Put it on the Japaneses for Americas intentional slaughter of civilians. Seriously?
http://videosift.com/video/US-killing-of-50-90-of-civillians-in-67-cities-in-Japan

lol. Yes, if only that was an actual option. The problem is, in my experience of having been on diferent networks---for anyone who travels, the two biggest and most expensive networks to be on---AT&T and Verizon--offer the broadest and most competent voice and data networks.

They can be slaughtered pricewise by Sprint and T-Mobile in any given location---and maybe, if that location has a good antenna network, be given a decent run for the money by these cheaper networks...

Of course, if you want the cheapest mobile phone plan, you end up with a sort of hybrid phone --Republic---which uses Wifi calling when in range of a network you've signed onto---and Sprint's network otherwise.

And that's the American story...

To be fair, the last thing you want is for the homeless to become unafraid of humans. Soon they'll be getting into your garbage cans, slaughtering and eating your cat, shitting on your lawn, climbing up your trees...

...oh wait, I'm thinking of bears.

Well there's no other way i can think of to say this.. but it's a good job she's in good shape and a long way from ugly, otherwise i think the comments would be very different. It's funny how videos you think would get slaughtered are full of polite inquiry and condolences when there's a level of physical attraction involved...

Interesting article regarding Ferguson:

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/12/in_defense_of_black_rage_michael_brown_police_and_the_american_dream/

Why are police calling the people of Ferguson animals and yelling at them to “bring it”? Because those officers in their riot gear, with their tear gas and dogs, want a justification for slaughter. But inexplicably in that moment we turn our attention to the rioters, the people with less power, but justifiable anger, and say, “You are the problem.” No. A cop killing an unarmed teenager who had his hands in the air is the problem. Anger is a perfectly reasonable response. So is rage.

Violence is the effect, not the cause of the concentrated poverty that locks that many poor people up together with no conceivable way out and no productive way to channel their rage at having an existence that is adjacent to the American dream. This kind of social mendacity about the way that racism traumatizes black people individually and collectively is a festering sore, an undiagnosed cancer, a raging infection threatening to overtake every organ in our body politic.

No, let's NOT forget the civilians.
1100 dead civilians is NOT equal to 40 dead invading soldiers.
Meanwhile Israels civilians are 90% in favor of this prolonged war and they are living under NO threat whatsoever. They are not in the same situation as the innocent besieged Gazan families and children being slaughtered by Israel.
There is NO equivalency here at all.
This is an attack on Gaza and I could write a much worse description for what this really is.

I don't think anyone outside of a Noam Chomsky bootlicker really believes that Israel is ordering the wholesale slaughter of children.

More philosophical wank citing junk analogies (lol, blowing up peoples houses with them still inside = drunken manslaughter in a bar fight?) to justify a position directly contradicted by people who should know...

http://electronicintifada.net/content/israels-auschwitz-borders-revisited/7847

"The late Tommy Lapid, justice minister in Ariel Sharon’s government, caused an uproar in 2004 when he said that images of an elderly Palestinian woman in Gaza “crouching on all fours, searching for her medicines in the ruins of her house” demolished by the Israeli army reminded him of his own grandmother who perished at Auschwitz. Lapid compared the Israeli army’s writing of numbers on the arms and foreheads of Palestinian prisoners to the Nazi practice of tattooing concentration camp inmates. “As a refugee from the Holocaust I find such an act insufferable,” he said in 2002."

"Lapid, who was chairman of Yad Vashem, Israel’s official Holocaust memorial, also likened the routine harassment of Palestinians by Israeli settlers in the West Bank city of Hebron to the anti-Semitism of pre-World War II Europe. “It was not crematoria or pogroms that made our life in the diaspora bitter before they began to kill us,” he said in 2007, “but persecution, harassment, stone-throwing, damage to livelihood, intimidation, spitting and scorn.” Lapid did not live long enough to see Hebron settlers attempt to burn down a house with a large Palestinian family trapped inside, an act witnessed on 4 December by Avi Issacharoff, reporter for the Israeli daily Haaretz, who called it “a pogrom in the worst sense of the word.”

or perhaps:

http://youtu.be/qMGuYjt6CP8

"Sir Gerald, who was brought up as an orthodox Jew and Zionist, said: "My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town a German soldier shot her dead in her bed.

"My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza. The present Israeli government ruthlessly and cynically exploits the continuing guilt from gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians."

He said the claim that many of the Palestinian victims were militants "was the reply of the Nazi" and added: "I suppose the Jews fighting for their lives in the Warsaw ghetto could have been dismissed as militants."

I'll take the word of people who lived through the Holocaust and the formation of Israel over you... = P

Your hate-bated propaganda will not work here.

And my definition of a THUG, is someone with superior strength who uses it against DEFENSELESS CHILDREN.

There is NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ISRAEL'S SLAUGHTER OF CHILDREN.
Especially since Hamas rockets have done no appreciable damage.

All-though that is true. The US has slaughtered many more Iraqi's. Hateful bags of shit like Judge Jeanine Pirro are trying to re-engage the US in renewed Middle East slaughter.

It's worth keeping in mind that when you slaughter an animal for food, the process is often :
a) Hit it in the head
b) While it's dazed hang it by its hind legs
c) Cut its throat, and let it bleed out *alive* (so that the heart pumps out the blood, so the meat doesn't taste like liver.)

During which the animal will come-to, and stare at you, and you can read its expression pretty clearly. As a creature that's only ever been fed by you, and lived seemingly among you, the betrayal is rather stark.
I say this from life experience, not anecdotes read on the interweb.
(I'm not a vegan. However, if I'm not gonna finish my meal, I make sure to at least finish the meat.)

TBH, not enough people are taught about life and death.
If I had my way, every child would have to slaughter at least one animal and eat it (seeing as hundreds will be slaughtered over their life time just to feed them personally - it's a business they're already personally involved in. So they should have the respect to look their food in the face at least once.).

Then they can make an informed decision about their food.
And maybe even about things like war, or careless driving, etc. Seems like everyone is a tough guy, and everything is "all fine, don't worry"... so long as death is just 'something actors pretend with on TV'.

-scheherazade

"I would have preferred no deaths." Agreed.

"I would have preferred no slavery in the first place." Even better.

"But if 620000 deaths is the cost for millions of people and over 100 million of their ancestors to live in freedom"

It need not have been this way. But it happened. That's not the moral bankruptcy.
Preferring the maiming and death of 620,000+ people (the overwhelming majority of whom were not even slaveowners), over freeing the slaves through payment (simply because you don't like the idea of it!), yes, that's morally bankrupt.

You may say, "well paying for them" was not an option. But the objection was that you find paying for liberation more repugnant than the slaughter of 620,000.. which is what I call morally bankrupt..

(Somehow, I doubt that you could be so morally bankrupt and believe such things -- and still function as a human being -- so it seems that you may just be trolling, simply to disagree with me, in which case, this non-debate is beneath me.).

" I just quoted you claiming that Napolitano believes that the Lincoln pursued the war to restore the union, when that's exactly what he's not saying here."

Where did you quote me? I missed that.

I am not "attacking" the "comedians." I quoted/"plagiarised" Thomas DiLorenzo who pointed out "[Jon Stewart's] "hit" was about how the Judge wrote in one of his publications that the U.S. probably could have ended slavery the same way that New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and all the other Northern states did, as well as the British empire, Spanish empire, the French, Danes, Dutch, Swedes, and others during the nineteenth century did: namely, peacefully. . . . " and that Stewart (in his inimitable wisdom as an historical scholar) was wrong in his assertion that war was the way to go.

And, whatever Lincoln's reasons were for going to war, of course there are always options other than imperialism (despite what manifest destiny might have you believe). Same as Truman having options other than nuking Japan. Or Bush the second having options other than invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

Whatever Lincoln's "reasons" were for going to war and thereby leading to the slaughter of 620,000 people and the maiming/disfigurement of over 800,000+ others, these reasons are not the same as what his options were, and the white washing of history does not change this very basic fact.

Thugs and criminals generally prevail until they are slaughtered in the streets or otherwise extricated in a similar, familiar fashion. It's all certain types can understand or relate to, relative to the abuse they suffered as children.

I bet the giraffe, if we were able to ask, would be ok with a quick bullet to the head instead of being ripped apart, most likely suffocating to death as one or more lions crushed it's neck.

The death of the giraffe would be far more "inhumane" in the wild, but would still have the same outcome, and the lions are also protected from possible complications from eating a raw carcass.

I also upvoted shatterdrose's bringing the whole burger idea into this. What's the difference between the cattle that are normally slaughtered for the lions and the giraffe? Beyond your opinion on the meat that is.