Seriously... who cares if he can read?

He's got three people closely connected with his campaign that are financially and personally close with Putin.

He throws out years of American policy and Republican rhetoric to replace it with carbon copies of Putin's policies (get rid of NATO, let Russia annex Ukraine, support Bashir al Assad).

Several former spies (including one CIA) have said, Putin recruited Trump. Trump is a Russian intelligence asset.

He has a private e-mail server exclusively communicating with one of Putin's closest confidants for months, with traffic spiking around key campaign events which mysteriously goes offline as soon as questions arise in Russia (as one analyst described it, the knee was hit in Russia and the foot kicked in Trump Tower). Days later a new Trump server appears and the first communication on the Internet is straight back to Russia.

Seriously, wouldn't it be BETTER to have a president (for life) who's a Russian agent who can't read than one who can? At least it causes some communication problems with his Russian masters and increases the likelihood he'll get tripped up.

What even happens to the US if a sitting president is found to be a Russian spy? Would he just declare martial law? Who knows, but I sure don't want to find out.

@bobknight33

the reasons why blacks tend to vote for democrats for the past 50 years is not a mystery and it has been long understood.

labor unions.

the democrats saw the power that was arising from americas labor unions and decided to shift their message to appeal to this growing demographic.

just like the republicans co-opted the evangelicals in the late 70's.

this is about political power,plain and simple and little to nothing to do with actual political philosophy.

this is the second video you have posted today where you appear to be trying to make a case for the republicans,and the presenters are offering a seriously edited,cherry picked and manipulative picture of history.when the history is quite clear.

this is not a republican/democratic dynamic.
this is a power vs powerlessness dynamic.
this is about retaining power at any cost.
to the detriment of our society.

and it is not exactly a secret,but these videos you have posted are a disservice to those who may not know,which it appears,may include you bob.

That, or they simply wanted to be clear about why the rule is of utmost importance - to preserve a public capacity.

In any case, in the end it made it into the constitution - most supreme law we have. "[Because reasons ...] right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

They could have put in the bi-yearly training requirements right there. But they decided not to. They just left it at that. That description given by Hamilton is close to what eventually got to paper. Whether he was for or against it, ok (I searched for a quote that was along those lines, I could be thinking of a different guy). My understanding was that he didn't like any ideas. Military can be abused to impose tyranny, militia can be unmotivated and misbehaved (unless hyperbole).


I thought it was that paper, but I can't find it as I scan through, I thought he (or someone else?) wanted a subset of individuals trained in military arts, that could organize and direct militias should conflict arise, to take the burden of military-level training off of citizens.

-scheherazade

Without wishing to bang on about it - that happens a LOT on the internet. I think it's less about tone of voice and more about people being so offended by inequality that they are over aggressive in their pursuit of equality. They attack the argument before fully understanding it or allowing it to be fully expressed.

It's a really tight line to walk and I know this because I have in the past offended respectful, honest people in my crusade which was against abuse of power and authority. I hated being mistreated by people in authority so much that I became prejudiced against people in authority. The reason I behaved like that is because of how I was treated by authority figures in my formative years and the defence mechanisms I developed because of it. And in the same way, some women who are very poorly treated by men may develop barriers, prejudices and coping mechanisms in response.

(... and that's why I make a dozen edits to my posts. Sometimes I get carried away and detract entirely from what I was trying to achieve.)

I'm not saying that's the underlying cause of the misunderstanding here, but the point I'm trying to make is that there may be good reasons why someone just said something you thought was sexist. Problems arise, I think, when we deal in absolutes; this person is definitely chauvinist because he's ignorant and rude, this person is definitely a man-hater because she is ignorant and rude - both may be unfair to the other.

That's pretty endearing how oblivious all of them are to the issue initially.

The more I think about it, Scarlett Johansson does have qualities that match the character well. In the Arise series you see that the major once had a much more sensible body prosthetic that was physically more like an average Japanese woman. And you get the sense that the choice of her new body was an ostentatious and personal one. She didn't need to be tall, statuesque and impractically sexy, but that's the persona she choose.

Check out the only still from the movie and tell me she's not physically pretty close, race aside.

http://opus.fm/_assets/entries/scarlett-johanson-ghost-in-the-shell.jpg

No, it's just a very poorly implemented idea in today's culture. Cultural appropriation is real, but it's not just a question of copying someone else's style. There's obviously a problem when, for example, enormously talented black musicians develop new music styles and cultural expressions which are dismissed and marginalized until a white person takes after their styles and makes it acceptable to like them. If white people are given all the credit for jazz or soul or rock or blues or rap, it diminishes the rightful cultural accomplishments of some amazing musical pioneers. That's cultural appropriation because the powerful are unfairly appropriating all the benefits of the less powerful, original creators. If some 15-year old white girl wants to call herself a ratched ho and wear dreads, on the other hand, that's not appropriation, it's admiration. The problem arises when well-intentioned people forget to consider the power dynamic, and instead just translate 'cultural appropriation' into a series of racially permitted dress codes. Which is what the bully in the video was doing.

@Imagoamin

i can agree with your basic premise:free speech can have consequences in the form of MORE speech.

you are totally free to espouse the most ridiculous,self-centered narcissistic cry-baby drivel you like,and i am totally free to ridicule you as the cry-baby bed-wetter you are behaving like.

the problems arise when that interaction is then seen as "harassment" and a defamation of the constantly oppressed group of bed-wetters.how dare i slander such a tender group! havent they suffered enough?

nobody is saying that one group is excused from free speech or from criticism,and most people would agree that if you yell FIRE in a room and cause a panic when there was no fire,there should be consequences for your actions.

what people ARE saying is that making certain words unacceptable,therefore changing the very language we use to express,convey and deliver complex thoughts,feelings and imaginings is counter-productive.made further so when an abstract art form such as comedy is so easily taken out of context to further an agenda.

remember #cancelcolbert?

the comedy and satire was totally lost on that over-privileged nitwit suey park.she instead focused on a single element of his monologue and chose to be offended,without even considering the larger implications of the humor in colberts bit.

does she have a right to be offended?of course.
does she have a right to be outraged and start a twitter campaign to shut down colberts show?yep..she sure does.

and we have the right to absolutely take her inane,and un-self-aware false campaign for justice to task,and ridicule her relentlessly.

because bad ideas,poor understandings and judgements dressed up as social justice SHOULD be ridiculed for the stupidity they represent.

as for your assertion that comedians are thin skinned,or need to grow a thicker skin,i think you have no idea what you are fucking talking about.you ever spoke in public? in front of crowd?

believe me...you grow thick skin,and fast,until it becomes titanium.

i see no further reason to beat that particular horse but just look up chris rock,seinfeld,louis ck ,bill burr,joe rogan.they all lay out quite clearly why universities are a dead zone for comedy.

because the extreme end of social justice warriors are humorless cunts.

The formation of Israel and the question of stealing land can be debated, but at this point it is history and cannot be changed. At some point a nation needed to arise out of the ashes of the Ottoman empire. The problem was, when one did it didn't encompass the entire area. Arab Palestinians didn't vote to accept the border, but neither did they declare war on Israel in 1948, how could they if they weren't even a state? The root of today's problems have to do with the taking of land by act of war. Palestinians are punished for the acts of the other arab nations.

I found it highly surprising the video didn't mention the countless UN resolutions condemning Israel's acts of land confiscation, usually with the USA and Israel the only ones opposing it. In war you can defend yourself, even invade the enemy's territory. But when it's over you have to go back your home, you can't keep a permanent army presence on the captured land and slowly allow your citizens to start living in the captured territory. The fact that the land wasn't part of Jordan made it easier for people to give Israel a pass since they weren't stealing land from a nation, just a nation-less people. That doesn't make it any more justifiable. Israel should have occupied the territory until the end of hostilities and then completely withdrawn.

The video mentions the land they grabbed from Egypt, the almost empty Sinai peninsula that was an incredible strategic value. They were plenty happy to hand it back for a peace treaty, mainly because the hardcore Zionists weren't determined to expand the state of Israel there as they are in the west bank, which has much more history for their people. Notice how they went out of their way to establish a salient to Jerusalem during the 1948 war.

The only reason at some point in the last 40 years Israel hasn't just put up a fence and closed the border permanently(surely the safest choice if you're really worried about suicide bombers) is they wouldn't be able to move beyond that border and capture more land, which is what the orthodox Jews demand. People living in the west bank live under different laws based on their religion. Israeli civil code if they're settlers, military rule if they're Palestinians. How ironic that Israel is lauded as the great democracy in the middle east, yet deny the right of representation to millions under their control.

Argh. I hate it when people say that it "required" a very specialized set of conditions for life to arise on Earth. Instead, I would argue that life on Earth arose in a set of specialized conditions and is therefore accustomed to those conditions.

Life similar to what we have seen on Earth might "require" those conditions, but why should we assume that those conditions are required for life in general? We have discovered life here on Earth that falls outside of the hospitable conditions that we have previously thought of as being "required" for life. For example, consider extremeophiles like the organisms that live around deep ocean vents, and can survive and thrive in water well over the boiling point, with no sunlight, etc.

There is a limited range of conditions present in Earth environments; a maximum and minimum temperature likely to be encountered on Earth, varying amounts of light or other sources of energy, etc., and we can find life adapted to wildly varying positions within that range. Why do we continue to assume that Earth-like conditions are some sort of magic combination for life? For life "as we know it", ...maybe. But I figure there is a probably a lot of stuff out there that we would recognize as alive, but which is adapted to very different conditions than anything considered hospitable to any life on Earth.

I'm a card carrying Social Justice Warrior.

I want social justice and I'm prepared to fight for it. If that's a pejorative, then it's one I'll happily claim.

But these people aren't after social justice, they're just fucking idiots, like that dumb arise who didn't get Colberts redskin satire.

To those who have not kept up on the series, here is a foot note.

After the original Ghost in the shell movie, the second movie was loosely based on the series and has since forth become the end of its line.

Stand alone complex is a TV series based on the same world as the original movie but the movie never happened. Stand alone complex consist of 2 26-episode seasons and an OVA movie. There is no "ending" to the series and it is ready to continue from this point if they want.

Ghost in the shell: Arise is an origin tale consisting of 4 OVA episodes detailing how Major Kusanagi picked the team and became the leader of Section 9, and the purpose of Section 9. Later on, Arise was split into a 10 episode "season" suitable for airing on TV, with 2 episodes at the end dedicated to new content.

Ghost in the shell: Shin Gekijōban, the movie trailer we see here, is either a continuation or a side story near the end of Arise. And holy crap I hate those english voices.

If you are wondering if any of it is worth watching, I consider the entire series to be a masterpiece. Stand alone complex is quite deep and loaded with content while Arise is a little light on content and really makes you want more. Luckily it gets better after each OVA.

Oh, also you will see movies related to Stand alone complex called laughing man and Individual Eleven, these are the first 2 seasons with all the side stories hacked out and only the main story arc shown. Avoid these.

After the original movie, I suggest watching the second movie, "Innocence", then diving into the Stand Alone Complex series of which there are two seasons. After that, the Solid State Society movie.

From there, if you don't mind everything suddenly becoming radically different, and characters contradicting what's been said in the other installments, continue on to the Arise series. You can watch it as a 10 episode series, or as 4 movies + the last two episodes of the series.

After that, you'll be all caught up.

Don't watch the movie versions of Stand Alone Complex, watch the series.

Nope. No idea who he is. Plan to watch Moneyball and the Lego movie at some point if opportunity arises.

personally can't see eye to eye about this video. It's disheartening as a whole. But it doesn't make me want to hate owning a gun.

I personally don't have a need for gun ownership. And my knowledge of firearms is very limited (aka it all came from playing games, derp derp!). The most I would have done is take classes on how to safely handle one in case such a dire event arises.

Owning one? It's a fundamental right for an American citizen. Regulate as much as they (the gov't) want. But no amount of regulation can ever stop tragedies. No amount of laws signed into place will ever prevent another tragedy to happen.

While I think that's a good point, aren't child custody issues kinda orthogonal to the marriage question?

As you say, most jurisdictions don't have a law banning polygamous relationships, and there's no reason a child can't arise out of such a relationship. We already deal with issues of child custody where there are multiple partners involved.