Warning, this is long. It's a general reply to bob, but really it's a rant about the reality of this country, origins, issue, and where we are headed... Like they say in Horace and Pete, at this point we just might deserve a president like Trump (especially because we are stupid enough to vote for HIM, and for so many Senators AND Congressmen like him or even far worse)...

Reply to bob at the top...


I hate to tell you, but "SHALL", according to the times in which the founding fathers wrote this IS indeed the utmost highest form of that period meaning that you "HAVE TO" do something.

Go ahead and let your own party change what grammar and vocabulary meant from that period--or simply not have enough brains to know what it really means (though most of us know by now their assistants have let them know what it means, they just refuse to believe reality and instead insert their own collective psychotic delusion).

Typically when it says SHALL (BTW, NOT doing that job should be getting them in HUGE amounts of trouble as well), they should be doing everything they can TO nominate a new judge into the open position in their next open session (not a session one year away, so Trump or Hillary has to do it).

If they want to complain about the nominee they CAN, just while they are under scrutiny to go up for the vote. But, they simply are NOT supposed to do nothing and furthermore say they WON'T do anything...

I'll have to look up what the penalty is for not doing this, but it could be a full "boot" from their job. Simply what has been referred to by Republicans in the past as Impeachment. But, then the Senate has to start that (I'm not sure if anyone else can; hence, this is why I said I'd try to see if there is anything else that can be done)

I believe they can also do it at the state level... BUT ALL of this requires for our government officials to do their fucking jobs! PLUS, the citizens that voted them in to give a shit!
----------


We REALLY, REALLY, do not deserve a country like this...it is BARELY alive and well. We are just a few presidential terms away (plus senators and congressmen) before we grind to a complete halt.

Then we can finally watch everything implode on CNN and FOX while REAL extremists take over and then the real fun starts. True extremists taking control with minimal bloodshed and shouting matches, civil war with outcomes that grant us either the NEO-United States (the U.S.A. V:2.0, which might be good), to the Neo-Confederacy (since that is what it all amounts to on the FAR right's spectrum). OR we simply just dissolve and become something entirely new.

Hey, bob did you know that your party used to be JUST like the Democrats of Lincoln's age. The Republican's were more like the Democrat's of our age. Weird right. THAT conservative party died out with Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose party; then all of the citizens decided that they simply liked the name "Republican" more (since they'd always voted for that name, right...it'd be weird to change it). That is where the Republican's became a FAR different party than they had been (though they still had a few more GREAT leaders before their schism drove them all, sadly, into madness ). The "Democrat's", they thought slavery was just peachy at first, and now they vote for gay-rights. NEITHER party remembers it's roots and the citizens of the United States have had their idiotic teachers and parents tell them all sorts of stories about how great either party WAS, but never telling them what they are like NOW. We all need to vote for our president, nowadays, without even LOOKING at their part's affiliation. It doesn't do any of us any good. Because none of them have ANY real lineage or links to the old presidents of these United States--they're full of shit.

Just remember, Republicans and their party were formed basically to try and abolish slavery--now they are more likely to put it back into action; a complete reversal of their direction, progressive and liberal!

Democrats tried to keep things the same as it was and to even expand slavery--now they want to allow marijuana to be legal, allow gays to have rights, and essentially pick up many progressive and liberal causes... They too have utterly reversed the direction they were at and taking during Abraham Lincoln's time. Conservative on many topics and wanting to expand the states' rights and abilities. Now they are the ones that would abolish slavery and even have Lincoln on their ticket if he ran...

Our parties in these United States are abysmal, a joke, a farce, and shouldn't even be used... The Founding Fathers would be dismayed over so many issues it wouldn't be even funny. They would more than likely throw OUT the Constitution and start a new draft, simply due to the amount of changes we've made in the WRONG direction and the fact that they weren't able to see the future far enough ahead to imagine gigantic empires made only of Business (with a mere handful of people, not hundreds, thousands, and many more like it was in their times) and how News would become so powerful it is essentially as powerful as the president of the United States--and if watched by enough people it is even FAR more powerful than him/her (like in Russia; The Internet being the ONE thing the Founding Fathers would pat our country on the back over and it's what can restore balance to the people who watch or only can gain information from these entities; a new type of "University" where anything can be shared; truth and facts obtained at every man's fingertips nearly instantly at any point on this planet; it IS the world's greatest WONDER ever made).

Lastly, they would absolutely abhor our parties and how they are used--internally and externally (how our politicians...how all the issues interconnect together; all politicians that receive outside money, they would likely want to have them all impeached, same with those that USE the media; they would HATE parties--but they know they'll always exist, you just have to get rid of the things that LET parties abuse we the people and also the government, and those things are: money and media...).


/length

I get your point, but I feel this is more akin to fixing the ignition but ignoring the fact that there are no brakes on the car. It's all fine to do it that way, unless you put the car on the road before you fix it all.
I just fear that leaving these laws (or portions thereof) in effect means they will be used and abused to abuse people, as they have been used in the past. I find them disgusting attempts to make homosexuality illegal, and leaving them on the books also indicated it's immoral by the states measure. That needs to be fixed, as it dehumanizes a large number of people for nothing.
I hope someone WILL pick this up as a battle worth fighting. I don't want my tax dollars going to support homophobic, illegal, immoral laws, their use, or even their removal by the courts when it would be so simple and reasonable to have taken care of it as they re-wrote the law. It's abhorrent to me that it's assumed that just bringing this issue up would end debate and halt the bill...it's likely reality, but it's disgusting.

To be clear, it doesn't effect me. I live in Cali, and I'm not getting any anal anyway (giving or receiving), but no oral?!? Screw that, yo. I'm sure glad Cali lets me get my freak on.

Wow...really? What a stretch to shift the blame.
"We would like to welcome to the stage the candidates for the republican nomination for president...New Jersey Governor Chris Christy, (he walks out), Dr Ben Carson..." (he walks 1/2 way out, halts for no reason, waits, another candidate is eventually called and Carson is passed, is waved out by stage hands but ignores them, is joined by another brainless candidate, is passed again, is passed again, is re-called and finally goes out, Trump is re-called out, but still can't understand what to do, then Trump is again re-called and also finally emerges).
The moderators are facing the crowd, they don't see that some candidates were too dumb to come to the stage WHEN CALLED TO THE STAGE. That's in no way the moderators' fault. At this point, they should know how to enter a stage when their name is called, this is nothing new...how many debates have we had? And these fucktards can't figure out to GO ON STAGE WHEN CALLED?!? I mean, what did they think was happening? How many times did they expect them to call their names before they were supposed to go out? How did they not grasp it when they got passed by all the others? That's pretty damning, when they're applying for a job where they need to know how to operate properly in a difficult job, but these two can't grasp how to enter a stage when called after 12 debates and 4 forums.

The fuckup from the moderators was completely forgetting Kasich. They should all be fired.

A subway system is very expensive to build and they are all over the world. Also, subway lines are single lined, so when a failure occurs, the whole line, or a full section between two nodes is halted.

There is an interesting project in Quebec to develop a kind of intercity high-speed monorail system : http://www.trensquebec.qc.ca
it is said to be cheaper than a high speed train. It would use shuttles and be installed above the expressway.

We want more monorails!

@Lawdeedaw

I think that's a bit of a flawed argument and hardly what's wrong with the US economy. It would be silly to halt the automation* of driving. Not only is it likely to lead to safer driving but reducing the costs of shipping everything will in effect lower the costs of virtually all goods and improve living standards. Government may have a role to retrain workers or to provide unemployment support but it's not there to prop up industries that are obsolete. No one wants to go back to the days of typists and secretaries and for good reason.

I would rather blame the entrenched firms with their lobbyists protecting their turf through the corrupt political contribution system. If you look at Google Fiber for example: Verizon, Comcast and the like have been mounting various political and legal challenges to keep them from growing and to protect their margins. Free market economies work because new market entrants erode profits over time through innovation. Instead you have politically maintained trusts.

You took my comment wrong. I'm not ADVOCATING shooting cops, but I'm pointing out that some people DO paint entire groups with one brush (like the cops do, and turnabout IS fair play...but not always smart), and to many of those people ALL cops look like criminal thugs you should defend yourself against. Those people just might have firearms, and a small percentage of them may actually go out and use them. It IS the same mentality that cops use, and is not proper civil behavior, but it is absolutely foreseeable. That's what I meant.

That said, people CAN reasonably assume cops are racist assholes because they're cops because study after study shows that the job apparently MAKES them racist assholes, even the minority ones. It also seems to attract them, and absolutely doesn't exclude them. It seems likely to me that the prevalence of racist behavior among cops is based in the overwhelming negative contact they have with people, and a lack of positive contact. It's also obvious to me that it's getting worse, more prevalent, more institutionally accepted, and at least seems to be getting more deadly (but that could just be reporting trends).

I wish the police would re-instate the 'community policing' methods they used to try, where officers live in the community they police and are incentivized to participate in positive community activities...that would be better for everyone. Unfortunately I think those programs have all but halted.

Fake!

The ride, I mean. Cars don't simply come to a bone-jarring halt like that. There are bumpers and crumple zones and such.

Also, seems like a barbaric way to convince them to wear seatbelts. Isn't it traditional to just show them a film of roadside carnage, dead babies and such?

I don't understand. If you are selling at 5kw/h during daylight, why are you seeing only slight decline in your bill? It should be near zero, if not a check written to you if you are careful to not use much at night. I went from $4-500 per month electric bills (we have an electric hot tub that sucks major juice) to $30 bills in summer, and under $100 in winter. My system cost around $40K, and I got back around $5K (and lost out on tons more because when I bought it the tax rebates didn't roll over and I didn't use them all). I live in N California, where it's incredibly foggy, and it still took under 9 years to pay for itself in savings. Had I been able to use all the rebate (like you can now, it rolls over until you use it up) it would have been a year earlier paying itself off. Since the system should last 20 years, that's a great deal, even for you at 11-15 years to pay itself off, that's still 5-9 years of free juice, and 20 years of never losing power (if you have batteries).
Another benefit is from decentralizing power production. That makes you immune from most failures or any possible attacks on the system.
I do agree, it's not a perfect solution, and not 100% pollution free, but it's a great solution for most, if done right. The carbon costs are relatively small, and a one time event.

I'm all for nuke if done responsibly, which means not on coastlines, built with failsafe design features that don't require power to halt the reaction and store the fuel, and not experimented with to get a bit more power out (which caused Chernobyl and 3 mile island as I understand it).

Hydro, on the other hand, is always incredibly damaging to rivers, which along with providing the water we need, feed what little wildlife we have left. I am against any new hydro projects and advocate removing the failing one's we have now. They are short lived under the best of circumstances, but the damage they do is often permanent.

Option #3: the country might become destablised enough to halt construction/maintenance entirely and the site will be left to rot, more or less, like the nuclear arsenals/reactors of some nations.

Also keep in mind, this is how we deal with nuclear waste in a stable, wealthy and highly industrialised nation. "Just toss it over there" is the mantra during good times. Times are not good in Ukraine...

It's even better (worse), because after accepting over $1million in these 'permit lottery tickets', they've suspended the lottery, so NO ONE is legal even though hundreds of businesses paid their 'fee' to get a chance to be legal, and they seem to be using the applications as 'probable cause' for warrants for any business that submitted an application for the permit 'lottery'. It's disgusting that the judge in the case saw how corrupt the plan is, but actually made things worse by halting the program but not demanding the 'fees' be refunded or the business permits be re-issued to those that had permits before this plan went into effect. That makes this program a pure armed robbery by the local government, one that I'm sure will be overturned, but many will lose their business, savings, and even their freedom in the mean time.
I think the feds are taking a hands off approach to medical marijuana. They have stopped going after it (for now) but are also not helping defend them. It's a pretty screwed up situation I hope will be resolved in the next election where I expect at least California will legalize recreational marijuana (yet we probably won't be releasing the thousands in prison for minor marijuana crimes, too much money to be made by keeping them incarcerated).

My thoughts exactly...I could not stand the speakers feigned emotional tone and halting voice....and I wish I could because I'm somewhat interested in the story, but I can't make it more than 2 min in...so no vote.

You said Eric Holder can get it (ending racism in the police) done. What else could that mean besides this one democrat heading a federal agency is expected to have abilities never exhibited by any human before him? EDIT: ...and he's expected to do this during a period of political obstructivism and discord that's halted progress on nearly every issue at hand.

Kind of. Most laws are actually written by lobbies, and voted in by our 'representatives' (that don't represent us on any side, but represent the lobbies instead). Some few states have 'ballot initiatives' that allow direct voting on issues, but I think most don't.
(As an aside, I wish we would follow what I've read was the original draft of the constitution that 11-12 of 13 colonies ratified, but was discarded in favor of the one we follow today, which said clearly that lawyers can't hold public office outside the courtroom).

Common sense says if you are non-criminal only 99% of the time, you are criminal 1%, so at least once per day if not more often. If you don't understand that, or wish to continue to ignore it, you are insane or severely learning deficient. You can't even argue against that reality, so you turn to personal insults....so by your own rules, you loose.

I'm describing personal experience and long standing repeating investigations showing the same thing. When you're theory has been proven right, you are no longer a 'conspiracy theorist'. I didn't come to my conclusion until long after it had been proven true in many many cases (not all).

Yes, easy, and you would think that would matter, sadly not. It happened here in N Cal. 3-5 years ago, white kid even. No question the kid was shot in the back, and had no weapon, but the cop claimed he 'thought' he saw a weapon and feared for his life, and that the kid had quickly turned away right as he shot, and that's pretty much where it ended. Not the first stupid unarmed kid shot here, won't be the last with that outcome.

OK, so you say my arguments don't hold water because a democrat is in charge of a government organization, and so you imply that means everything will be done properly without obstructionist barriers put up to halt the process, because the fed, and democrats always get the right thing done even when obstructed? That's a new 180 deg. turnabout viewpoint from you.

Actually, many of the laws being enforced by cops were put there, or kept there by police lobbying organizations. The prison guard union (cops) is the biggest, best funded, heaviest lobbying union in the nation. You know this, but you ignore it to spout nonsense.

Acting non-criminally only 99% of the time is 1% too little. If I only don't kill or attack 99% of the people I meet daily, I'm a cut throat thug on a murder mission. Are you so insane you don't get that?

Yes, required by law to be reported, but not enforced at all, with ZERO oversight. That means unless there's incontrovertible proof that's already gone public, they'll deny the charges, intimidate the abused, and have even gone so far as to steal and destroy the evidence of their crimes. Who's going to stop them, fellow cops? I think not.

My citizen complaint was first refused, then obstructed, then ignored. It was NEVER investigated, and no reprimand was ever given to the officer that jerked me out of my car, threw me to the ground, pulled his gun on me, and stepped on my head, all because HE read my license plate wrong and wrongly assumed my car was stolen...that's an assault and battery with a deadly weapon (yes, he was calling me disgusting names and threatening me while he did it, and afterwards) but my hard fought official complaint was never investigated at all. When the follow up is left 100% to the people being investigated, there's no follow up or investigation. That's the system we have today, we must trust the cops (who break the law daily, at least 1% of the time according to you) to police themselves, when it's been proven 99.99999% of the time they won't do that, and will lie, obstruct, destroy evidence, intimidate, and even kill people with honest complaints.

A few police may be fired when they can no longer hide the truth about their actions, but those times are few and far between compared to the proven indisputable situations that warranted far more than firing, as in prosecution, which almost NEVER happens even when they shoot unarmed kids in the back.

i think some here are missing the point of this short video.
while we can all argue the particulars of religion,it's failings and its successes,the fundamental reasons for its existence remains.

the militant atheist will argue holy text with the very same literalism that a fundamentalist exhibits,all the while ignoring the massive contributions to humanity in the realms of:art,philosophy,politics and even science.

while this dynamic of the argument is not necessarily wrong,it is,however,inaccurate.one cannot ignore,nor dismiss the positive contributions of religions,which have been legion.this does not mean that religion is above reproach nor criticism,just that a militants argument is incomplete without acknowledging this vital facet of human history.

the problem gentlemen,is fundamentalism,of ANY flavor.
religion is not going anywhere,much to the chagrin of atheists,but the reasons why humanity gravitates towards religion,or a search for the divine and sacred,remain a very powerful influence.

religion must,and has over the centuries,evolve to incorporate the paradigms that are added daily.the religion that is rigid in its interpretations and implaccable in its philosophy...dies.human history is littered with the remains of lost religions that refused to evolve with humanity.

a good example is the dark ages.which was partially perpetrated by a rigid understanding of christian theology (and an abuse of power and authority)affecting millions.it halted human progress and imposed a suffering and misery that is still remembered to this day.then the church experienced a philisophical shift and the reformation was exacted,ending the dark ages and introducing the 'age of enlightenment"...and human progress was allowed to proceed.

interestingly enough,while this was all happening in europe and human misery was a direct result of religious rigidity,the muslims were carrying the torch for human progress.making such additions as algebra and other huge strides in the sciences.

how is that for irony?

fundamentalism,in any form,must be fought at every level.so on that note i tend to side with atheists who are on a constant vigil in revealing the utter hypocrisy of a fundamentalist theosophy,but i will not ignore the wonderful and fantastic contributions that religion has added to human history.

because the fundamental reason why humanity gravitates toward religion is still there and it is not going anywhere.so religion,like man,must evolve to encompass the new paradigm in order to express our humanity,inspiration and awe in the face of the divine.

i am not an overly religious man.
that form of theosophy is not my path,but i recognize the importance of religion and its positive contributions.the challenge is to allow the more archaic and atrophied theosophy to fall away and dissolve like a vestigal limb.keep the parts that inspire and exalt humanity and allow the unnecessary and irrelevant to die with dignity,to become a footnote in our history.

which is what i gathered this video was attempting to convey and why i found it interesting.

@shinyblurry
thanks for the link buddy,now i am depressed.

@bobknight33
please do not take offense when i say:your last comment is so riddled with contradictions,fallacies and outright ignorance in the understandings of -religious history,politics and philosophy that i cannot even begin to address a singular point.that comment is just one big mess.

i will say this in regards to your comment.
to assert that atheists have no moral compass due to their lack of faith and/or religion is just patently bullshit.unless of course,you secretly wish to murder,steal and bang your neighbors wife and the ONLY thing keeping you from acting out is your fear of god.
or hell..whatever..judgement.

do you see what a facile and inept argument that is? morality is inherent to each individual.we all develop our own moral code.now religion can help clarify that moral code,but if you take religion away? we still will all have a moral code we live by.

we also rationalize.
ah..now there is something we humans excel at..rationalizing.or better put:lying to ourselves in order to justify poor behavior.here is where the atheist and the religious diverge.because the atheist has no holy text to twist and manipulate in order to justify that poor behavior,they have to own it and take responsibility.the religious person,however,can abdicate responsibility onto an ancient text based solely on their own interpretation (or some authority they have given power).human history is burdened with the mass graves of such justifications.

ok..i am rambling.
i love this subject and rarely get to engage in discussions such as this.if you have made it this far..i thank you for your kind patience with my own proclivities towards verbosity.

Yes, I understand they are taught to shoot to kill, I just think it's wrong to do so.
If it was an unavoidable situation of a single officer against a single offender, I would agree. Since there were 3, one of them could have safely moved to trying non-lethal force, with a double helping of deadly force instantly backing him up if it doesn't work. If not taser, bean bags, sticky foam, flash bang, etc. They have many means of non-lethal force that work almost every time. That should be the normal, daily way of doing it. That's why they call for backup. If they're just going to all shoot to kill anyway, why not just save time and money and do it alone? If they're only going to try lethal force, can we stop paying for all that non-lethal equipment we give them?
Shooting rapid fire and randomly in the direction of a 'perp' puts the public at risk. The first 5+ shots all missed him and flew down the street, I'm curious if anyone was hit.
If they don't even attempt non-lethal means of halting the criminal, there WAS a much better alternative. If lethal force is acceptable in any unknown situation, it's become a war of 'us vs them' where any police stop may end in one or both parties being killed because the cop wasn't sure he was safe, that's not a good outcome. When there are multiple officers, at least one should always TRY non-lethal force. If it's appropriate to have multiple guns drawn and pointed at a human's head, it's appropriate to try to taser them or bean bag them before shooting a full clip of live rounds.

If 'potential threat' is the only metric needed to justify homicide, every cop on the beat could be legally shot. They are all armed, and known to shoot to kill at the slightest provocation. Killing them would be self defense in every case if that was the only thing needed to make it acceptable, as they are all not just 'potential threats', but actual deadly threats known to be armed and homicidal.
That's why that theory doesn't work in my eyes. It leads to more killings, which leads to more fear, which leads to more killings, which leads to more fear.... Cops are trained and armed and given bullet proof vests, cut proof gloves/sleeves, and have massive backup. If they intentionally put themselves in a position where they are alone against an unknown threat, then kill out of fear of the situation they put themselves in, how is that not inappropriate? I really don't get it.
(I do get that sometimes (rarely) it's unavoidable, but most times a little patience and a little less 'contempt of cop- punishable by death' would diffuse situations that police instead often escalate into homicide because of a complete lack of patience or empathy, or out of anger because they were 'disrespected' by not having their commands followed instantly)