all right since you know so much, let's have some sources

1/3 of the number of resources are in PR than either FL or TX; there have already been more deaths in PR than either FL or TX; there is something like over 1/2 of the people that haven't even been contacted yet to see how they're doing; I read about a reporter that was 45 miles from the capital and they had dozens of people asking them if they were FEMA

Yo, I hope those kids got out all right.

LAND THE GOD DAMN PLANE!!
all right we're clear to land the GOD DAMN PLANE! rwy 22L

@bcglorf
i feel i have to ask you a question,and i feel quite foolish for not thinking of asking it before.

i do not ask this snidely,or with any disrespect.

are you a neo-conservative?

because this "If he was on America soil, I'd agree with you. If he was living in a European apartment, I'd agree with you. Heck, if he was living in Russia I'd agree with you."

is almost verbatim the counter argument that was published,ad nauseum,in the weekly standard.which is a neo-conservative publication.edited by bill-the bloody-kristol.

and it would also explain why we sometimes just simply cannot agree on some issues.

ok,let's unpack your comment above that quoted.i won;t address the rest of your comment,not because i find it unworthy,it is simply a reiteration of your original argument,which we have addressed already.

so...
you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.

ok,i disagree,but the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012 actually agree with you and give the president cover to deem an american citizen an "enemy combatant".however,the region where this "enemy combatant" is not the deciding factor,though many have tried to make a different case,the simple fact is that the president CAN deem you an "enemy combatant' and CAN order your assassination by drone,or seal team or any military outlet,or spec-ops...regardless of where you are at that moment.

now you attempt to justify this order of death by "The reality is he was supporting mass killing from within a lawless part of the world were no police or courts would touch him. He was living were the only force capable of serving any manner of arrest warrant was military."

if THIS were a true statement,and the ONLY avenue left was for a drone strike.then how do you explain how this man was able to:foment dissent,organize in such a large capacity to incite others to violence and co-ordinate on such an impressive scale?

anwars al awlaki went to yemen to find refuge..yes,this is true.
but a btter qustion is:was the yemeni government being unreasonable and un-co-operative to a point where legal extradition was no longer a viable option?

well,when we look at what the state department was attempting to do and the yemeni response,which was simply:provide evidence that anwars al awlaki has perpetrated a terrorist attack,and we will release him.it is not like they,and the US government,didn't know where he lived.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.

and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

in fact,some people forget that in the days after 9/11 osama actually denied having anything to do with 9/11,though he praised the act.

so here we have the US on one hand.with the largest military on the planet,the largest and most encompassing surveillance system.so vast the stasi would be green with envy.a country whose military and intelligence apparatus is so massive and vast that we pay other countries to house black sites.so when t he president states "america does not torture",he is not lying,we pay OTHER people to torture.

so when i see the counter argument that the US simply cannot adhere to international laws,nevermind their OWN laws,because they cannot "get" their guy.

is bullshit.

it's not that they cannot "find" nor "get" their target.the simple fact is that a sovereign nation has decided to disobey it's master and defy the US.so the US defies international treaties and laws and simply sends in a drone and missiles that fucker down.

mission accomplished.

but lets ask another question.
when do you stop being an american citizen?
at what point do you lose all rights as a citizen?
do we use cell phone coverage as a metric?
the obedience of the country in question?

i am just being a smart ass right now,because the point is moot.
the president can deem me an "enemy combatant" and if he so chose,send a drone to target my house,and he would have the legal protection to have done so.

and considering just how critical i am,and have been,of bush,obama and both the republican and democrats.

it would not be a hard job for the US state department and department of justice to make a case that i was a hardline radical dissident,who was inciting violence and stirring up hatred in people towards the US government,and even though i have never engaged in terrorism,nor engaged in violence against the state.

all they would need to do is link me with ONE person who did happen to perpetrate violence and slap the blame on me.

i wonder if that would be the point where you might..maybe..begin to question the validity of stripping an american citizen of their rights,and outright have them executed.

because that is what is on the line right now.
and i am sorry but "he spoke nasty things about us,and some of those terrorists listened to him,and he praised violence against us".

the argument might as well be:enoch hurt our feelings.

tell ya what.
let's use the same metric that you are using:
that awlaki incited violence and there were deaths directly due to his words.

in 2008 jim david akinsson walked into a unitarian church in tennesee and shot and killed two people,and wounded seven others.

akinsson was ex military and had a rabid hatred of liberals,democrats and homosexuals.

he also happened to own every book by sean hannity,and was an avid watcher of FOX news.akinsson claimed that hannity and his show had convinced him that thsoe dirty liberals were ruining his country,and he targeted the unitarian church because it "was against god".

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

because,again using YOUR logic,yes..yes we do.

i am trying my best to get you to reconsider your position,because..in my opinion...on an elementary moral scale..to strip someone of their rights due to words,praise and/or support..and then to have them executed without due process,or have at least the ability to defend themselves.

is wrong.

i realize i am simply making the same argument,but using different examples.which is why i asked,sincerely,if you were a neo-conservative.

because they believe strongly that the power and authority of the american empire is absolute.they are of the mind that "might makes right",and that they have a legal,and moral,obligation to expand americas interest,be it financial or industrial,and to use the worlds largest military in order to achieve those goals.they also are of the belief that the best defense is the best offense,and to protect the empire by any means necessary.(usually military).

which is pretty reflective of our conversations,and indicative of where our disagreements lie.

i dunno,but i suspect that i have not,nor will i,change your position on this matter.

but i tried dude...i really did try.

You mustn't have watched the whole thing. It was in slow motion. It was all right there. You could see it all happen.

I want to be him when I grow up.

Huzzah! You have helped so very many of us earn our proto-stars and the like. You are greatly appreciated for all that positivity, all right all right.

You ain't no punk, you punk.
You wanna talk about the real junk?
If I ever said [BEEP] I'd be banned
'Cause I'm your garbageman.

Well if you can't dig me, you can't dig nothin'.
Do you want the real thing, or are you just talkin'?
Do you understand?
I'm your garbageman.

Yeah, now it's up from the garage and down the driveway.
Now get outta your mind or get outta my way.
Now do you understand? Do you understand?
Louie, Louie, Louie, Lou-i
The bird's the word, and do you know why?
You gotta beat it with a stick.
You gotta beat it 'til it's thick.
You gotta live until you're dead.
You gotta rock 'til you see red.
Now do you understand?
Do you understand?
I'm your garbageman.

Aw, dump that on mine...

Yeah it's just what you need when you're down in the dumps.
One half hillbilly and one half punk.
Eight long legs and one big mouth.
The hottest thing from the north to come out of the south.
Do you understand?
Do you understand?

Whoo, I can't lose with the stuff I use,
And you don't choose no substitutes.
So stick out your can
'Cause I'm your garbageman.

Louie, Louie, Louie, Lou-i
The bird's the word, and do you know why?
You gotta beat it with a stick.
You gotta beat it 'til it's thick.
You gotta live until you're dead.
You gotta rock 'til you see red.
Now do you understand?
Hmmmm?
Do you understand?
Do you understand?
All right, now go!

Demo is all right, we really don't see anything we haven't seen before. Pretty much the onlything we havn't seen is mass scale destruction. Heck even small scale is so-so, mainly because of 2 things. #1 you really need a chunk of processing time for convincing physics calculation of a good amount of debris (We still don't see the level of particle effects the old AGEIA PPU demo's had) and #2 realistic enough fire effects. #1 is at least possible with tech that we have today, but #2 requires that someone actually create the effect for use in games.

Fire as you may have gathered, is probably the most difficult CG effect to create. Hollywood took 20 years after CGI effects started in movies before it actually didn't look fake. Today fire in CG is very manageable, but before that it just made more sense to record your fire on a matte backdrop and insert the footage over one of the final rendering passes of your 3d project.

I have to say, I'm with @bareboards2 on this one.

I don't have a problem with joking about any topic, as long as it follows two simple rules:
1: don't target a genuine victim and
2: be funny

This broke both of those.
With rape in particular, the more "edgy" the material is, the funnier it needs to be and frankly, this was easily the weakest part of that set. It just wasn't that funny.

It didn't come close to the sublime brilliance of Louis CKs pedophile bit, for example.

Which is a shame, because I think Jim is really funny. The rest of that set KILLED.

I mean, he did a whole bit about thinking he'd given his son autism and how he realised he was slightly autistic and it was hilarious.

But this whole section... eh, it just felt like making the joke for the sake of it. It was that awful Rodney Dangerfield style of "insult insult, just kidding, hey you're all right!" comedy.

If you want to see an example of a great, REALLY uncomfortable bit of humour, watch Reginald D Hunter.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Reginal-D-Hunter-Women-Drivers-and-F-You-Movies

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/opinion/campaign-stops/a-week-for-all-time.html?emc=edit_th_20160617&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=40977923

Golden quote:
"In this week of trial and tragedy, Trump showed us how he would govern — by fear, by intimidation, by lies, by turning American against American, by exhibiting all the empathy of a sociopath. Seal this week. Put it in a time capsule. Teach it. History will remember. But come November, will we?"

By the way, I've stayed out of this extremely boring back and forth. There was nothing to be gained by weighing in. It finally has come to a blessed end, just as this op-ed was published in the New York Times.

So I'll say it again, since this video is my contribution to the Sift and I am claiming final word. I may not be accorded it, but I am claiming it.

It is a stone hard fact that eligible does not equal fit. A brain-damaged accident victim with the right birth certificate, with the right age, is eligible to be president. That person is not fit to be president. This is logic. It just is. You can ignore the crystalline beauty of the fact of this analogy and have a fine time talking around it. Doesn't change the fact that Ken Burns is right, Timothy Egan is right, Mitt Romney, both Bushes, Meg Whitman, and the Republican strategist who is quoted in this op-ed are all right.

Trump is unfit for the Presidency.

No one made that claim, but yes, it does. I bet you had a good ol' time making mountains out of molehills over Obama's alleged birthplace, no?
The birthplace of the said assailant/asshat makes a difference to your primary statement/argument:
Syntaxed said: "Perhaps he was wrong about the people that you blokes are letting into the country? Yes? Then how come one of them, (whom you could never tell is a radical, HE HAD A WIFE AND CHILD), just killed 50 members of the LGBT community in the horrible massacre in Orlando?(which was so bad we are getting news coverage of it in LONDON)"
EDIT: This is a clear, unambiguous claim that he was an immigrant, since you seem to not comprehend your own post.

It proves that you are speaking from a position that starts with a total ignorance of or disregard for the facts in order to support factually deficient demagoguery. The asshat in question was not one of those we are "letting into the country"
According to Wiki, in the last 6 years, only 8 out of 21 terrorist attacks in the US were committed by Muslims, but 10 were committed by anti-government non-Muslim right wingers. I guess a ban on all right wing immigrants would make MORE sense?

Your reply proves that you know you have no argument to make, as you instantly discard it when challenged to chase red herrings.

Okay. You're right. He can be a politician. He is a politician. A stinking poor one, but since he is running for public office, he is by definition a "politician."

Doesn't change the fact he is unqualified to be President. He knows nothing. He promotes fear-mongering and encourages violence. He says he will do things as president that are clearly unconstitutional and outside his powers (banning Muslims, changing the libel laws so he can gain financially.) He is thin-skinned.

He has just revoked the press credentials of The Washington Post because he didn't like a front page story. The man doesn't understand the three branches of government plus the fourth estate of a free press.

I'm qualified to disqualify him because I am a thinking American who knows some history. Like Ken Burns. Like Mitt Romney.

Trump is a unifier, all right. For the first time in almost eight years, some Republicans are putting their love of country above partisanship. I've never been more proud of everyone who has the courage to tell the truth about Donald Trump.

He is patently unfit to serve our country. He has never done it before. He isn't interested in doing it now.

She burned past, all right!

Sadly this seems very plausible after the series I just watched on Netflix , Border Security, Australia's First Line. If people think we treat incoming people rough, they should watch that show. Almost every episode they show some poor sad sack that committed a crime or something 20+ years ago that just wants to come and visit. Most of the time the response is gtfo and don't come back for 3 years, except for one guy who did 12 years in prison for drug trafficking. He just happened to be Sugar Shane Mosley's trainer, so they were like "We should by all rights deny his visa, but we have to weigh the benefit to Australia's citizens that might have bought tickets to the fight....yep, let him in." Or they have a sniffer scanner that picks up what seems to be infinitesimal amounts of any sort of drug residue, which means you get body searched and they go through every thing you have with a fine toothed comb.

I turned to my wife and said, "We are never going to Australia." She asked why and I told her that every bit of the US cash anyone comes into contact with is inundated with multiple types of drug residues. We would probably show up and get cavity searched for 14 different types of drugs. Anyway, after watching the show, I felt it was clear that the government of Australia is very comfortable with the "Come here, spend shitloads of money, and then gtfo because we don't want you here" attitude.

@ChaosEngine.

Yeah. I know. Your last sentence says it all -- he didn't achieve near as much as was hoped for. Hence your disappointment.

From my perspective, I never believed he could do all that was hoped. Because this isn't a dictatorship (thank god, maybe we can survive Trump.) It was clear to me from the beginning that is wasn't possible.

So I wasn't disappointed. I was glad for all that he did manage to get through.

And that is what makes him consequential.

I have my list of things I am pissed at him about for doing -- including the murdering of brown people, including bin Laden. (And I'm pissed at most of the people in this country for cheering state sponsored targeted assassination and ignoring the huge collateral damage of that day and the days that followed.)

History isn't going to judge him on what he promised and couldn't get done. History will judge him on what he actually did. Half-assed heathcare is half an ass more than was managed in over a hundred years. LGBT people aren't disappointed.

And being the first black president -- he'll be in the history books for being that particular breed of person -- the minority who is 10 times better than the ruling majority, who swallows the indignities of prejudice with grace and determination, who rises above the humiliations to become The First. Think Jackie Robinson -- that is what we remember about him, that is the story that has survived. (The recent PBS doc taught me a fuller picture of who he actually was after he survived those brutal first two years in the majors.) That is the story we crave.

He's consequential, all right. Not perfect. Consequential.