Dude you are so toxic.... trying to now bait me into arguing about the definition of plant based lol because I didn't engage with your FOX news like hyperbole above, you figured you'd keep poking until you at least get something.

All I can say is thanks, because every time your reply you help spread this vegan message.

Just park a car with laxative laden donuts in a NO PARKING zone near the police station. It's all about the bait.

From YouTube:
"One Man could be heard asking the Officers, "Would you do this in your neighborhood?" There was no answer for his question. "

YES, they do this in my community!! And I encourage it.
Kinda separates the innocent people from the not-so innocent.

I'd rather they find out who's been doing the stealing before my stuff is stolen. It's very rare they find the stolen goods even once they catch the thieves - the loot is long gone. So catch them using bait, rather than waiting till real people are robbed and violated.

I just see a bunch of people (police and citizens) standing around.

Context? What's going on. I don't see or hear anything wrong.
There may be, but this video doesn't tell us anything.
They aren't hiding. Were there arrests made? The lights are flashing so pretty much what I'm seeing isn't a secret.

Bait cars / trucks are used everywhere.
There's nothing wrong with it.
In my opinion, it's close to entrapment - but it's NOT.

These tactics are used where I am from as well, usually in mall parking lots to see if someone will break in and steal from parked cars.

Thieves will break in and steal - that's it.
If they do, they should be charged. If they aren't breaking in, then no big deal - right?

"Banned" is probably click-bait, I'd imagine.

OK, the actual statement made by Melania's camp (as seen on screen at 1:10):
"I don't believe Mrs. Trump has ever discussed her thoughts on anything with Mr. Giuliani."

That's a pretty significant nudge. To me, pretty clearly says "don't put words in my mouth". You can infer it as "don't put words in my mouth, you weaselly little prick", but the statement itself is pretty carefully reserved in the exact wording.

Newsworthy? Sure. But to me, I think a good journalist (and I'd usually include Anderson Cooper in that camp) should show the statement itself, without any opinion or commentary first, and then make a distinct segue showing that we're now moving into pundit's reactions and opinions.

The lead here was "First Lady Melania Trump's Office Fires Back at Rudy Giuliani Over His Remarks About Stormy Daniels". That just seems a bit clickbait-y to me. "Fires Back" requires reading between the lines of the statement itself. Accurate? Probably. But I think they should have honored the carefully worded nature of the actual statement and gone with something like ..."Responds to" instead of "Fires Back".

Furthermore, they should have kept the full text of the statement itself up on the screen during the whole reaction/opinion portion segment where Cooper and the other talking heads discuss things. By all means, discuss. I even mostly agree with their interpretations and take on the situation. But keep the text of the actual statement up so that viewers can decide for themselves.


The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was actually fantastic for hoisting people on their own petard by fairly and accurately showing their actual statements and reacting to them -- no bait and switch / obfuscation necessary. Stewart's kind of subtlety in pointing out contradictions and bullshit was awesome.

I guess I feel like the best response to Trump's "Fake News" shtick is to be doubly rigorous when it comes to journalistic integrity. Trump's gonna give you plenty of ammo to use against him. Use it, but do it in such a way that any allegations of bias or unfairness are clearly wrong.

I thought parts of it were cringeworthy, but that that was entirely intentional. Sometimes that cringe is precisely what a comic is going for.

Honestly, I don't remember any of these being a "roast" to the degree that this one was. Thinking back on them in Obama's era, all I can remember is the mic-drop moment when Obama turned the tables and said Dick Cheney was the worst president in his memory, and Keegan-Michael Key being Obama's anger translator. Obama could certainly handle light/moderate jabs directed at him, but I don't remember that being done much if any at these specific events. Maybe it was and I just don't remember it.

Anyway, I think that saying that this upped the ante and went for the jugular significantly more than in the past is almost certainly correct. But that doesn't make it "bad" or "disrespectful" or whatever. I don't care that Trump didn't attend, even though presidents "traditionally" do. Hell, given the whole "fake news" shtick that he is trying to sell, he should have barred any White House staff from attending -- even/especially Press Secretary Sanders.

BUT, then after the event he should have simply said that he didn't watch it and that he doesn't give a rats ass what was said there instead of sulking about it on twitter. Acting all offended just makes him look like a little bitch (and that goes for all the other R's that have whined also).


Anyway, I guess overall I thought her bit was a good but not great set. Doing that material with that mixed audience guarantees that there's going to be some uncomfortable silences and crickets, but she clearly anticipated and managed that quite well. Roasts aren't really my thing, but given the machismo image that Trump tries to push it may well have been the perfect way to bait him into looking like a crybaby in his inevitable response. Mission accomplished?

Neofacist Africaners changed their name?
Suidlanders started in 06, race baiting and warning of the impending race war ever since, their platform based on prophecies from pre 1926 by a cowardly illiterate uneducated rebel German sympathizer from WW1.
Good job, Bob. You reposted some racist propaganda repeating >92 year old warnings of impending race wars.
Your mom must be so proud.

Sigh. What a sad day to have to read the likes of you.

I didn't know there was a strict definition. I asked a question and pondered some answers. Oh no! There world is ending. Why do you have to be a continual callow fool about such things? You'll note I didn't jump to google (like others do) to quickly look up a definition (I chose not to). I don't like using google as a false extension of my knowledge like others do. I like to have a good discussion using only the knowledge I have at that instant. But instead we all have to suffer people like you who jump in keyboard blazing "you're wrong on a thing and therefore you're an inferior fucktard who doesn't deserve to be here" instead of going "Actually, there is a strict definition of assault rifle. It's defined as...". Do you see the difference? I hate to be the one to tell you, but you need to learn to control your emotions. As an adult you should have learned this by now. You may believe you are communicating effectively but you are not. You are abrasive and abusive to anyone and everyone on far to regular a basis. You should be ashamed of yourself but I doubt you have the introspection to see your flaws.

The most irritating thing about having to point this out is that, now with strict definition in hand (provided by you), I can point out that instead of you telling Digitalfiend there is a strict definition and that "assault rifles" are already heavily restricted (as you should have pointed out), that I have to point it out to him instead.

And yes, I was already familiar with the studies I quoted previously - I have previously researched the topic of gun control in Australia.

"Why must you feign being so obtuse and naive as a pretext to sesquipedalian and pedantic argument of your own creation?"

Please stop making things up. The second you see what you consider a mistake you jump in with bullshit like this thinking you are going in for the kill. You're laughable and you're making life hard for yourself.

Shotguns aren't rifles? No shit Sherlock. It was an example of where semi-automatic is better. Semi-automatics are better than pump guns. You're dreaming if you think they're even in the same league. Duck hunting is better with a semi-automatic.

The only person who said anything about "Indiscriminately pumping animals, even nuisance animals full of lead" is you. I don't know where you learned to hunt but I learned one shot one kill. And a semi-automatic makes this more efficient (and if you do need a backup shot it comes very quickly). Most pest animals are left to rot. It's too much trouble picking up the carcasses (and often legislated that you must leave them where they drop). If you don't know how to hunt then leave it to the people who do, please (it's so easy to turn your words around).

Trapping, baiting, etc. are others methods that work well in varying circumstances.

Choosing a pump gun over a semi-auto is a beginners mistake. The spread of buckshot or home defense rounds at close quarters is fairly low and you must always aim your firearm properly. In a home defense situation, anyone who is relying on the spread of shotgun pellets to hit their target is a terrible marksman and should consider getting some lessons. You get the same loading sound from a semi-automatic when you let the bolt go forward. I don't know of any data to support the notion that the loading sound scares people away. It has some merit though.

Now, as usual for me I'll be busy for the next 4 months (back at work this morning - I shouldn't even be replying to this but I thought - "hey, I've gotta throw a dog a bone"). I may or may not get to reply to the expected vehemence to come. Have fun howling at the wind. Don't worry, you're views are the immutable truth and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and you're insults are totally the best (snigger).

Sorry. You're right. I shouldn't have laid it all on Keanu.

It is just creepy.

They are employees of a business. Who hired them? Where are the normal looking women?

This is Hooters, only with guns and not hamburgers and beer. Or whatever they sell there.

Would there be any normal looking women, when the intent is obviously to draw male eyes to this business?

Do you realize that you are being pandered to, you folks who are making fun of my "outrage"? Do you know you are being manipulated? Do you understand that it is super creepy if you don't know you are being manipulated?

There is a great new movement right now of women speaking up and making clear that they are intelligent and have loads to offer other than beauty. It was super thrilling to watch the Golden Globes and hear all these amazing and brilliant women talk so eloquently about something other than who made their dress.

To go from that to this parade of nubile flesh as a backdrop to gun skills .... creeped me out. It isn't real. It isn't what the world looks like. It is manufactured and disturbing when I personally am hungry for images of women DOING and being, instead of being looked at.

There are women out there who love guns and are knowledgeable about guns. And they don't all look like this.

You know I adore you completely, Chaos. And I wasn't accurate in my original post. Thank you for calling that to my attention.

But it isn't true that only you brought "common sense and facts" into this. I brought the common sense and facts, too. Just not eloquently or accurately. Being talked about like that, being reduced to "outrage" instead of being accorded some respect for noticing the unnatural assemblage of super attractive women obviously being used to as eye bait... well, that is common. Very common. And uncool.

You, though, dear friend, are super cool.

Looks like *someone* is high on life! *happy [he wasn't whale bait!]

I had to read this op-ed. No fan of DT, however I am painfully aware that our news coverage of him is pretty much click-bait with little real substance. This photo is an example -- pictures can lie, they are but a moment in time.

I have to think that this op-ed is accurate -- there are some really horrendous things mentioned that are no credit to DT. And it would be too easily disproved if there were outright lies. (And yes, there is a whiff of BS, but nobody in politics can get by without a whiff of BS. NOBODY.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/13/opinion/the-trump-vision-for-america-abroad.html

You're stilling trying to bait me into another argument. Reported.

I used to think that you were simply not comprehending the science. But now it's pretty clear to me that you're still deliberately misrepresenting your quoted text on purpose to bait me into further arguments. This happens with almost everyone you talk to, across every topic, and it's bordering on bullying now. And if that's what you enjoy then great, but I've got better things to do.

I'm so tempted to bait someone, but it's so obviously his wife and not a nanny. Hah