..twice..that assad has used chemical weapons against his own people.while convenient for a western power which may,or may not,wish to engage militarily.there was no evidence in 2013,and there is no evidence this time (mainly due to time.i mean come on,TWO days? and BOOM.assad did it,nothing to see here.move along).

the only journalist in 2013 that challenged the narrative was seymor hersh.who was ridiculed and chastised,and ultimately vindicated in 2014 by the UN securities commission,that assad was not the perpetrator,but rather the al qeada off shoot el nosra.

which was barely covered,if at all,in american corporate media.

it is also important to mention that the assad regime,in full compliance with the UN,handed over all materials that could be used in chemical warfare.i.e:sarin gas.

3.while the video DOES mention it,it does so in a very slick way,and if you are not following this situation,you will miss it.

america IS supporting and funding "rebels",but pay attention to who those rebels are:they are the offshoot of al qeada,el nosra.

so in effect,america sis funding and supporting al qeada to fight against the assad regime.

i will give you time to allow that to sink in a moment.

these are only a few of the glaring inconsistencies in this video,but i will agree that the situation in syria is complicated,but the reasons for that complication are not being mentioned in this video..at all.

and one final thing to chew about before i go,because i think it is an important aspect to ponder,and as of right now,thats all it really is:speculation.

assad was set to meet with a UN peace council in a week to discuss possible diplomatic solutions.add to this that trump had just recently (last week) backed off obama's "red line" approach,and stated quite clearly that america is ONLY interested in dealing with ISIS,and had NO interest in dealing with assad.

question:

why would assad,with only a week to go before peace negotiations,commit politicial suicide by gassing his own people?

who benefits from this attack?

because it sure is not assad.

we all know the situation in syria is dire,complicated and grotesque,but the current narrative being fed to americans simply does NOT add up.

2+2 does not = 5

and this video does nothing to clear that up,it simply regurgitates american corporate media's narrative.

and i refuse to upvote that.

It's not the bread. A lot of plastic bags are covered with tallow (animal fat) to make them slippery and keep them from sticking together (necessary so the machines can pull them apart when they pack the bread in the factory). Cats love the taste; that's why you'll often find them licking or chewing plastic bags (side note: don't let them chew: if they swallow a tiny piece, it can lodge in their intestines and block the smooth flow of food and waste, causing bloating and potentially a rupture). This cat obviously /really/ likes the taste.

Physics 101 Ricky, Physics 101... Chapter 2: Paragraph 3 - goat kid + moving chair; not gonna work out. Stop whining and get back to chewing that grass, boy!

That's how i feel when I don't chew my food enough!

james o'keefe and project veritas are reknowned in their deceptions and their so-called 'gotcha" shenanigans.

and when i say "shenanigans",i mean clever editing to create a false premise that suits a political agenda.in this case:republicans.

o'keefe is not the first to kneel at the altar of political money,and suck the cock of his masters,simply to buy his way into the powered elites outhouse,located on the very edge of the property.(oooh i am being sassy today).

we can look back at the tea party and literally watch dick army,former congressman turned lobbyist (shocker right there),single handedly change the direction of an entire movement to serve the needs and desires of HIS masters,by the creation of "americans for prosperity".

i am not kidding.
go check it out.
when the original tea party started their message was very similar to the occupy wall street movement in 2011,but dick army and his merry band of fuckheads,manipulated the leadership from outrage against:big banks,wall street and the horrendous malfeasance of rumsfelds department of defense (still looking for that 1 trillion dollars of tax payer money)..

to...

big government and the democrats.

it was quite impressive in its simplicity and brilliance.
reprehensible and grotesque,but impressive.

we can even look at the private organization of the DNC,and how they openly attempted to undermine bernie sanders campaign.a man who was running on THEIR ticket for fuck sakes!

i seem to be on a kick today in regards to people who sell their integrity for cash.for access.for influence.

it appears john carpenters "they live" was not just a simple,cheesy,sci-fi movie but rather a documentary.

"i have come here to kick ass,and chew bubble gum.and i am all out of bubble gum".
rowdy randy piper (rip)

jesus,could we all stop with the histrionics already?

there are reasons why trump won,and it certainly was not because he is a decent human being,he is not,he is a terrible human being.

so if you are going to assume what kind of president he is going to be based solely on his emotionally,super-charged rhetoric,then you are..by definition..pre-judging.

i do not know what kind of president he is going to be,and neither do you.

i suspect it going to be in the area of horrifying and bumbling buffoon,but we won't know until he gets in office.

all rubin is pointing out is that there are some positives,and freaking out does nothing,and is based on assumption.

but chew on this for a minute.
both the democrats and republicans HATE trump and the fact he won has scared the living shit out of both parties.the political elite just got kicked in the balls.

i have been watching in horror as trump began to surround himself with some of the most vile,and opportunistic people:gingrich,gulliani,christie,and let us not forget the christian supremacist mike pence.

yet two days ago pence cleared all the lobbyist choices trump had made for positions in his cabinet.they are calling it the "pence purge".was this a political ploy to stick with the "drain the swamp" meme?

sure..that is possible.
but it is still a good sign.

and rubin brings up a good point in regards to trump.he likes being popular and loved.while i find this narcissistic and childish,and not a quality i want in a president,it does offer a window where normal people can apply pressure to his presidency,and that is no small influence.

hey,i get it,trump is a bumbling buffoon who is a terrible human being,but he won't be this countries first awful human being to hold the presidency.

and we really do not know what kind of president he is going to be.so all rubin is saying is:remain cautiously optimistic.

i say:be cautiously optimistic,but prepare for the worst.

because many people have concerns,and i think those concerns are valid.i suspect that a trump presidency will rival the bush era,possibly worse,but i could be wrong.not the first time i was wrong.

so this could all manifest in a pleasant surprise..or a horrible nightmare,but we won't know until trump actually takes over the job.

The kid in me dreams 2 seconds after the video ends, the Monarch flutters away, the koala gazing in awe.

The adult in me knows 2 seconds after the video ends, the koala grabs the Monarch, crushes it, then pops it in his mouth and starts chewing.

*ban
John Chew
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xScTFXEVYok

Thank you!
The video pretty much steals the thunder of the chewing gum promoters, so, yep, I expect it to appear and disappear with some regularity.

@newtboy

now don't be confusing bob with your "facts" and "logic".allow the man his delusions please.

i think the most telling of this man's incredibly cherry picked diatribe is how he declares that republicans want smaller government,while at the VERY same time applauds corporations and the military!!!

where one has totally infiltrated,purchased and now controls our legislature and the other is literally..L.I.T.E.R.A.L.L.Y..a branch of the behemoth government republicans are said to despise.

a real,classic,republican is against money in politics in the form of a multi-national corporation,because that corporation was given it's privileges FROM the government.which in theory,is representative of the people.a classic republican is also against a free-standing army that just chews up money and resources and is an utter waste in regards to it's affects to the average citizen.the military should be for defense only.

but let us remember,this is bill whittle.a master in the art of sophistry.

@transmorpher

It's a little difficult to 'debate' your comment, because the points that you address to me are numbered but don't reference to specific parts of my post. That's probably my fault as i was releasing frustration haphazardly and sarcastically, and that sarcasm wasn't aimed at you. All i can do is try and sum up whether i think we agree or disagree overall.

Essentially everything is a question of 'taste', even for you. There's no escaping our nature, most of us don't drink our own piss, many of us won't swallow our own blood, almost all of us have a flavour that we can't abide because we were fed it as a child. So yes, our decisions are defined by taste. But taste is decided by the food that is available to people, within reasonable distance of their house, at a price they find affordable according to the society around them, from a range of food that is decided by society around them. Your average person does not have the luxury to walk around a high street supermarket selecting the most humane and delicious foods. People get what they can afford, what they understand, what they can prepare and what is available. Our ancestors ate chicken because of necessity of their own kind, their children are exposed to chicken through no fault of their own, fast forward a few generations, and thus chicken becomes an affordable, accessible staple. Can we reach a compromise here? It may not be necessary for chickens to die to feed the human race, but it may be necessary for some people to eat chicken today because of their particular life.

I don't like the use of the phrase 'if i can do it, i know anyone can'. I think it's a mistake to deal in certainties, especially pertaining to lifestyles that you can't possibly know about without having lived them. Are you one of the many homeless people accepting chicken soup from a stranger because it's nourishing, cheap and easy for a stranger to buy, and keeps you warm on the streets? Are you a single mother with coeliac disease, a grumpy teenager and picky toddler who has 20 minutes to get to the supermarket and get something cooking? Or one of the millions using foodbanks in the UK (to our shame) now? I don't think you're willfully turning a blind eye to those people, i'm not tugging heart strings to do you a disservice. Maybe you're just fortunate you not only have the choice, but you have such choice that you can't imagine a life without it. I won't budge an inch on this one, you can't know what people have to do, and we have to accept life is not ideal.

And within that idealism and choice problem we can include illnesses that once again in IDEAL situations could survive without dead animals, nevertheless find it necessary to eat what they can identify and feel safe with.

Yes, those damn gluten hipsters drive me round the bend but only because they make people think that a LITTLE gluten is ok, it makes people take the problem less seriously (see Tumblr feminism... JOKE).

I agree that we must look at what action we can take now - and that is why i keep reminding you that we are not in an ideal world. If the veganism argument is to succeed then you must suggest a reasonable pathway to go from how we are now to whatever situation you would prefer. My "ideal farm" description was just me demonstrating the problem - that you need to show us your blueprint for how we start again without killing animals and feeding everyone we have.

And on that subject, your suggestions need to be backed by real research, otherwise you don't have any real plan. "It's fair to say there is very little risk" is a nice bit of illustrative language but it is not backed by any fact or figure and so i'm compelled to do my Penn and Teller impression and call bullshit. As of right now, the life expectancy of humans is better than it has ever been. It is up to you to prove that changing the diet of 7 billion people will result in neutrality or improvement of health and longevity. That proof must come in the form of large statistical analyses and thorough science. I don't want to sound like i'm being a dick, but any time you state something like that as a fact or with certainty, it needs to be backed up by something. I'm not nit picking and asking for common knowledge to have a citation, but things like this do:

-- 70% of farmland claim
-- 'fair to say very little risk' claim
-- meat gives you cancer claim - i accept it may have a carcinogenic effect but i'll remind you so does breathing, joss-sticks, broccoli, apples and water
-- 'the impact to the planet would be immense' claim - in what way, and what would be the downsides in terms of economy, productivity, health, animal welfare (where are all the animals going to be sent to retire as of day 1?)
-- etc. etc.

Oh, and a cow might get its protein from plants, but it walks around a field all day eating grass, chewing the cud and having sloppy shits with 4 stomachs and enzymes that i don't have................. I'm a bit puzzled by this one... I probably can't survive on what an alligator or a goldfish eats, but i can survive on parts of an alligator or fish. I can't eat enough krill in a day to keep me going, but i can let a whale do it for me...?

Wow someone got chewed out.

gorilla's & bonobo's to whom humans are very closly related eat almost exclusively plants.

here is a comparrison between shows that humans are anatomically herbivorous:

Facial Muscles
CARNIVORE: Reduced to allow wide mouth gape
OMNIVORE: Reduced
HERBIVORE: Well-developed
HUMAN: Well-developed

Jaw Type
CARNIVORE: Angle not expanded
OMNIVORE: Angle not expanded
HERBIVORE: Expanded angle
HUMAN: Expanded angle

Jaw Joint Location
CARNIVORE: On same plane as molar teeth
OMNIVORE: On same plane as molar teeth
HERBIVORE: Above the plane of the molars
HUMAN: Above the plane of the molars

Jaw Motion
CARNIVORE: Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion
OMNIVORE: Shearing; minimal side-to-side
HERBIVORE: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
HUMAN: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back

Major Jaw Muscles
CARNIVORE: Temporalis
OMNIVORE: Temporalis
HERBIVORE: Masseter and pterygoids
HUMAN: Masseter and pterygoids

Mouth Opening vs. Head Size
CARNIVORE: Large
OMNIVORE: Large
HERBIVORE: Small
HUMAN: Small

Teeth: Incisors
CARNIVORE: Short and pointed
OMNIVORE: Short and pointed
HERBIVORE: Broad, flattened and spade shaped
HUMAN: Broad, flattened and spade shaped

Teeth: Canines
CARNIVORE: Long, sharp and curved
OMNIVORE: Long, sharp and curved
HERBIVORE: Dull and short or long (for defense), or none
HUMAN: Short and blunted

Teeth: Molars
CARNIVORE: Sharp, jagged and blade shaped
OMNIVORE: Sharp blades and/or flattened
HERBIVORE: Flattened with cusps vs complex surface
HUMAN: Flattened with nodular cusps

Chewing
CARNIVORE: None; swallows food whole
OMNIVORE: Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing
HERBIVORE: Extensive chewing necessary
HUMAN: Extensive chewing necessary

whale.to/a/comp.html

Quite a lot of nations have old soviet Shilka's which do those supercomputer calculations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-UnealTR-Y
You get within 1.5 miles of this thing, and it chews up anything that isn't jinking.
There are also variants of this thing which have missiles, and they can even shoot down other missiles to protect itself.
For those it's better to fire helicopter missiles from a low angle. Or bomb them from up very high.

Helicopters are less vulnerable because often they can fire without revealing their position. Modern missiles can be fired from as around 8km away. And they'll fire them while hovering low enough that their radar signatures can't be distinguished from the ground and surroundings. And since they are always facing the enemy their heat signature from the engines is facing away as well. (unlike a warthog that will show it's engines to the enemy as it flies up and away after an attack). Most attack helicopters have some kind of armour as well. At least in the pilot and critical sections.
Oh yes, and something really cool - the new Apache Longbow's can fire missiles that go around terrain to hit their targets! Super cool

They absolutely have disadvantages, but any decent pilot will fly their aircraft to it's advantages

This reminds me of Jurassic Park for 2 reasons:

1: people too busy trying to figure out whether they could defy the laws of nature didn't pause to think about whether they SHOULD.

2: she looks like a dinosaur chewed on her head (and maybe puked up a little)