I can rarely agree with a blanket statement, but it I think we do agree that an armed populace is more difficult to oppress, I just contend it doesn't make oppression impossible.

I think people living under the control of warlords would differ and call them oppressive dictators, even if their areas of control might be small.

Yes, but doesn't Rwanda prove my point in a way? The genocidal thugs were armed, yet control was eventually taken from them....although I hope Kagme isn't a tyrant...I honestly don't know about him.

Your comment is confusing, considering the institutions being discussed.

Total financial bankruptcy of the institution is impossible, the institution is the government. No judgement will ever be so large that it bankrupts the government. Maybe it could bankrupt a small, local government/police force temporarily, but at best that just moves another less-local police force in (highway patrol, state police, etc.), which is never better and doesn't really fulfill that objective.

For police and most public servants, there is blanket immunity from personal financial responsibility for their actions while on duty.
That means in the cases where personal bankruptcy is the objective, it's doomed to fail miserably.

I really though he was going to make it and I was going to leave a comment...for every 1 success there is 999 people crying cause a bear trap bit them.

The guys saying they couldn't stop him...they could have set off the trap...with a broom stick or something...just keep setting it off every time he sets it up...

If you ever run into this ignorance that is the trick...kill the setup...

Set off the trap, Put out the fire...just be the wet blanket...

Laters.

NOBODY is saying anybody is heroes. I haven't read or saw any reports saying they were heroes, save for Fox who says that the media was. Just that people were counter protesting those sort of people the whole word fought a war to defeat.

What is happening is that Trump refuses to say just how fucking evil Nazis and the KKK are. He wouldn't do this if it was a Muslim who ran people over, nor would you. He, Fox, and all those on the right would all be saying how it proves how evil Islam is. By that standard, the fact they don't see how evil Nazis are, proves how evil Christianity is, if God won't convict you that Nazis are one of the greatest evils that ever existed... that anyone who isn't a fucking Nazi themselves, wouldn't call out the absolute shit that is a Nazi or KKK is, is reprehensible. I'm sure most Christians would take offense to such a statement, for such blanket blame of a few bad Nazis proving how evil Christianity is, but don't think twice blaming a terrorist act by a Muslim on the religion itself.

We got Republicans trying to push through laws that protect drivers who hurt or kill people who are peacefully protesting. As if the first amendment doesn't matter. Now, to be fair, most of those probably wouldn't protect the asshole who killed that lady down there, as he clearly had intent to hurt and kill.

Let's repeat the main point, there are no mainstream media saying any group is a hero. People may have called out the one lady as heroic, though it wouldn't have been if it wasn't for a White Supremacist asshole who killed her because she was protesting against White Supremacist like him. But NOBODY in the mainstream media is saying any groups are heroes. All we have is Fox saying as such, and trying to give fucking Nazis a pass for not being some of the most evil people ever. There's no fucking blame on both sides. The fact that we have such a blatantly racist President, with a White Supremacist in Bannon, has emboldened such hate groups, they are gloating how he wouldn't put them down, and then how he rolled back what he said Monday. They love that he's so clearly on their side of pure hate.

He wouldn't have waited days to condemn the violence if it was Muslims at the center. He'd have said something right away, talking about the dangers of radical Islam. He wouldn't have waited to get the facts, as he's proven time and time again. Nor would have the far right media machine like Fox.

Fuck anyone who would stand with the Nazis and the KKK. Fuck anyone who'd defend their hate.

The fact that the Republicans who could do anything about this asshole only have harsh words and won't start a hearing on conduct unbecoming a President, the fact that he's made us the laughing stock of the world, just shows how low the party and its supporters have gone.

No NHS in the states. Personally, I think that'd be the way to do it. And I think it kind of needs to be a long and difficult road, to make sure that drastic option is necessary and won't be regretted later.

It's a bit hard for me to accept it, because I tend to think of it like that episode of South Park. Kyle can't actually become a tall black kid, and his dad can't actually become a dolphin.

But even though I think that is true -- you can't really become something you aren't -- I recognize that gender reassignment surgeries can be life saving / massively beneficial to quality of life in many cases.


To take a stab at answering your other questions:

I believe that Trump is saying that the military is instituting a blanket ban on transgender people from serving in the military. If / how the military elects to enforce that remains to be seen. I don't know the full timeline on that sort of stuff, but back in the 60's one (considered extreme at the time) way for young men to get out of being drafted to go to Vietnam was to take photos of themselves naked with another man (implying they were gay) or wearing women's clothing (implying they were trans). The mere implication that you might be either was enough to disqualify you from military service.

More recently, during Don't Ask Don't Tell you could be gay or trans in the military, but couldn't reveal that you were. That ended only 5-6 years ago. The military definitely wouldn't have paid for trans-related medical treatments prior to that, and didn't for quite a while after until Obama OK'd it.

Again, I don't really think that the military should be required / expected to pay for those kinds of treatments for soldiers, BUT I'd be 100% OK with something like the NHS making it available to any citizen, as in the UK. For one thing, I wouldn't want trans people to see the military as the only way to get those treatments (short of paying out of pocket), and having that be a major part of their motivation to join.

And I 100% agree that this is a basically a political distraction that sets back the rights and acceptance of an already marginalized group that in no way deserves it.

I find it much more sad that people are willing to delude themselves with placating mythos that can't stand the slightest critical examinations than I find the fact that there's almost certainly no god(s) by any definition. Lack of a supreme being is not a scary thing to me in the least, but a capricious, judgmental, incomprehensible, vengeful god ready to cast immortal souls into hell for eternity over small rule infractions is horrifying.

Reality is scary. I get why people would hide their heads under the safety blanket of religion(s), I just disagree that it's any more useful against reality than hiding under a sheet is against home invaders. It might make you feel better because you can't see them, but that's all (unless they are as dumb as the bugblatter beast of Traal, who thinks if you can't see it, it can't see you).

I feel bad for your uncle, who it sounds like believes in god out of a fear instilled in him as a child. Consciously, it sounds like he understands it's an irrational belief, but fear makes people do irrational things all the time. Fear is the mind killer.

So

I don't know how it is in the states, but in this country if you want to go through gender reassignment you will get it for free on the NHS. Its a long road, it isn't easy, they make it hard etc, but like anything else that poses a risk to somebodies health it is paid for by the state. I feel like a lot of people consider reassignment a sort of frivolous sex thing but being unable to escape the body in which you are born is, you know, desperately depressing. I don't think I am exaggerating when I say that surgery and hormone treatment are potentially lifesaving, and certainly greatly improve the quality of life in most cases.

Couple of things I don't understand - Is this the military saying they will no longer pay for treatments associated with gender reassignment, or is this a blanket ban on transgender men and women from serving in the military? One wonders why the military can't spend even a fraction of the amount is spends on toys on its servicemen/women...

Anyhoo. It's a distraction. Not trying to suggest that it is a minor thing for those affected, but I really think this is to divert the left and win back support from the right. It sucks dreadfully that a minority group is again used as target for political maneuvering and it is worthy of resistance but I can't help but feel we are playing into their hand by doing so.

@bobknight33 I pity you.

It's an alternative fact when you make a blanket statement that includes "ever, all, never, etc" and when you tell other people to verify it for you, with Google, YouTube, etc. Or your reply is along the lines of "c'mon dude, just look around, haven't you been paying attention?" That's not dealing with facts or truth.

It comes across like a college freshman who is repeating something that rolls off the tongue, then goes blank when challenged on it. Do some post-grad work on your claims, do some research, do your homework.

Excuse me. You made an outrageous blanket claim. You offered zero evidence or proof of your unlikely claim. If it were fact, you could prove it instead of winging and whining.

You said you could find it on Google in less time than it took to ask for it.
You have now replied 4 times with derision and hilarious cranial rectosis, but still are completely unable to find any actual evidence or proof.

One example of one case in no way makes your point. If a prosecution was successful just once, it invalidates your claim. That could mean 100000000 murdering cops were not convicted, and you would still be dead wrong.

Your inability to comprehend the difference between fact and claim, even when you provide the definition of each, is evidence of cranial rectosis, more evidence than you've provided to support your claim, but it's not proof. Your continuing inability to produce the evidence you claimed was simple to find makes me think you're just a liar that can't admit they were caught making shit up. Prove me wrong.

You keep saying that, but have never offered a single example where I misunderstood or misrepresented anything, just a mistaken accusation that I added my own term "hypersensitives" out of bias, but it was actually in the title AND the paper.
Present one. What, exactly, am I misrepresenting? Use quotes and be specific.

I think you must not understand plain English then, because that Hopkins synopsis is in plain English and contradicts your original blanket contention I took issue with-"rheumatoid arthritis is a flare up caused by dairy and certain meats".
That might be true in some cases of patients with food hypersensitivities, the science isn't yet clear, but it is clear that your original all encompassing statement is just wrong in most if not all cases and overreaching exaggeration in the extreme as written, something which is specifically warned against in the paper itself. ( "the science is not able to reliably identify specific triggers for individuals." , "These studies are few in number and should be interpreted and extrapolated to real life only with careful thought and caution.")
I personally know 2 long term (over 30 years) vegans in my family with active rheumatoid arthritis, and know of many more. If your statement was correct, that would be impossible.

Edit: had you said 'it appears that, in some people, RA flare ups can be caused by meat and/or dairy.' instead of "rheumatoid arthritis is a flare up caused by dairy and certain meats" you would not have been contradicted. If you could accept that the exaggeration makes your statement unsupportable instead of defending it blindly and zealously with mistaken assumption and misplaced insult, this would have been a single post instead of a whole thread.

Did you get that job as a fortune teller?

Whilst we're making blanket assumptions about people we don't know, when did you realise you were racist? Was it the smug satisfaction you felt when you saw a black man mercilessly beaten or shot by the police on the internet, or before then?

And is it easier to hide your racism behind a veneer of support for the police, or better to hide your face under a white sheet so no one knows it was you? Which works better? Thanks for your reply in advance.

@RFlagg
what i find most disturbing by many of my friends who supported trump is their almost blind attachment to an ever-increasing lean towards authoritarianism.

while i find trump's petty tantrums due to the realization that those pesky other branches of government are independent to the executive branch..HILARIOUS..the response of many trump supporters,who appear totally willing to give trump blanket authority..pretty fucking scary.

trump appears to really be bothered about those pesky "checks and balances" and that ancient and archaic "constitution",and his supporters seem to be just as pissed.

this new age of populism,be it left or right,should be a concern for all of us.

it seems the days of neoliberalism are waning,and we are entering the new age of neonationalism.

and with supporters who refuse to examine what trump is doing without any critical thought....may be the most concerning of all.

they are blindly promoting king trump.
and i am not down with that.

Love this song! *promote good times

Haha ... the video reminds me of a play I wrote [directed and was a feature player in] titled 'Beach Blanket Parcheesi' for the senior class assembly in high school ... indeed good times

Came here to say exactly this.

I'll add that Anwar al-Awlaki wasn't just hiding out in Yemen. The Fort Hood shooter was emailing back and forth with him. The attempted bombings in Times Square and of Northwest Airlines flight 253 were also linked back to him. So yeah, there were absolutely guys in Yemen helping launch attacks on American nationals and American soil.

That all said, blanket bans on everyone from the country period is only A answer and mayhaps not THE answer, baby with the bath water and all. Most of our Islamic allies, and the highest percentage of victims of jihadist terrorism are the moderate muslims in those same countries.

Huh, this criticism feels more like a Zero Punctuation-type review to me in that it grossly exaggerates actual flaws to make them sound far more problematic than they actually are. He's asking us to view the movie from the perspective of someone who has never heard of Star Wars and that's just so preposterously stupid that I had a hard time getting through to the end of his video. The whole point of this movie is that the lore and the world has already been established--there's no need to re-tread everything and explain every connection. It's not meant to be a "stand-alone" film--nor were Empire or Return of the Jedi, which also rightly assumed that people watching the movie had seen (or at least understood the major plot points) of the previous films.

Personally, I find his criticism of the characters wholly lacking as well. Why did he not like the characters? Why did he not find them compelling? I personally loved them all. One flaw in the movie is that there are so many things going on that most of the characters don't get enough screen time for us to get really deeply attached to them, but then again none of the characters are meant to survive the movie so that could be intentional? Certainly a few of the characters (Baze, Chirrut, and Bodhi) suffer from being one-dimensional as a result of this.

Fair enough if he doesn't want to check the character box because of that, but he never explained why the story and emotion boxes weren't checked. I mean, my wife cried both at Jin's father's death and Jin and Cassian's deaths. They were the three characters that were the most fleshed out of the cast. We understood their motivations and their internal conflicts (Jin's father between protecting his family and helping the Empire, Jin's struggles with trust after the feeling of betrayal at being left behind by both her father and Saw Gerrera, Cassian's struggles with duty and morality further complicated by his growing feelings for Jin). And their deaths were meant to underscore the harsh reality of the rebellion for the common foot soldier.

For me, this movie is probably the 4th best Star Wars movie to date after the original trilogy--much better than The Force Awakens, in my book. It's fine if Plinkett disagrees, but his video is completely disappointing as it doesn't really explain or give examples of how he came to this opinion. He just makes a blanket statement and then proceeds to monologue as if we should take his opinion as fact without him offering any evidence.