History Lesson:

In 1949, when only the United States had nuclear weapons, everybody was asking when the Russians would have the capability.

President Harry Truman answered the question with "I know...never"

He never clarified what he meant by those words, and those in that meeting declined to ask, but the topic would be rehashed again and again.

I really recommend Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast. Episode 59 (Blitz) the Destroyer of Worlds. A nearly 6 hour fascinating look into the period starting with the Trinity test and ending with the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Bitch...he's just waiting for a thank you....since you never show appreciation for the hard to find gifts (ever look for a 1/2 bird, 1/2 turtle?), he's assuming it wasn't enough to earn some gratitude, so he upped his game.....again and again.
She screwed up on night one, when he expected pear compote on roasted partrige breast, a thank you, and maybe a handie.
Now she's alone, homeless, and owes her soul to her landlord for destroying his property, all due to a complete lack of grattitude and not a smidgen of thought about how to properly use the gifts.

There are two types of people, those who can extrapolate from an incomplete data set...

It's nice that all of the 8 year old jokes are relevant again now that we have an orange president.

One side is always hurt. Another effect of having a two party system that fosters opposition and division to the point of hate. End it or Trump vs Clinton will happen again and again. Demand ranked choice voting, or plan on your side fearing 'the end of the world' every few years.

As much as I am a Sander's supporter. I can't support the idea of him running as an independent. That would split the Democratic vote too much, and the idea of a Trump Presidency is far too dangerous. I think the fact that the polls show again and again that Sanders would do much better against Trump should show the DNC that Hillary needs Sanders and his supporters far more than Sanders needs her and her supporters.

If I were Hillary I'd offer Sanders the VP spot. Even if he doesn't accept, he gets the prime time keynote spot. Then you also promise the Congressional Progressive Caucus get's at least 60% of the rest of the prime time spots, with moderates getting 40% of the prime time spot. Off prime time the CPC still gets 40% (no less than 33%). Between Sanders and the CPC having the bulk of the prime time spots, it helps move the progressive message forward.

She then needs to have a known progressive on her ticket. If she can't secure Sanders, she'd probably consider Warren, but unfortunately, two women might make too many independent voters nervous. So I'd push for Dennis Kucinich. The advantage with Kucinich is that he's a known progressive, and he'd help give Clinton Ohio. If you can't get him, then find a rising member of the CPC. Again, the idea is to push the progressive agenda. Warren and Sanders have to have spots in the cabinet though if they want in.

There's enough hate of Trump in the Republican ranks that I think this year is the year to push for 3rd parties, especially the Libertarian party since that is the one most likely to pull votes from Republicans looking for an alternative to Trump... it won't pull the religious right who'll stick with Trump, but the more sane minded Republicans will probably consider it over absentee voting. The anti-Trump Republicans need to push the idea of the Libertarian party, and then push for Republicans for the Senate and House to avoid loosing the Senate, which is possible...

The Democrats meanwhile need to do something to get people out and vote. Democratic turnout keeps going down, beyond what one would expect purely from the Voter ID laws Republicans put in to lower Democratic votes. They need to rally the base into actually getting out and voting. To secure not only the Presidency from Trump, but to overtake the Senate and start making a push for the House. Of course one of the main way they do this is start appealing to Sanders supporters, and the party seems so intent on dissing his supporters.

The DNC is way too dismissive of the actions in Nevada. The Nevada people went out of their way to make sure Sanders didn't win, they knew people were still trying to get in when they made rule changes... people they were holding back on purpose so they could push those changes through, then when those people got in, they of course were upset. The DNC, a party that publicly tries to support those who have been disenfranchised from voting, is going out of their way to disenfranchise a large percentage of its base... all just because it's Clinton's turn or something. Fine, let it be her turn, but don't shut out the movement. She needs to step to the left, and add a large number of progressive voices to her team. She and the DNC needs to reach out to Sanders supporters and other progressives and unite the party... Trump seems to be pulling in the moderates to his side. As split as the Republicans were at the start, they are starting to pull together far better than the Democrats are... and it isn't up to Sanders to drop out and push his support to her, she needs to be the one to offer an olive branch and start wooing him and his supporters. Right now they seem to think it's Sander's job... no, it's the leader's job... It isn't the Republican moderates reaching out to Trump, it is Trump meeting with them and wooing them. Some to less success than others, true enough, but he's doing far better at starting an appeal to the moderates than Clinton is to Sanders, his supporters and the progressives.

Man the VOX is just churning out quality again and again.

Happy Happy Birthday MonkeySpank ... and again and again and again! May the fun never end

Sort... of... the... point. Isn't it? It's supposed to be found footage of a VHS that's been taped and retaped over and over, again and again until the quality is shit.

Oh man, it's been a while. Love him.
I would pay to see this again and again...but not 4 times.
*quality nostalgia.

Good to shed some light on kids intentionally being disobedient even with a reasonable officer (relatively speaking).

The first officer showed a great deal of restraint and probably was even bowing to the pressure from all the cameras and onlookers and woman yelling "It's a kid!" because he actually backed off and just tried again and again asking the kid to get on the ground.

He clearly, purposefully resisted (probably feeling goaded on by the crowd) and was rightfully taken to the ground.

Yeah, I'm a little disappointed by the unnecessary misquotes and 'making up arguments' myself, sort of kills the debate. I never made excuses for the cops, and I always agreed they were in the wrong. I never said Hammond was a threat to anyone, or that I felt threatened by filming.

What I have been saying, again and again, is that he can be a tool for intentionally trying to provoke this reaction, even if the cops are completely wrong. It's not a discussion about whether or not his action was legal, but you keep on bringing up the cops reaction as though that is relevant. Which makes it sound as though your argument is: "as long as what he did was legal, he can't be a tool for doing it." Which I disagree with; see also 'open carry' protests etc.

As for what effect the first amendment audits will have on legislation, I imagine it'll be a similar scenario as when corporations exploit tax loopholes. Once somebody comes up with a clever way to remain within their legal rights but still act like an asshole, the system tries to evolve to close those loopholes. I'm all for trying to steer the system in the right direction, but I'm not going to applaud those exploiting loopholes to act like assholes.

As for the strange argument about the watch list, I don't know what you're trying to say - I already told you he's on the list and that I don't think that necessarily means anything. What more did you want to say about that?

Are you going to get back to, again, the fact that the cops were in the wrong? I think we haven't explored that angle yet, let's try going over it three or four times more.

Yeah, but now he's going to enjoy the process of progressing through failure more than the success itself, so that the rest of his life every time he masters something he'll begin looking for the next challenge and eventually he'll become an autodidact that can't land a job and has to start and sell multimillion dollar companies again and again and again just to keep from going insane!!!

Ok, first things first. If you quote me and you decide to mark pieces of what I wrote somehow, don't do it out of fucking context. The part you turned into bold lettering is only a part of a sentence and does not communicatre the actual meaning of what I wrote at all.
I know you're not a troll but what you did there is suspiciously close to trolling. I know you're better than this. However, that is not ok. I do take issue with that especially because I know you and I are not on opposing teams here. You're not one the racist trolls here, neither am I, you know who I mean without using names.

Second, read my statement carefully. It's pretty much akin to the concept of the self-fullfilling prophecy. The statement I made validifies itself be me stating it.
Here's what I said phrased differently:
White people are better at being racist than everybody else because we don't suffer its consequences. White privilege, lack of empathy and inability to consider another point of view on the issue allows us to disregard the impact of it. That means we can be more clueless and uncaring in our behaviour as we don't feel the historical gravity, more or less immediate consequences or emotional toll of it as long as we can surpress whatever empathy for other humans we have.
Let me re-quote myself without your bullshit bold lettering:
'If there's one thing where white people are far more superiour than anybody else, it's having a feeling of superiority.'
Read that again!
And again!
You call that gloating? Really? A guy saying 'look at me, I'm best at being a shitty person!' is gloating in your opinion?
By stating this, I prove myself to be true, I validify my point by mentioning it. My point is not a good thing. Being arrogant is not a good thing.

Third, I get you are angry. You're a black guy living in the US, right? You should be pissed. There is this stereotype of the 'angry black man'. I never thought about it until Obama became President and political realities cause him to be wary of it.
If you are not white and a US citizen you have every right in the world to be pissed. Racism exists everywhere but one country where it still remains a huge, huge, superfuckinghuge problem is yours.
Pretty much everything encompassing domestic issues in the US has a racial component. My own country has serious problems with racism. Go, ask as german dude with turkish roots about his expirience. Every 'Achmed' has a story about it. Racism is like herpes, even if you don't have it, you're always at risk to be affected anyways.
Don't be mad at me, you're barking up the wrong tree . I may be an insesitive asshole and I won't deny the benefits of being white myself but I'm simply not your problem. People who want to keep you down because they don't like your pigmentation are.

I just keep coming back to this again and again.
I don't know why, but this stupid video is comedy gold to me.

I'm confused on why the religious right want to deny equal rights to people. Even if it is a sin, it doesn't effect anyone but themselves. Jesus spent His whole time hanging with sinners and ministering to them. He wouldn't be arguing against them having equal rights under the law just because they sin differently than others. He taught again and again that Love was the greatest Commandment, that being all self righteous and showing how holy you are was bad. Modern Christianity has turned from love to a denial of equal rights under the law based on people sinning differently than they do. Let they without sin cast the first stone... and yet they cast their stones in the form of votes and denying products/services with their business and so on because they don't like the sin, as if they are so holy and sin free theme selves. Not only did Jesus say let those without sin cast the first stone, He Himself, with out sin didn't cast any stones. These holy crusaders ask, "What Would Jesus Do" but then ignore what He'd actually do... Why this obsession over people sinning differently than they do? If that sin doesn't hurt anyone else directly, then who cares? If God wants to convict them of their sin, then let Him do it, not us... it's almost as if the Christian Right don't think God is doing enough convicting and are trying to do it themselves, as if God isn't strong enough to do it, or it upsets them so much they don't want to let go and let God...

And why does Sodom get the rap for gay stuff and sodomy? The Bible specifically says the sin of Sodom was being a land of plenty without enough concern for the needy and the poor (basically full of Republicans). "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." - NIV. "This is what your sister Sodom has done wrong. She and her daughters were proud that they had plenty of food and had peace and security. They didn't help the poor and the needy." - God's Word... all versions equal to the same basic thing... People blame the gays on correlative texts, mostly relating to what happened to the angels when they arrived to rescue Lot's family... where Lot offered his betrothed daughters to be raped instead (which by Biblical law meant they'd have to be stoned to death as well as their rapist, though one could perhaps argue that Deuteronomy 22:23-24 comes after the story of Sodom so that law might not yet have applied). Anyhow, the Bible speaks that the Sin of Sodom was not helping the needy and the poor... why God, who knows every single secret thought you have ever had or ever will have before you were even formed in the womb (before the foundations of the world were even formed) and yet needs angels to see if there are good people???

And a million and one more rants...

I say things like that because they are objectively true. The very concept of omnipotence and omniscience violate all kinds of physical laws. They are paradoxes; the "immovable force meeting the immovable object", but all our experience and learning tells us the universe does not work like that. Again, we might be wrong, but the more we learn, the less likely it becomes that we've missed something so vast.

We haven't missed it, chaosengine; the vast majority of people on Earth believes there is a God.

Human history is full of misery, suffering and cruelty to everything around us. One of the few bright points is our quest for knowledge, and you willfully reject that to cling to a stone age belief system that has been demonstrably proven false (geocentricity, for example) again and again.

In every important way, man hasn't learned anything and hasn't changed at all. The misery and suffering in the world increases year by year, it doesn't decrease.

Factually, it's incorrect.
Morally, it's bankrupt and consistently on the wrong side of history.

Matthew 24:35

Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

One day you might wake up and realise (to paraphrase the much missed Douglas Adams) that "the garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it".

Until then, you are welcome to indulge in your fantasies, but if you insist on injecting your irrationality into debates like this, expect disagreement.

I've read most of Douglas Adams works. I grew up secular and you would probably be shocked at the level of agreement we would have had in the not too distant past. I have been set free from the bondage of slavery to sin, and have been born again into a living hope. What you know on its own profits you nothing, because without faith it is impossible to please God. Ask God to reveal Himself to you. You don't have to acknowledge it to me, but that is the only way you will ever know anything about God, is by His personal revelation to you. He is faithful to give you a revelation of your need for a Savior.