25 minutes from now, and all the other chickens are hungry, who's going to be laughing then? Hmmm?

China holds the economic keys and put the most pressure on the N Korea. This should be Plan A, B, C D.

We don't need to be preemptive on N. Korea.
However if they launch an attack It would be logical to fight back.

How much to retaliate depends where they attack first.
If they go for Soul S Korea with12 Million people It would be logical to whip the shit out of the North leaders and army. Then let an UN govern the area until the area is re established

They hit Guam -- Same. but no invasion of UN or any other group.


This is a hornets nest and once poked it would be decades before peace peace is settle.

China will not allow Americans occupy N. Korea.
S Korea does not have the finance to "settle/ rebuild/ stabilize" an new government in the north.

China does not want a flood of hungry starving immigrants.

American don't need another money pit to fund.

*cute *nature

Now, I am hungry!

I'm amazed time and again that they just don't seem to get it. You keep putting forth corporate shill Democrats that practically everyone can see a mile away and you will not win. Sure there are other factors involved as well, but it is clear to me that everyone is no longer swayed by the smooth talking politician. We want change. We want to give government a swift kick in the ass. Unfortunately a lot of those hungry voters were willing to chance it with a child like buffoon. I like some things that Maher says, but he has no idea what the people want.

What the hell! Why did that mouse kill all those people? Was he that hungry? He let's 2 people live so he can escape the scene of the crime scott free. I hope there's a sequel.

The Danny Trejo of rodents. Badass.

*food I am hungry too.

It's amazing to see just how smooth and clean Putin's or "Russia's": "Coup O' America" is running, using empty-headed our power-hungry Republicans as the tools to make it work. (Yeah sure it's I don't believe this; but does it really matter when it is still turning OUT the same way?!)

Essentially just putting a person in each office that wants to tear it apart, so that they destroy America from the inside. Then put an administration on top that would run like a classic Dictatorship-lite. Right now our military branch and side branches--like the courts, taxes/money, infrastructure, etc... Are the only things that can actually respond and do jack-shit. Our country is running around like a chicken with its head chopped off.

Trump has NO idea what in the hell he is doing at all at the wheel. We ALL know this by now; if you don't agree on this you are absolutely lying to yourself. He has yet to make ONE announcement as President, that is actually--you know--presidential... Like after North Korea and it's missile test, then it's warning about Nuke use. Iran's proclamation. Russia's little boat fiasco (HHRrrmmm...Me Trump...Not Good!...)...

You could tell that Trump has absolutely no handle on anything at the last press briefing where all he did was bitch and moan, and didn't do anything useful at all. All he did was sit there and act like a spiteful little crybaby--Obama should've tried that out at the start when everybody called him a Muslim, non-citizen, the anti-christ, and whatever shit popped in their mouth.

Then we have the folks that say, "See, look the same thing happened to Obama too! So we are j-u-s-t-f-i-e-d!". Now that is the worst way to make a case for equivalency, ever...

Wow.

Nothing happened "last night" and POTUS has no idea what the words he says actually mean.

But they do have higher criminality in Sweden these days than they were used to. And it is not so much not reported on, rather the racial and national identity and names of the perpetrators are being (correctly) not publicised. Frustrating for some policemen and the lynch-hungry mob, but according to the law.

Awww damnit, now I'm hungry for biscuits and sausage w/gravy. Need to find a Cracker Barrel.

Funny, but flawed it's own way.

Let me preface this commentary by saying I am not in any organized religion. I go back and forth in believing in God and also not being able to find proof he exists, basically an agnostic theist. So this is not in any way an attempt to 'prove' anything other than that I disagree with the way the video is portraying the biblical tale. I also know there are far more egregious examples than this story of God as an uncaring, flawed being with an uncertain temperament.

First, this story is one of the 'go to' stories that most atheists or anti-religion people look to for a clear example of the 'wrongness' of the bible or God. The reason is, if you don't take anything else into context, this story is massively damning! What god would call for a mass genocide out of the blue, right? Certainly not one people consider to be good!

But, if we look at the context of the bible in the Old Testament, we see that this is not wholly out of line for the character shown of God. If we take the statements of the bible as literal, then God has already shown he will destroy any threat to those he considers his 'chosen people'; even those who are/were part of that group.

In this case, the Amalekites were descendants of Esau. Esau was the brother of Jacob (later named Israel) and was supposed to inherit the blessing of his father, as well as command over the 'chosen people' of God. Esau was of rough nature and was a hunter. Once he was starving and went to Jacob, who tended the fields (sort of the Cain and Abel bit all over again), begging him for a bowl of lentil soup. Jacob told him that he would give him the bowl if Esau would pass his birthright (blessing and command) over to Jacob, since obviously Jacob was more able to care for his people than a solitary hunter. Esau agreed, but never really meant it, he was just hungry and was willing to say whatever he needed to so as to get that soup.

Jacob was dead serious though, so he took the birthright and became Israel, the leader of God's chosen. Esau was livid and swore to murder Jacob, who fled. Esau never got the birthright back, but he did sire the people who became the Amalekites, who in turn swore vengeance on Israel-ites.

This becomes important as time goes on, because basically every single time the groups encountered one another, the Israelites tried to be peaceful but the Amalekites always attacked.

By the time Saul was king, God chose to have him go and destroy the Amalekites, deeming them beyond saving. As he had told Moses during the first Amalekite attacks, he had Samuel tell Saul to blot their memory from history, wiping them out completely. Saul chose not to do this, sparing their king and some animals. Because of this, God replaced Saul with David.

So, now we come to the main part of the discussion. Like I said, this story is used quite often to show the capricious nature of God. However, like I said, it uses the story out of context. Now that we have the 'historical' description of the origin and ongoing nature of the conflict, we can put it into context.

If you are going to dissect the nature of 'God' as shown in the Old Testament, you have to look at the information given to show that nature. The bible says he is all-knowing, but it also says that he gave mankind free will. If you look on God as more of a creature running a simulation, he hopes that humanity will come to follow his rules of their own accord, even though he knows many will not. He chooses Israel and his descendants to be his 'messengers' to the other people that have chosen not to follow his rules, basically they are his missionaries that he hopes will lead his simulation to the proper conclusion.

Any group or race that tries to eradicate his messengers is a threat to his simulation, so he eventually will deal with them harshly. Sodom and Gomorrah, The Great Flood, and other examples of God deciding that he needs to protect his 'messengers' and clear off the playing board. In the case of the Amalekites, by this time period mentioned in the story, we are talking about generations of them trying to destroy the Israelites. So, God tells Samuel to tell Saul that they must be wiped from the playing board. Saul exercises his free will, therefore David enters the picture.

If you look at free will and God's choice of his messengers, as well as his protection of them, you get this story situation. By telling Saul to wipe them out, God is saying that he has tried to look the other way, but the Amalekites will never stop as long as they exist. Therefore they must be dealt with in a manner that will prevent them from rising as a people in the future and attempting harm to his messengers again.

It still doesn't paint God in a perfect light, but makes him more of a tinkerer. He keeps creating flawed inventions that choose to follow their own path and not his. The sad thing is, if you assume that he is all knowing, he knows this is going to be the end result. He creates angels and they turn on him. He creates humans and they turn on him. Then he creates Jesus, a combination of god and human, who doesn't turn on him. It is almost like he decides to create a Hero unit that can show the other simulations an easier path to winning.

Realistically and analytically, I know it doesn't make perfect sense. That is why I have my struggles with wanting to believe and then not being able to logically. If you choose to look at God as being a flawed creature (again, assuming that you believe he exists), the whole thing sort of makes more sense. In any case, we all have our own opinions and beliefs. I hope that my wordy post has explained how I try to work through mine.

Damn, now I'm hungry.

Now, I am hungry for *food! *parody