What you don't get is you don't get to say what constitutes Americas values when you only listen and watch propaganda as you put if from the side that validates your opinons.
Keep living in a fantasy world but I prefer to see things from others perspectives too.
Not simply what the biased agenda based main stream media is pushing very hard down my throat on a daily basis.
The fact you dismiss Woodward because he is on that site speaks volumes about your closed mindedness but regardless his message isn't only on there and you failed to address it.
Fox is by no means as bad you say.
Not all of it.
There are good reporters on there but you will never admit it because they refuse to spend their entire segment bashing Trump which is the only thing you and your ilk will tolerate.
The anger and emotion is real.
Now if only cooler heads and common sense would be IN again instead of this emotional garbage (from both sides btw)

Additional footage from other perspective. Also that damage at the end of the video.

Love your reply and POV. You got it pretty much 100% right IMO. I admit, as I Christian, I went in from a far more cynical perspective because this "wholly uninterested god" is way different from the God of the Bible. Not that God didn't bring some crazy disasters on humans in the OT, but damn, not this way or purpose as in the videos.

I don't mind people mocking God or Christians or overly religious zealots of any faith. Many are wholly deserved to be mocked. People (that includes me, God knows I'm a dumbass, lol) need to be held responsible for their own crap & offensiveness and be called out.

Still, I feel this series is not helping any discussion, just good for a laugh (maybe?) and some decent video editing & production. It's harmless if seen as a philosophical piece.

I'd love to see some intelligent, cool-headed no-trolling discussions on the pros & cons, history & evolution of religion and such. But it's really tough when religion is so politicized (especially in the USA) and often hijacked for self-serving purposes. (Godly man Roy Moore my ass!)

I live in Canada, and I would call myself a Christian in public here, but in the US? No freaking way... it's not out of fear of being mocked and anything... it's that I hardly see me as anything similar to those "evangelicals" from my own limited exposure to them in US media. It's like they're a different (offensive) beast.

There are people who spend vast sums of money sending their children to private schools in america. To some from their perspective they feel as if they are having to pay the cost multiple times over. Once when they write the check for their child's tuition and a second time when they pay taxes on their properties. But most don't even know how much the tuition cost because their accountants handle the disbursement.

Great discussion guys - one of the best I've seen on the 'sift for a while. Thanks for the perspective and civility, you've educated a few of us who are less familiar with the topic. Kudos.

I don't know who would remember this system, but it's probably more accessible to people who live there.
From an outsiders perspective: just put some arrows.

What would you recommend for an alternative here? There are inevitably going to be seniors who don't have family available to help them, and who reach a point where they're unable to care for themselves. I can only think of four options at that point:
1) Hope there's a local charity that is willing to take care of them, has adequate funding to do so, and isn't abusive. If this is unregulated there's a high likelihood of abuse occurring, and if it is regulated then you have government involved, which appears to be something you'd oppose. There's also the issue of unequal access - if it's charitable then it's inherently not mandated, so it's nearly certain some people will not have any such charity in their area (see #3).
2) Somehow have private, non-charitable entities handle it? I've no idea how this would work, as any non-charity is pretty much by definition motivated by profit, and a profit motive plus caring for the elderly is certain to lead to abuse (perhaps not in all cases, but I'd expect it to be quite common).
3) Nothing / good luck, oldies.
4) Government intercession.

In this case, a safety net facilitated by the government strikes me as the best of the available options. The problems highlighted in the video seem likely to stem from insufficient oversight and planning. I'd wager that's due to lack of funding, as this is exactly the sort of program which would be seen as a low-risk target when budget cuts come around, at least from an electoral perspective. After all, if the people impacted by this are those who don't already have people in their life who care for and can advocate for them, and being put under guardianship removes their voting rights, then where's the harm to a politician in reducing the funding?

It seems to me that a well-funded guardianship program, with proper oversight in place, would have the best chance of minimizing the suffering of elderly individuals who can no longer care for themselves. I can understand the libertarian preference for minimal governmental interference in the lives of the public, but this strikes me as a case where that simply doesn't work. If you can think of a viable option #5, or can make a case for 1, 2, or 3 being legitimately more helpful than a well-run option #4 (which is clearly NOT what's discussed in the video), I'm absolutely open to considering it. At the same time, implementing #4 in a way which doesn't leave it vulnerable to budgetary volatility is also a not-insignificant challenge.

Damn, I'm procrastinating really well tonight. That was long.

Have to assume this has to do with Lilly Allen inability to always be with her children due to her career. From her childrens perspective.

"Pretty sure some kid just saw the news guy and grabbed a regular potted plant to prank them, but it is funny."

That is exactly what happened. When I had come across this story, it was from the guy with the plant's perspective, so it was about Pranking a News Crew.

To be fair, I'm not actually sure what the right move would be even with the outside perspective and unlimited time to think about it. Maybe the best thing is to keep it rolling, point it somewhere safe and jump. Maybe stop immediately (assuming the brakes still work) and run the hell away. Also, that's a pretty big, very hot looking, thick-black-smoke belching fire. The driver might already not be in a condition to do anything.

Well, looking it up on Google the "Sobriety Test" strictly speaking involves three tests that don't involve the breathalyzer, which usually comes after those first tests. But he does say breathalyzer at 5:33, but if it is really an open and shut case because he refused it then why did he get off?
From the sounds of it the cop had no reason to suspect he was drunk in the first place, which renders the tests moot because he probably wasn't drunk and they knew it. As for why waste time and annoy? From his perspective they were wasting his time and annoying him, so why the hell not.

Two thoughts:

1) Remembering something shameful or terrible can cause a person discomfort that they don't know how to deal with particularly well. They might go numb and blank. They might cry. Or, they might laugh -- which can seem incredibly inappropriate from an outside perspective.

2) Even if one were to give Lance the benefit of the doubt here with regard to part 1 there, a person in a position of authority (like a Superintendent) needs to follow up and try to make amends, along with showing some empathy and understanding that it is his job to try to prevent that kind of shit from happening NOW.

I guess it is possible that after the meeting, he went out and apologized and said that he regrets what he did when he was a young, stupid kid, and that that motivates him to work hard to prevent that kind of stuff now that he is in a position to do so. Possible, yes. Likely, no.

shows you the importance of layering. this has bad design, bad lighting, bad perspective, bad composition, but it has a shit ton of layers that gives the impression of detail and purpose.

Interesting narrative - and perspective on the aftermath of the removal of Saddam H. Would like to hear more - how does the society play out after the payback? Is the former ruling minority then suppressed by the newly empowered majority? or is there an ethical equilibrium achieved??? Or is Democracy just a euphemism for oppression by the majority?

I'm honestly rather confused about the NRA stance (or lack thereof) with regards to mental health.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people." OK. So... Wouldn't it make sense to go after those people that are the problem, then? Crazies with guns equals pressure to take away the guns from everybody, which is exactly what you don't want. Wouldn't mild inconvenience of background checks / licensing be better than bans? (from NRA perspective)