radical islamic terrorism is the usage of a rigid fundamentalist interpretation as a justification predicated on abysmal politics.

ill-thought and short sighted politics is the tinder.
hyper-extremist fundamentalism is the match.

ISIS would never even have existed without al qeada,who themselves would not have existed without US interventionism into:iran,egypt and saudi arabia.

and this is going back almost 70 years.

so lets cut the shit with apologetics towards americas horrific blunders in regards to foreign policy.actions have consequences,there is a cause and effect,and when even in the 50's the CIA KNEW,and have stated as much,that there would be "blowback" from americas persistent interventionism in those regions.which stated goals (in more honest times) was to destabilize,dethrone (remove leaders not friendly to american business) and install leaders more pliant and easily manipulated (often times deposing democratically elected leaders to install despots.the shah and sadam come to mind).

see:chalmers johnson-blowback
see: Zbigniew Brzezinski-the grand chessboard.

or read this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

so to act like islamic radicals just fell from the fucking sky,and popped out from thin air,due to something that has been boiling for almost 70 years is fucking ludicrous.

radicalization of certain groups in populations have long been understood,and well documented.

and religion,though the most popular,and easiest tool to motivate and justify heinous acts of violence for a political goal,is not the SOLE tool.

nationalism is another tool used to radicalize a population.
see:the nazi party.

but it always comes down to:tribalism of one kind or another.

@transmorpher

so when you use this "ISIS themselves, in their own magazine (Dabiq) go out of their way to explain that they are not motivated by the xenophobia or the US fighting wars in their countries. They make specifically state that their motivation is simply because you aren't muslim. You can go an read it for yourself. They are self confessed fanatics that need to kill you to go to heaven. "

to solidify your argument,all i see is someone ignoring the history and pertinent reasons why that group even exists.

you may recall that ISIS was once Al qeada,and they were SO radical,SO fanatical and SO violent in their execution of religious zeal..that even al qeada had to distance themselves.

because,again...
religion is used as the justification to enact terrorism due to bad politics.
but the GOAL is always political.

you may remember that in the early 90's the twin towers were attacked and it was the first time americans heard of al qeada,and osama bil laden.

who made a statement back in 1993 and then reiterated in 2001 after 9/11 that the stated goal (one of them at least) was for the removal of ALL american military presence in saudi arabia (there was more,but it mostly dealt with american military presence in the middle east).

but where did this osama dude come from?
why was he so pissed at america?
just what was this dudes deal?

turns out he was already on the road to radicalization during the 80's.coming from an extremely wealthy saudi arabian family but had become extremely religious,and he saw western interventionism as a plague,and western culture as a disease.

he left the comforts of his extremely wealthy family to fight against this western incursion into his religious homeland.he traveled to afghanistan to join the mujahideen to combat the russians,who were actually fighting the americans in a proxy war.and WE trained osama.WE armed him and trained him in the tactics of warfare to,behind the scenes,slowly drain russia of resources in our 50 year long cold war.

how's that for irony.

osama was not,as american media like to paint the picture "anti-democratic or anti-freedom".he saw the culture of consumerism,greed and sexual liberation as an affront to his religious understandings.

this attitude can be directly linked to sayyid qtib from egypt.who visited the united states as an exchange student in 1954.now he wasnt radicalized yet,but when he returned to egypt he didnt recognize his own country.

he saw coco cola signs everywhere,and women wearing shorts skirts,and jukeboxs playing that devils music "rock and roll".

he feared for his country,his neighbors,his community.
just like a southern baptist fears for your soul,sayyid feared for the soul of his country and that this new "westernization" was a direct threat to the tenants laid down by islam.

so he began to speak out.
he began to hold rallies challenging the leadership to turn away from this evil,and people started to take notice,and some people agreed.

change does not come easy for some people,and this is especially true for those who hold strong religious ideologies.
(insert religion here) tends to be extremely traditional.

so sayyid started to gain popularity for his challenge if this new "westernization",and this did not go un-noticed by the egyptian leadership,who at that time WANTED western companies to invest in egypt.(that whole political landscape is totally different now,but back then egypt was fairly liberal,and moderately secular).

so instead of allowing sayyid to speak his mind.
they threw him in prison.
for 4 years.
in solitary.

well,he wasn't radicalized when he went IN to prison,but when he came OUT he sure was.

and to shorten this story,sayyid was the first founder of the muslim brotherhood,whose later incarnation broke off to form?

can you guess?
i bet you can!
al qeade

@Fairbs ,@newtboy and @Asmo have all laid out points why radicalization happens,and the conditions that can enflame and amplify that radicalization.

so i wont repeat what they have already said.

but let us take dearborn michigan as an example.
the largest muslim community in america.
how many terrorists come from dearborn?
how many radicals reside there?
how many mosque preach intolerance and "death to america"?
how many imams quietly sanction fatwas from the local IHOP against american imperialistic pigs?

none.

becuase if you live in stable community,with a functioning government,and you are able to find work and support your family,and your kids can get an education.

the chances of you become radicalized is pretty much:zippo.

the specific religion has NOTHING to do with terrorism.
religion is simply the means in which the justifications to enact violent atrocities is born.

it's the politics stupid.

you could do a thought experiment and flip the religions around,but keep the same political parameters and do you know WHAT we find?

that the terrorists would be CHRISTIAN terrorists.

or do i really need to go all the way back to the fucking dark ages to make my point?

it's
the
politics
stupid.

I feel like this leads directly into the Kids in Hall sketch about businessmen being akin to lost puppies that can be adopted and then returned to the wild businessman world, to be back with their own kind doing businessman things like exchanging business cards:

https://youtu.be/TvFhoqN597k

I found one thing extremely interesting in *2* separate interviews with Assange when he was asked whether or not there was any Russian involvement -- including the one with Hannity shown early in the video here:

Hannity: Did Russia give you this information? Or anyone associated with Russia?
Assange: Our source is not a state party.

Very close to verbatim that exchange appeared in a print interview a week or two ago. The resulting headlines: "Assange denies Russian Involvement in the Leaks", etc.

But look at that answer. It is very carefully worded, but it doesn't directly answer the question. "Our source is not a state party" doesn't rule out that the source is Russian. It sort of rules out a source with known associations with the government (of Russia or anywhere else), but it could be an independent / private individual at face value that got the information from state parties.

I find it odd that nobody (as far as I've seen) has brought up that carefully worded answer, when it stuck out like a sore thumb to me the first time I saw it in print.


That being said, I 100% agree with Greenwald when he suggests that accusations are not proof. And the CIA and other agencies have a massive track record of shady dealings done in the name of "national security", as defined by whoever is in charge. Taking them at their word seems pretty hopelessly naive at this point.


But beyond all of that, I honestly don't care who did the hacking and what their motivations were. The government seems happy to record and analyze everything we say and do, and to claim that people like Edward Snowden are traitors for simply telling us about it. Well, get used to some of your own goddamn medicine. If you are running for public office, you should expect that your rights to privacy are going to be challenged much more strongly than those of Joe Average. You're a person of interest -- for pretty legitimate reasons.

Assume that absolutely everything you've ever said on the record (and lots OFF the record) is going to be gone over with a fine-toothed comb. If you've got any skeletons in your closet, expect that there is a good chance they will get exposed. And probably at the worst possible time.

What should both parties take away from this? Gee, it might be a good idea to choose candidates that can stand up to at least a basic level of scrutiny. Backing slimy weasels that look great and charismatic after a quick once-over might come back to bite you in the ass.

I suspect it'll be Obamacare without statelines, as the Kushner's (aka Ivanka) own Oscar Health, which is an ACA-exchange based company that would greatly benefit from such a policy.

Okay, folks. History is converging here through six degrees of separation.

Long story. I think it is worth your time.

I grew up with a father who said terribly racist things, the n- word, disparaging remarks about all races. There was much screaming and bitter words from me for a lot of my childhood and well into my 20s.

After he died, I got into a short email exchange with someone I didn't know at all. A former co-worker of my father.

My dad's job, as I have said here before, was Range Safety Officer. His job was to blow up missiles that went off course. (No person has blown up more missiles, and no one will ever catch up to him, since they know how to do it now.)

In my email exchanges with "Teddy", I find out slowly that Teddy is a woman. The first woman in the Range Safety Flight arena. She tells me that she was treated horribly in those early days. Except for three of her co-workers, who mentored and helped her.

One of those men was my father.

Oh.

And then she reveals that she is Hispanic.

Dang.

So my dad talked nasty at home, and acted MORE THAN honorably at work. I wish I had known that when he was alive.

Then she tells me that her daughter became an engineer also, and is currently working in Range Safety.

Wow.

Fast forward to last week. I watch Hidden Figures, the movie about black women helping in the first manned space launches. They were in Langley VA, while my dad was stationed in Cape Canaveral, not NASA but the Air Force, working on unmanned missions. But still. It all came flooding back to me -- how my dad was one of the good guys. (It was also cool to see all the actual news footage of people on the beach and parades and what-all -- I was there with my family, doing those things.)

This reminded me of Teddy. I sent her an email, telling her that I was reminded of her story and how touched anew I was.

Then the Falcon 9 launch happened. This launch on this video.

The next day, I got a response from her. Here is her email to me, lightly edited:

Thank you so much for thinking of me. The 60's were a time quite different than today. This morning It came to me just how far we women have come since then.

I stood on the balcony of my house and watched the launch of a Falcon Rocket take off in all its glory from Vandenberg knowing my daughter was the Lead Flight Safety Analyst on that mission. For the last couple of months I have listened to her tell me about all the problems she has had to deal with in preparing all the destruct lines, impact limit lines and all the other things that go into getting the mission package ready for launch and knowing what she was talking about. Boy, was I jealous. I really miss being in the middle of all that. I was/am very PROUD of my little girl being part of the missions leaving out of Vandenberg and knowing I played a small part in making all that happen just like those ladies in Hidden Figures. I have not seen the movie yet but my friends and I are looking forward to it coming to Lompoc so I can see it

Your Dad would be surprised to learn that most of the new Flight Safety Analysts are now all women.

I truly can't understand why the next reporter asked her question after that exchange between Trump and the CNN correspondent. If someone treated a peer of mine like that, I would take it as a personal insult.

It reminds me of the pink shoes I got from work's gift exchange a few years ago.

and what angle would that be?
YOU said mike ward was "rightly sued" for basically calling a kid ugly,and i asked for you to explain how this is a legal matter.

or is it your contention that because mike ward "punched down" instead of "punching up" IS the legal precedent?

what if he spoke on how ugly patton oswald is?
or ridiculed michael j fox's parkinsons?

would THAT be acceptable?
or would that be acceptable,but just in poor taste?

and you still haven't addressed how this young boys reputation has been ruined.from what i have been reading it was not his reputation,but how mike wards joke had become semi-popular and the kids in his school started busting this young boys balls to a degree where school was becoming an anxiety riddled event for the young man.

why aren't his school mates also being fined?
i mean,if we are going to bring in the state to handle every and all social issues..let us at least be fair.

and what about the people in the audiences that found the joke funny?
aren't they contributing to the continuation of this young mans suffering in school?

see,i think you are viewing this as a bullying situation (my assumption),and you are viewing this young man as a victim.a victim to bad jokes done in poor taste,and maybe you are correct,but jokes are subjective..NOT objective..and there is no tangible evidence that this young mans reputation has been affected.

it is the INTENT of the joke that should be scrutinized,and that is something that is also subjective and an issue we all deal with on an individual basis.the legal system should NEVER be used to decide such arbitrary and subjective material,because now you setting precedent and punishment based on "feelings",and this tactic can be easily abused.

so you may "feel" mike wards jokes are offensive and damaging,and that in your country mike ward should be executed for his crimes (fascist much?).

but remember...that pandoras box door swings BOTH ways,and the abuse can come from a direction that you,and i for that matter,would be appalled in its application.

and to even suggest that this is not a free speech issue is incredibly naive'.
if you think being charged in a civil case,and having to show in court multiple times to defend "joke" with the possibility of even MORE financial hardship,will not affect how a comedian approaches his routine and the jokes he writes,you are simply NOT thinking this whole situation through and the unintended consequences of situations such as these.

this is most certainly a free speech issue.

let me give you a hypothetical,but using the same parameters.

the wesboro baptist church goes to protest an abortion clinic,and are met with counter protesters.

the counter protesters begin to chastise and berate the westboro people.ridicule their stance on abortion and their religion.so much so that one of the younger westboro children becomes distraught,and anxious and begins to cry.someone films the exchange and posts to youtube,and it goes viral.

now the young westboro kid is being harassed in school,being picked on and being called names.the young kid is so vexed and humiliated that he avoids school at every step and is having self esteem issues.

so much so that the westboro church decides to sue the counter protesters in court.

what do you think the outcome should be?
should they even be allowed to sue?
and if so,should the young westboro kid receive damages?
or should those counter protesters receive the death penalty in your country?

do you see what i am saying?
you getting what i am laying down?

because free speech means that you are free to express yourself,but you are NOT free from offense,and offense is subjective.what offends YOU might not offend ME,and vice versa.

free speech means you are free to express every little thought that pops into your pretty little head and share with the world,and i am free to ridicule you relentlessly if i so choose.

and i will.
with gusto.

re: Internet/totalitarianism/control of information, every single government tries to control information, the media, public opinion, and uses the internet as a tool for that goal (just like tv, radio, print, etc). The internet/access to information in and of itself does not guarantee greater accuracy/truth of that information, and unless the population is educated, respectful, and capable of critical thinking it can easily become little bubbles of echo chambers and a playground for griefers. What good did widespread internet availability do for the last US election? has the internet made americans more free, or more easily monitored and controlled? what good is it for cuba for cubans to have access to world of warcraft, so they can neglect their children who starve to death while they grind up to the next level? has the internet prevented mainstream media from fabricating news / pushing their agendas, or has it given more people a platform for fabricating news, anonymously? yeah, im not saying the internet is all bad, of course there are other very useful applications for it, but its not a magic "improve society" wand.

final thing i want to say, I have several friends who studied in cuba as exchange students in the late 90s, early 00s and yes, they had to make treks to specific places for access but they were able to send emails and such, so this piece is not factually accurate. If the cuban govt was so dead set on stopping people from communicating, im pretty sure they would identify network cables hanging in the middle of the street and easily follow them back to your apartment, not to mention detect wifi networks setup all over their tiny island.

I think her argument is incredibly flawed.
It misses out the crucial aspect of training. An umbrella needs no instruction to function inside the parameters it's designed for. It's comes ready for use. Babies, however, require a lot of resources and training to perform even somewhat satisfactory. The amount of time you need to invest to train tricks, like walking and not-pooping-the-pants successfully, greatly outweights the demanded time period to acustomise yourself with the functions and limitations of a new umbrella. To even learn the boundaries of what babies are capable of leads quite often to a frustrating process of trial and error that can render your baby unusable. Which leads of to the next issue.
To procure an umbrella you have varying retail options, including online distribution, as well as exchange of services or goods among acquaintances. For some unfathomable reason, these options are frowned upon by a political correctness obsessed society in regards to babies. The only viable option that won't cause offense among your peers is manufacturing one yoursef. Imagine what our economy would look like if we handeled all goods this way. It's preposterous!
So you are stuck with whatever baby you can produce on your own, relying on unskilled labor in most cases. Not only do you have to go through the time consuming and strenuous acts of sexual activity, which we all now can lead to severe cases of depression and anxiety, there is a unreasonable waiting time included as well. Imagine you had to wait 9 months for every Amazon delivery. This is just customer harassment.
Loosing an umbrella is not worse than losing a baby but it's not because of reasons that cannot be fixed. If we as a society would work together and openly oppose the unfair unequality in treatment of babies and umbrellas, our lives could be improved in unpredecented ways. But we don't. We are all to blame for this.

With Clinton there will be more elections in four years.

With Trump, that's by no means a guarantee.

If you live in a swing state, do a vote swap with someone who lives in a 'safe' red or blue state. There are vote exchanges online it's easy and free, and the best part is, you don't have to kick yourself for four years (or longer) knowing that your thrown-away vote helped put Trump in charge.

Ohhhh, so you just reassert your point about Democrats never backing down, but Republicans do without any factual basis whatsoever! What a novel losing debate strategy!

Obamacare isn't perfect and needs to be fixed or replaced with something better. Not the Trumpian "something great" if it should be replaced, but something that is well thought out and addresses what Obamacare couldn't accomplish if the entire premise is systemically not going to work.

Did you see what I did there? I *gasp* recognize that sometimes things don't work! OMG! IT'S AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I also didn't say it's a "fucking disaster", because it isn't. If it were that, explain how the uninsured rate has dropped very significantly. It was never going to achieve 100% insurance rate. The only way that happens is with single payer.

Here's how stupid you are. You don't seem to understand that if Obamacare isn't the answer, you're just making single payer universal health care more likely to be enacted. The American people are not going to go back to being denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. They're just not gonna. Obamacare is the least left policy you could possibly enact that would help control costs and decrease the number of people who are uninsured.

You can scream to the top of your lungs, but Obamacare was enacted to remedy real problems. I'm even sympathetic to the argument that those were real problems, but Obamacare isn't the answer, but if you're going to make that argument, you have to propose something that has historical precedent and rationale to solve those problems. And you simply don't have one.

So again, keep struggling in the quicksand until it swallows you whole, and single payer is enacted.

Your evidence about health insurance premiums is anecdotal, and quite frankly, you don't seem to understand that your numbers and description of what happened to her is absolutely ridiculous. You don't get on medicaid because your insurance premiums go up under Obamacare. You qualify for Medicaid because of a lack of income.

Secondly, the claim is absolutely ridiculous that her premiums went up that much. For data we have available, *unsubsidized* premiums for the lowest cost silver plans for data we have in the Obamacare exchanges was $257 a month for a single person.

http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/analysis-of-2017-premium-changes-and-insurer-participation-in-the-affordable-care-acts-health-insurance-marke
tplaces/

If she qualifies for Medicaid, then surely she could go on a silver plan in the Obamacare exchanges and come out likely paying less. Oh, and, on top of that, she would EASILY qualify for federal subsidies if she qualified for medicaid.

Oh, and btw, without Obamacare, if health care companies decided to raise those premiums just to price gouge, what protection would she have? Not much. Obamacare insures that you can only take in so much that isn't spent on health care.

Your story is completely utterly full of crap on so many levels, it's clear you made it up.

I'm dismissing all your numbers are being unsubstantiated bullshit. Have premiums gone up? Sure have. Were they going up before Obamacare? Yep! There's a healthy debate about how much Obamacare is contributing to premium increases. Obamacare isn't perfect. I'm happy to discuss rationally what could be done to improve Obamacare, or another plausible alternative. But not with you, since you pull numbers out of your ass that easily are completely debunked.

BTW, FYI, Obamacare was not intended to lower premiums nor to completely eliminate the number of uninsured. It was to control costs in all forms and reduce the amount of uninsured, as well as reform the health care system to eliminate problems like being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, people having to declare bankruptcy due to medical bills, etc.

Some of its goals it succeeded in, and some not so much. That's a fair assessment at this point. Medical related bankruptcies have not declined. Being denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition has been eliminated. Premiums have gone up, but we simply don't have enough data to determine if they've slowed or accelerated since Obamacare was implemented. If you go by the immediate years after Obamacare was fully implemented, they slowed.

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/Adler_Exhibit1.png

More recently, they've accelerated. It's important to note that health care costs are not solely determined by premiums alone. It's interesting you cherry picked premiums only to prove costs haven't been controlled because premiums are your best case to make that point. Copays, coinsurance, deductibles, prescription drugs, all those play a role. IE, if the average American pays more in premiums but less everywhere else, it's possible the net average is lower for total costs paid for health care.

These are complex topics that have no room for bringing in rose colored ideologically tinted lenses to force the outcome to be "a fucking disaster", where you'll bring in anecdotal evidence, some of which is completely utterly made up.

Just how far are you willing to make stuff up? Hillary Clinton, according to you, has never in the last 40 years done anything substantially positive.

REALLY?! Look, I understand not necessarily wanting her to be President. OK, fine. But that claim is absolutely ridiculous. Over $2 billion has been raised by the Clinton Foundation, and over 90% of that has gone to charitable work according to independent studies. Before you go down the path of "paid access", blah blah blah, even if that were true, the reality is $1.8 billion went to charitable works around the world through the Clinton Foundation Hillary Clinton helped to create and run.

That's not substantial?!?!

Dude, just stop. The only people who believe that BS are people within your bubble. You're not convincing anyone else who didn't already think Hillary Clinton personally killed Vince Foster. You're just making people like me think you're a complete loon.

Shit I'm fine. Older, but fine. I'm going to be fucking 50 next January, if you can believe that shit. And my son graduates from high school next year too. Hell, you must be settling into your mid 30s, I estimate. Getting pumped for that mid-life crisis? Good times, let me tell ya. You still with Gen (or is it Jen)? Or are you out grabbing chicks by their pussies? I hear that's a thing these days. I've had a few brief relationships in the last several years, but I'm single now, and I don't see myself ever marrying again. Relationships are too much work for me anymore, and I really don't want to change my lifestyle to accommodate someone else. Pretty selfish sentiment, I know, but why should I sacrifice watching cartoons all evening in exchange for semi-regular sex? That's why God invented masturbation, my friend.

Well, that's basically it. What's up with you?

Um no. The body has no problems combining ingredients, and storing certain essential ingredients for several months until the appropriate catalyst is introduced into the body. The real problem with most of these cures is that they ignore the basic principle of equivalent exchange. For every change you want to make in the body, you have to offer something of equal intrinsic value, or you'll suffer nasty rebound. And that's a good way to lose an arm and a leg.

And perhaps more unexpectedly: “Starbucks is a place where these types frequent and a lot of body fluids are exchanged there. But the thing that I was not aware of is that there has been information that has been released… what Starbucks was doing, is they were taking specimens of male semen, and they were putting it in the blends of their lattes. Now, this is the absolute truth.”