You know that's nearly 1/4 of what we've paid for Trump's golf outtings so far....largely paid directly to him since he charges the secret service to stay at his properties that he won't divest himself from, and even to use his golf carts on the greens ($150000 so far for carts alone).
You would do yourself a service to not complain about wasting money on investigating treasonous criminal activities as long as you're on team Trump, he spends like a drunken sailor on leave that just won the lottery. Just look at deficit numbers before and after his tax plan, then try to pretend he's somehow fiscally sane.

For a comparison, the GAO said the Clinton investigations cost $70-$80 million in the 90's (translating to over $135 million in 2018 dollars) and Republicans called them under funded.
History....ain't it a thing.

Before and after VFXs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrrpIywcHBU

On a side note, every week before and after bowling league, i poured a ridiculous amount of money into the arcade game Dragon's Lair.

Your video, Fruits and vegetables before and after domestication, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Yeah, Fox is the bastion of fairness and balance.......and the sky is a lovely shade of green. Edit: Fox can't even stop claiming Clinton/DNC murdered a man over leaks the Russians made, the best they can do is pause while indicating the story is still true but out of respect/bowing to pressure they'll stop covering it for now.

He originally claimed he never touched the man, even though he knew the Fox reporter saw him. The only sane conclusion is he expected them to go along with his lie because he's Republican.

That's not what I read, both before and after the attack. The point is, this is not acceptable behaviour, and that made little difference because 1)early voting before it happened and 2) Republicans will vote for any frothing idiot if they just put an (R) in front of their name.

Nope, not kidding. They elected Trump, a womanizing, racist, classist, classless, serial philanderer, proud liar and deceiver, falsely pious, groper, repeatedly failed businessman that never reads the contracts he signs who is the worst kind of partisan con man. 8 years of hating Obama screwed with your heads. You're so incredibly deluded you still think Trump is winning big time. You probably repeated the bullshit about child slave pizza, you buy into every other insane conspiracy theory Alex Jones dreams up. Who promotes the worst again? You know, like baseless accusations of murder and child slavery being repeated for months on national tv? Like frothing rage over Benghazzi, but total head in the sand over Trump's imploding administration and his Russian ties involving every person in his administration it seems, all angrily lying about it until recordings surface then going silent? Yeah, using an unsecured email server, that's much worse than just telling our enemies state and intelligence secrets and leaking far more while creating enemies of the press and intelligence community (both ours and our allies). Worse than setting up a secret communication channel through the Russian consulate because you don't trust American intelligence agencies but do trust Russia? Much worse. Lock her up...Lock her up....Lock her up.

Democrats represented more Americans than Republicans if you go by votes...so if one party represents Americans and the other doesn't, you have it backwards. (Truth be told neither represent their constituents, but democrats come closer).

No.
It shows us a pitfall of early voting. Most, the vast majority of votes, were cast before he assaulted the reporter.
He was always expected to win by a landslide both before and after he lost it on tape and blatantly lied about it assuming the Fox reporters would lie with him, but they didn't.
Because of early voting, last minute surprises like this barely matter....unless he gets the maximum sentence, which is appropriate. If ever there was someone the courts should use to set an example with, it's a violent elected official.

That's not to say he would have lost if early voting wasn't the norm there. Republicans have totally sacrificed their morality and rationality on the altar of partisanship. Like Trump said, they could murder people publicly in cold blood and not lose votes. This means they're fine electing people who display this kind of total lack of self control and poor decision making processes along with a proven willingness to bold faced lie to the public to represent us as long as the tie they wear is red.
It's far less about Democrats, the minority there, than it is about a total lack of civility, honesty, or basic self control in Republican leaders and their voters accepting that, even relishing it.

And btw, Democrats ARE Americans....since you're confused again.

Chomsky\s position doesn't surprise me in the least and I think is much more easily explainable than you want to make it. Chomsky is taking the default most anti-American position that he can. Part of that includes not letting Russia be painted any more black or dark than America. There's nothing new, surprising or different in his opinion here, he's just expressing it in a way that goes against the democrats which throws people that hadn't seen Chomsky that way before when he was mostly condemning right leaning America. It's pretty much the exact same thing as the shift in opinion towards wikileaks before and after they ran a freight train over Hillary. When they were releasing secrets damaging to the right end of the spectrum they were doing the lord's work. The explicit and sole focus on western evils was ok until suddenly the left end of the west got included. Now suddenly a pro-Russian conspiracy was visible to left leaning folks. You know, the now that it's affecting me it's a problem viewpoint.

No, it wasn't. I said AN argument followed. If you want to be niggling, be correct. Arguments came before AND after. (Edit:ok, looking back, I did say "the argument followed" my mistake here, but not there, argument did follow. I did not intend that to mean the ONLY argument followed, just that one did.)

"He said it was a Muslim ban"is pretty understandable to me....as is "it is a Muslim ban". Is that somehow not coherent to you?

Whether you voted for him or not, whether you intend it or not, whether you like him or not, by defending this Trump (non) apologist and denying those statements are an argument against the claim that there's no Muslim ban, you are at least tacitly supporting Trump who's making the same argument in court, that argument being that his calling for and promising a Muslim ban in the campaign and now saying the travel ban is "keeping his campaign promises" in no way make it a Muslim ban (unless you are a room of far right leaners).

"Cogent" depends largely on the listener.

That's the claim, that he offered no argument.

I only addressed that point, when argument was offered, because you seemingly myopicly targeted what you thought was a mistake that made your point.

If I understood it and found it convincing, it's cogent....and I do.

I finally agree with something you said...in part....Jim Jefferies is a loud mouthed verbally aggressive comedian.
But, I think "He (Trump) called it a Muslim ban." is a cogent, coherent, and concise argument. Edit:so do the lawyers suing to stop the ban. ;-)

I watched it when it aired, the whole thing.
I'm not desperate, nor do I care a whit about Jim, I don't like him, he's as much an ass as Morgan, I care that a good argument against bullshit isn't discarded because you can't or won't grasp it. I never claimed he made the argument well, or that he didn't ramble, just that he offered an argument, it made sense, and it is applicable.

I don't recall who invoked Hitler first, but if I remember correctly, they both did in the full show. Since Jefferies came out later, it was probably Morgan before Jefferies made his appearance, but I can't be sure.

And PS- I hate Clinton almost as much as Trump. I supported Sanders, the only honest person that ran.

Your video, Severe Parkinson's Disease before and after using Cannabis, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

That's the scariest bit. On the surface it looks like a peaceful farm, because when you're going past it, all you see is lovely green grass and sheep grazing, it looks lovely and peaceful.

You don't get to see the castration, horn removal, tail docking and mulesing without any sort of anesthetic - this happens to every single lamb.

You also don't get to see the workers having a bad day and abusing (after the product is removed from them). This might not happen to every sheep, but with around 30 sheep getting sheared an hour by each person, you can bet at that speed it's not a pleasant experience even without malicious intent.

Outsiders just see a lovely country side, with sheep grazing before and after the abuse.

@Asmo
i hear ya,and i felt i kinda addressed that issue.

guess i didn't,or at least not very well.

you and i have disagreed before and after some further discussion and/or clarification it became clear we were arguing two totally separate points,but our assumptions led us to believe we were in conflict.

but we were not.

i have had the exact same thing happen with BB,but because she was willing to slug it out and respected me enough to listen.we came to a much richer understanding of each other.

same goes for newtboy.

seewhatimsayin?
i am not choosing sides here,nor am i applying my own moral metric to the discussion.i am simply pointing out that assumptions,based on our own subjective understandings,can corrupt the conversation.

which can lead to unnecessary ugliness.

and that is depressing.

words are inert.just symbols on a page until they are observed and interpreted.that interpretation is predicated upon our own understandings,which are highly subjective.this can lead to misunderstandings of a persons intent and motivation and the only way to combat this is to actually talk with one another with respect...even if we disagree.

Ok I'll try to divide up my wall text a bit better this time

I totally acknowledge that people in the past, and even in present day, some people have to live a certain way in order to survive, but for the vast majority of people that doesn't apply.


Taste:
Like most of the senses in the human body, the sense of taste is in a constant state re-calibration. It's highly subjective and easily influenced over mere seconds but also long periods of time. They say it takes 3 weeks to acclimatize from things you crave, from salt to heroin. That's why most healthy eating books tell you go to cold tofurkey (see what I did there ) for 3 weeks. It's all about the brain chemistry. After 3 straight weeks you aren't craving it. (The habit might still be there but, the chemically driven cravings are gone).
Try it yourself by eating an apple before and after some soft drink. First the apple will taste sweet, and after it will taste sour. Or try decreasing salt over a 3 week period, it'll taste bland at first, but if you go back after 3 weeks it'll be way too salty.



Food science:
One of the major things stopping me from not being vegan, was the health concerns, so I read a number of books about plant-based eating.
There is a new book "How Not To Die" by Dr. Michael Greger. If you want scientific proof of a plant based diet this the one stop shop. 500 pages explaining tens of thousands of studies, some going for decades and involving hundreds of thousands of people. I was blown away at the simple fact that so many studies get done. Most of them are interventional studies also, meaning they are able to show cause and effect (unlike observational or corrolational studies, as he explains in the book). 150 pages of this book alone are lists of references to studies. It's pure unbiased science. (It's not a vegan book either in case you are worried about him being biased).

At the risk of spoiling the book - whole foods like apples and broccoli doesn't give you cancer, in fact they go a long way to preventing it, some bean based foods are as effective as chemotherapy, and without the side effects. I thought it sounded it ridiculous, but the science is valid.
Of course you can visit his website he explains all new research almost daily at nutritionfacts.org in 1 or 2 minute videos.
He also has a checklist phone app called Dr.Greger's Daily Dozen.

There are other authors too, most of these ones have recipes too, such as Dr. John McDougall, Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr. Cadwell Esselstyn, Dr. Dean Ornish, Dr Joel Furhman.
Health-wise it's the best thing you can do for yourself. And if like me you thought eating healthy meant salads, you'd be as wrong as I was I haven't had a salad for years. My blood results and vitamin levels are exactly what the books said they would be.

Try it for 3 weeks, but make sure you do it the right way as explained in the books, and you'll be shouting from roof tops about what a change it's made to your life. The other thing is, you get to eat more, and the more you eat it's healthier. What a weird concept in a world where we are constantly being told to calorie count (it doesn't work btw).

Environmental:
I've read a lot about ethics, reason and evidence based thinking, as well as nutrition and health (as a result of my own skepticism). So I could and I enjoy talking about these all day long. On the environmental side of things, I'm not as aware, but there some documentaries such as Earthlings and Cowspiracy which paint a pretty clear picture.
Anyone can do the maths even at a rough level - there are 56 billion animals bred and slaughtered each year. Feeding 56 billion animals (many of which are bigger than people) takes a lot more food than a mere 7 billion. Therefore it must take more crops and land to feed them, not to mention the land the animals occupy themselves, as well as the land they destroy by dump their waste products (feces are toxic in those concentrations, where as plant waste, is just compost)
The other thing is that many of these crops are grown in countries where people are starving, using up the fertile land to feed our livestock instead of the people. How f'd up is that?
It's reasons like that why countries like the Netherlands are asking their people to not eat meat more than 3 meals a week.

Productivity and economics:
Countries like Finland have government assistance to switch farmers from dairy to berry. Because they got sick of being sick:
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/dietary-guidelines-from-dairies-to-berries/

The world won't go vegan overnight, and realistically it will never be 100% vegan (people still smoke after all). There will be more than enough time to transition. And surely you aren't suggesting that we should eat meat and dairy to keep someone employed? I don't want anyone to lose their job, but to do something pointlessly cruel just to keep a person working seems wrong.

Animal industries are also heavily subsidized in many countries, so if they were to stop being subsidized that's money freed up for other projects, such as the ones in Finland.

The last bit:
If you eat a plant based diet, just like the cow you'll never have constipation, thanks to all of the fibre
When it comes to enzymes, humans are lactose intolerant because after the age of 2 the enzyme lactase stops being made by the body (unless you keep drinking it). Humans also don't have another enzyme called uricase (true omnivores, and carnivores do), which is the enzyme used to break down the protein called uric acid. As you might know gout is caused by too much uric acid, forming crystals in your joints.
However humans have a multitude of enzymes for digesting carbohydrate rich foods (plants). And no carbs don't make fat despite what the fitness industry would have you believe (as the books above explain).
Appealing to history as well, when they found fossilized human feces, it contained so much fibre it was obvious that humans ate primarily a plant based diet. (Animal foods don't contain fibre).

The reasons why you wouldn't want a whale to eat krill for you is:
1. Food is a packaged deal - there is nothing harmful in something like a potato. But feed a lot of potatoes to a pig, and eat the pig, you're getting some of the nutrients of a potato, but also heaps of stuff you're body doesn't need from the pig, like cholesterol, saturated fat, sulfur and methionine containing amino acids etc And no fibre. (low fibre means constipation and higher rates of colon cancer).
2. Your body's health is also dependent on the bacteria living inside you. (fun fact, most the weight of your poop is bacteria!) The bacteria inside you needs certain types of food to live. If you eat meat, you're starving your micro-organisms, and the less good bacteria you have, the less they produce certain chemicals and nutrients , and you get a knock on effect. The fewer the good bacteria also makes room for bad bacteria which make chemicals you don't want.
Coincidentally, if you eat 3 potatoes for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, you have all the protein you need - it worked for Matt Damon on Mars right?

It's a bit of a false advertisement that the fonts upside down are not symmetrical in relation to when they are right side up. The small loops on the 8 are at the top before and after they flip it. This is a clear, yet subliminal "tell" to try to trick the viewer. If they really wanted to do this they would not have swapped the fonts when rotating.

What about videos before and after carrying the bag?