I honestly don't understand who this is for? This is a website for like, 15 old guys, most of which you already know aren't swayed by this sort of thing.

I suppose it's not much effort really, but it just doesn't seem like an effective way to advance your agenda?

Do you do any offline organizing? Maybe try to meet up with like minded people and try to do something positive in your local area. If people see you are there to solve real problems they will be more likely to pay attention to your point of view.

I feel like you would appreciate some recognition of your position, but I also don't feel like you are very likely to get it here in this way. Maybe it's time to try something different?

Watch Brazil to see what might have happened here….and still may.

If Trump had a tiny bit of foresight, loyalty, or the ability to see another’s point of view and had actually been a friend of the military instead of using it as a disliked but necessary political prop his entire tenure, Jan 6 could have been different.

The far reich is on the rise worldwide.

Lol. I’M narrow minded?!? ROTFLMFAHS!!!

Who told you that?! They lied.

Wiki-Five House Committees (Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, Judiciary, and Oversight and Government Reform) initiated their own inquiries soon after the attack. The Republicans on these five House Committees delivered an interim report to the Members of the House Republican Conference on April 23, 2013. The interim report, which contains the conclusions of the Republican majority staff, signed only by the five Republican chairmen of those committees and stated "This staff report has not been officially adopted by the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, or the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and therefore may not necessarily reflect the views of their Members," was critical of the Obama Administration's actions before, during, and after the attack. Among dozens of findings, the report states that:

"Senior State Department officials knew that the threat environment in Benghazi was high and that the Benghazi compound was vulnerable and unable to withstand an attack, yet the department continued to systematically withdraw security personnel"
The "[Obama] Administration willfully perpetuated a deliberately misleading and incomplete narrative that the attacks evolved from a political demonstration caused by a YouTube video."
"... after a White House Deputies Meeting on Saturday, September 15, 2012, the Administration altered the talking points to remove references to the likely participation of Islamic extremists in the attacks. The Administration also removed references to the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa'ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya ..."
"The Administration deflected responsibility by blaming the IC [intelligence community] for the information it communicated to the public in both the talking points and the subsequent narrative it perpetuated."
Democrats on the five committees criticized the report, which they said had been written without Democratic input, as a "partisan Republican" work that was "unnecessarily politicizing our national security".

Also “ Democrats on the committee certainly say this was political and politically constructed. They say there were many witnesses whose testimony wasn't released because it supported the administration and particularly supported Hillary Clinton.”

There were 8 Benghazi investigations, 7 of which were only done as political attacks on Clinton to hurt her presidential run, admitted by McCarthy and others on tape. That’s why, even though their Republican led investigations found no wrongdoing he called it a win against Clinton because the accusations hurt her politically.

You get what you call one point of view because one side, the anti democracy pro-sedition side, refuses to testify, ignores subpoenas, and hides and destroys evidence….the same “side” that boycotted the investigations and refused to authorize a non partisan outside investigation, then whined they weren’t being allowed to participate…the treason side….your side.
They have absolutely been able to present another side…under oath. Trump has an open invitation, as do all his co-conspirators that ignored subpoenas. They refuse, or are incapable.
There have been plenty of Trump officials who did give their point of view, and every one has said Trump was clearly attempting a coup, knew he lost the election early, knew his plots were absolutely illegal, and many quit on Jan 6 when it became obvious he was willing to violently attack America and his own VP intentionally to retain power by any means.
You know this, you just hope someone else is as dumb as you act and can be fooled into believing your nonsense that this is a partisan politically motivated hatchet job, not an investigation into the worst attack against America on the mainland since the Southern Insurrection (otherwise known as the civil war).

You so narrow minded. It is truly sad.


Those other investigations had the other side to counter.

There is not 1 counter point of view - It is not allowed on this Bull Shit Jan 6 smear job.



The Jan 6 just a want to paint a false one sided narrative.

To me, it appears the main point of Stossel's concern is that the point of view isn't balanced politically. That's fine and all, but using the accepted list of credible sources as the evidence is false equivalency.

The question of whether the sources are factual or not in their reporting is 100% different than whether the sources slant their reporting to a specific narrative.

If he wanted to make the case that all of the left/far left sites are as untruthful as the right/far right sites then he should have introduced some additional analysis of the truthfulness of the articles on the sites. He didn't do that so his comparison is basically invalid.

This is mostly ok, but from an Irish point of view there are a few things that made me cringe a little.

Firstly the term the 'British Isles' isn't universally recognised, but I admit any alternatives I've heard don't exactly trip off the tongue.

Secondly, a statement like Ireland "joining" the UK in 1801 glosses over some pretty important details.

Worst of all, though, is the way he pronounces Edinburgh. It's still making me squirm.

Nah I dont see a bait and switch. I see people thinking electricity goes down wires while the underlying real world is fields propagating through space.

It really is a difference if you have the lightbulb 1 meter away or 1 light second away. We have a tendency to think abstractly of these situations, freely giving things ideal properties that they dont have and taking away the properties we dont like to use in our petty examples.

If you had enough voltage to overcome the drop in "ideal" 1 light second long cables they sure as hell would induce enough current in parallel cables 1 m away to light a bulb :-)

All that said people do under-appreciate how fast the speed of light is, just as they under appreciate how much a billion of anything, especially money, is.

The speed of light is getting to your destination instantly from your own point of view.

Oh...i missed it because I'm not a crazy backwards zealot....you mean it's for deviants because it talks about being gay positively. It's not the sex acts mentioned (not described) or even the ages, it's that they're between boys that gives you the heebie geebies. Right?
Sorry, I was looking at this from the point of view of someone who had entered the late 20th century (and the 21st). I forget you people stopped socially evolving and are still outraged by homosexuality, inter racial couples, and any culture that isn't derived from WASPs.

So sorry I misunderstood. 🤦‍♂️

I’ve seen umpteen similar testimonials by doctors on what you call fake news…just as unfiltered, just as real. Where are you running into fake, filtered points of view that a “real voice” is “refreshing”?

Funny, to know what you’re talking about, you would need to spend a lot of time watching “fake news”….I’ll hazard a guess you’re basing your opinion on third party hearsay at best, not personal experience.

Btw, are you going to address the abortion thread where you smugly got the facts backwards?

"I especially appreciate the way everything very clearly looks like it exploded out of a central point."

No, that is not how it works. What you see in the model is our point of view. Whats closest to us is moving away slowly, what is further away is moving away faster.

If you choose any random point (you cant really, we are stuck here) and start your model there it would be similar but centered at your new point of observation.

Any random two points in space (in this model) will be moving away from each other with a speed that correlates to the distance between them (unless the two points are close and local conditions prevail temporarily).

The question of a "center of an explosion" and "where is it now" makes no sense. Everything that now is was in that centre, so now the center is everywhere (according to our current best model).

One of the ways in which Martin Luther broke from the Catholic church was by not seeing marriage as sacramental: he wanted to be able to acknowledge marriage between non-Christians rather than just marriage between Christians. Thus, from the perspective of Protestant theology, it's not clear that the church should have much to do with marriage. (This was most succinctly summarised for me thus: have a civil wedding, and then come back to the church for potato salad and a party.)

What about the civil arrangement, then? For me, the clearest argument for a non-paternalistic state granting some people preferable treatment (e.g. untaxed inheritance, etc.) is that those people are reducing the burden on the state somehow. In the 'traditional marriage', they do this partly by providing (on average) a more stable environment in which to raise children (thus, raising somehow more productive - on average - citizens for the state), and partly by caring for each other in their old age (thus, saving the state costs). From this point of view, whether or not they have sex, on whatever basis, with each other is irrelevant: an adult son living with and caring for his elderly mother is saving the state in the same way that an wife caring for her husband is. Thus, when France introduced its 'pacte civil', I thought that they missed the opportunity to get right out of the bedroom.

Apologies, didn't mean to misrepresent you. We've debated things before and you seemed to lean to no cop is a good cop because there are so many bad ones guilt be association and failure to clean things up makes them all bad. You'd also said up thread to fire all active officers.

I'll cease trying to word how you feel on it, I just wanted to demonstrate by counter example that not everybody means 'reform' when they say "defund". At a minimum , the degree of 'reform' varies from change some laws and regulations to fire them and start over from scratch.

My comment of being ruled by our 'betters' was meant as a sarcastic dig on them and their abject failure in letting things rot this far and doing nothing.

Finally, my comment on public opinion on solutions being non-uniform was mostly to emphasize that as just normal, and the current status quo is just so unacceptable that it is unifying people from varied points of view to stand up against it. The most important point being that declaring, see nothing will satisfy the mob because they can't agree what to do is a twisted deception and the truth is people want things to be better than they are, and there is as you pointed out tonnes of common sense ways to go about that,

I remember waaayy back in the 50's, my mother sitting on the couch and picking me up to dress me. She had me stand on her lap so she could put my shirt on. As I was facing her I noticed her cleavage from a point of view that I had never noticed before.

I remember taking my finger and poked it in her cleavage and asked her "What's this hole for?"

She lightly slapped my hand away and simply said, "Not for you."

I support the police and lean very heavily to giving them the benefit of the doubt in the absence of other evidence.

From someone with that point of view, you're comment is providing cover for the racists and monsters infecting the police.

If you watch this video and all you can see is someone not following police commands with adequate speed and accuracy then you are blind.

Can you not see the guy has his hands up from the start, and can you not hear him shouting how he is scared? Did you not see his Grandma struggling with her walking cane to make it out to try and protect him?

You have a portion of your community that is terrified of police interactions, and the bad behavior that has led to that fear has not come from the community, but the racist and dirty cops on the force that need weeding out.

From NYT article https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/03/opinion/sunday/this-is-why-uma-thurman-is-angry.html?referer=https://t.co/3KI4YYryAt?amp=1

In the famous scene where she’s driving the blue convertible to kill Bill — the same one she put on Instagram on Thanksgiving — she was asked to do the driving herself.

But she had been led to believe by a teamster, she says, that the car, which had been reconfigured from a stick shift to an automatic, might not be working that well.

She says she insisted that she didn’t feel comfortable operating the car and would prefer a stunt person to do it. Producers say they do not recall her objecting.

“Quentin came in my trailer and didn’t like to hear no, like any director,” she says. “He was furious because I’d cost them a lot of time. But I was scared. He said: ‘I promise you the car is fine. It’s a straight piece of road.’” He persuaded her to do it, and instructed: “ ‘Hit 40 miles per hour or your hair won’t blow the right way and I’ll make you do it again.’ But that was a deathbox that I was in. The seat wasn’t screwed down properly. It was a sand road and it was not a straight road.” (Tarantino did not respond to requests for comment.)

Thurman then shows me the footage that she says has taken her 15 years to get. “Solving my own Nancy Drew mystery,” she says.

It’s from the point of view of a camera mounted to the back of the Karmann Ghia. It’s frightening to watch Thurman wrestle with the car, as it drifts off the road and smashes into a palm tree, her contorted torso heaving helplessly until crew members appear in the frame to pull her out of the wreckage. Tarantino leans in and Thurman flashes a relieved smile when she realizes that she can briefly stand.

Uma Thurman said she didn't want to drive this car. She said she had been warned that there were issues with it. She felt she had to do it anyway. It took her some 15 years to get footage of the crash. (Note: There is no audio.)
“The steering wheel was at my belly and my legs were jammed under me,” she says. “I felt this searing pain and thought, ‘Oh my God, I’m never going to walk again,’” she says. “When I came back from the hospital in a neck brace with my knees damaged and a large massive egg on my head and a concussion, I wanted to see the car and I was very upset. Quentin and I had an enormous fight, and I accused him of trying to kill me. And he was very angry at that, I guess understandably, because he didn’t feel he had tried to kill me.”

Even though their marriage was spiraling apart, Hawke immediately left the Abbey of Gethsemani in Kentucky to fly to his wife’s side.

“I approached Quentin in very serious terms and told him that he had let Uma down as a director and as a friend,” he told me. He said he told Tarantino, “Hey, man, she is a great actress, not a stunt driver, and you know that.” Hawke added that the director “was very upset with himself and asked for my forgiveness.”

Two weeks after the crash, after trying to see the car and footage of the incident, she had her lawyer send a letter to Miramax, summarizing the event and reserving the right to sue.

Miramax offered to show her the footage if she signed a document “releasing them of any consequences of my future pain and suffering,” she says. She didn’t.