This isn’t Afghanistan. Your infantile puritanical sexual hang ups aren’t law. I’ll say it again, if you want Shariah law, move to Afghanistan.

I read more risqué literature in 6th grade….granted my school had us reading at college level by then. What I know is that people who can’t handle this by high school are the ones with the problem. Southpark goes WAY farther, REN and Stimpy, on Nickelodeon, went WAY farther, Family Guy on Fox goes WAY farther. Not to mention the internet giving access to hard core German porn to any 7 year old means frank discussions about sex need to happen before they ever log on. If this mention of sex gets you in a tizzy, you are woefully unprepared for life in America.

Most high school kids are engaging in sex acts like those described…but you’re upset they might read about them? So delusional, bob.

Since you’ve never passed even a grade school creative writing class, you have no idea what is appropriate. In a high school college prep class, this is totally tame stuff.

You know it, everyone knows it except puritanical deviants who hate sex and incels who are afraid of sex or pissed at those who get to enjoy it.

I know a fair number of smart people who have bad skills in epistemology, who have very odd anti-tax beliefs.

But whose IQ in their area of expertise is high. Some, not too oddly, are frankly on the spectrum.

Others have been quite successful and intelligent in a narrow area and then--sort of ail outside it. A bit, I suppose, like a lot of us. Only on this matter, it matters.

The only silver lining in this whole goddamn debacle. With any luck they'll immediately become a permanent minority party at the federal level, and at the state level within a few years. Frankly that needs to happen (ideally via voter abandonment of the party, rather than through viral attrition), as the anti-science assclown brigade has made it clear they'll be no help with climate change. It'll be the same fucking pack of lies and denial of obvious objective reality, except with more flooding, fire, extreme winds, and with much less food. It's going to be a clusterfuck of horrific consequences, within a few decades. Unless the anti-sciencers get the reins of power stripped away.

These boys neither chose the age of conscription nor to go to war. Given their age and the time in the war, they would have been forcably made to fight. If you had the misfortune to be born then and there, thier fate could be yours.

Being in the German army did not imply being a Nazi, the majority of the German population were victims as well, pointlessly lead to slaughter by monsters.

Those of them that would have survived the fighting ended up here. They didn't feed them. They worked until they died. They expected them to die. They wanted them to die.

The Geneva Conventions were signed in 1929 making this an official war crime if that's important to you. I'd say the law does not define ethics, and I'd be happy to say this is wrong regardless of the treaty.

As for alternatives for mine clearance. I'm not a military expert, but I believe there are techniques, equipment, tools or vehicles that can be used to reduce the risk to operators. Frankly it's besides the point. Just because someone cannot think of a solution they prefer over running a death camp, does not mean they are not free to do so.

If you have the time, I'd recommend watching the film. It's excellent. And as with most things, particularly in times of war, it's complicated.

My dad has this attachment to 50s rock and roll and he rightly believes everything in pop music was invented in the 50s and possibly the 60s.

I remember most of these songs (the british ones) coming out and me being fascinated by what could be done differently to what was then the mainstream. However pop quickly devolved through the 80s and I found myself meandering back in time, from late to early Talking Heads, from late to early Genesis and Floyd and Yes and Jethro Tull and Mike Oldfield and Fleetwood Mac, discovering the Beatles and the Beach Boys were actually good at some point, finding out Frank Zappa was a thing and discovering that yes, the guy who made late 20th century pop music up in his garage, with his searches for new sounds and writing his own music and lyrics was indeed one Buddy Holly in the 50s.

Anyway I found myself listening to a rather childish track by Basement Jaxx years later and could not quite put my finger on what made that one track work for me. All these bands that only have one really good track... Anyway what was going on was a Gary Numan sample.

So I went back and listened to some of this old stuff and I was really surpised that some of it still works.

But back in 1980 if you heard Numan, early Midge Ure Ultravox minus the ubiquitous title track of the album, Visage, or a couple of years later the Eurythmics you would hear a sound that was strikingly new and different.

Thinking back Peter Gabriels 3rd solo album (although itself very electronic) took me out of the electronic pop bandcamp and more into alternative rock. That and lucking into a friend who had an older brother who had all the old Genesis records also as sheet music including lyrics. That or David Byrne.

The main point is the music you like is the music you liked when you were 13.

Sadly, this was in my hometown and quite frankly I'm not surprised.

Shut up about the money already. TLDR frankly. Having kids is the biggest investment and responsibility a pair makes. Promising to help take care of them is about the only reason marriage is really useful. Besides some legal technicalities like access to medical information in a crisis, taxes etc. Obviously every time you start only thinking about the money the relationship will go downhill fast.

Two solutions: a) have a business agreement instead of a marriage, or b) stop bitching about the money.

incite
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incite

in·​cite | \ in-ˈsīt

transitive verb
: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on
---------------------------------------------------

INCITE
https://dictionary.thelaw.com/incite/

To arouse; stir up; instigate; set in motion; as, to “incite” a riot Also, generally, in criminal law to instigate, persuade, or move another to commit a crime; in this sense nearly synonymous with “abet” See Long v. State, 23 Neb. 33, 36 N. W. 310.

Related Legal Terms & Definitions
ABET Criminal Law; to aid, help or encourage someone else to commit a crime. Commonly referred…
ENCOURAGE In criminal law. To instigate ; to incite to action; to give courage to
---------------------------------------------------


18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
---------------------------------------------------



So, the morning of...
Did he arouse the crowd?
Stir them up?
Help instigate or set in motion?

Did he encourage the crowd?
see: ENCOURAGE In criminal law. To instigate ; to incite
---------------------------------------------------

"these people are not going to take it any longer. They’re not going to take it any longer.
"We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen.
"Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal.
"we want to get this right because we’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed, and we’re not going to stand for that.
"Our media is not free. It’s not fair. It suppresses thought. It suppresses speech, and it’s become the enemy of the people. It’s become the enemy of the people.
"We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.
"Today, we see a very important event though, because right over there, right there, we see the event going to take place. And I’m going to be watching, because history is going to be made.
"You will have an illegitimate president, that’s what you’ll have. And we can’t let that happen.
"we got to get rid of the weak congresspeople, the ones that aren’t any good, the Liz Cheneys of the world, we got to get rid of them. We got to get rid of them.
"The Republicans have to get tougher. You’re not going to have a Republican party if you don’t get tougher.
"We must stop the steal and then we must ensure that such outrageous election fraud never happens again,
"They want to come in again and rip off our country. Can’t let it happen.
"we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.
"So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue,...The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. (ellipses = he loves PA Ave.)

-----------------------------------------

Some people might call that speech one that AROUSED the crowd, especially all the ask and response.
Some people might say Trump STIRRED UP the crowd
Some people might say he HELPED INSTIGATE the crowd
Some people might say he ENCOURAGED the crowd

-----------------------------------------

ooooooooooooooooooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkaaaayyyyyyy
whatever u say mah man, clearly you and yours have it all figured out. * eyeroll *


>>>>>>BUT WAIT!!! THERE'S MORE!<<<<<<

Twitter:

One might be tempted to say "Well he said all this shit in the morning, that's not when all this happened." True, but around 1:55 pm ALMOST IMMEDIATELY after he tweets this :

( just a link to the video of his speech again, so 2x the quotes up there )

Donald J. Trump

@realdonaldtrump

h t t p s : // t .co/izItBeFE6G

Jan 6th 2021 - 1:49:54 PM EST·Twitter for iPhone (1 49 and 54 seconds to be precise)



Here's the ALMOST IMMEDIATELY part (1:49:54 - 1:55) (almost exactly 5 minutes after his tweet)

1:55 p.m. The U.S. Capitol Police are evacuating some congressional office buildings due to “police activity” as thousands gather outside the Capitol to protest the electoral vote. Police told congressional staff members they should evacuate the Cannon House Office Building and the building that houses the Library of Congress. It wasn’t immediately clear what specifically sparked the evacuation. A police spokeswoman did not immediately respond to calls and emails seeking comment. Thousands of people have descended on the U.S. Capitol as Congress is expected to vote to affirm Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential win. Videos posted online showed protesters fighting with U.S. Capitol Police officers as police fired pepper spray to keep them back.

Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.



>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<

>>>>> Do these words have no meaning to you? <<<<<
I know what encourage means. I know what stirred up means. I know what helped instigate means. I know what aroused means; when those phrases refer to a crowd.


And that's what is here.





Don't expect any more from me on this topic. Frankly I'm at a point where i don't care if you understand or not because it's right in front of you, clear as crystal.

People do not use specific words for no-reason.

I was expecting White Christmas, frankly.

I've never seen #14 (the claw marks in the gas chamber), but it should be required viewing for every human on the face of the earth.
#43 (Anne Frank) is incorrect: a photo of her leaning out of the window of what became known as The Anne Frank House was taken shortly before she and her family were arrested and killed.
#48 (Hirsoshima): the actual amount of Plutonium that achieved pure fission was smaller than a grain of rice.
#54 (Spam): Well, there goes any illusion that this was anything but click-bait.

No, no bets, thank you. I thought this was a shining example of why Trump being president should bother people. He really is stupid and obnoxious and uneducated to that level.

I have a vague memory of 2016 Trump boasting that he could be very "presidential", was very clever, and had "the best words". What has that come to? This video basically.

Frankly at that time I was still convinced Obama was a puppet - a black intellectual fullfilling the role that a party needed fulfilled, a token black president. Retrospectively he was (is) a very intelligent, eloquent person excercising extreme self-control in the face of trolls like Bob. He was constantly walking a tightrope of trying to rebuff idiots without insulting them. And tried to promote some reasonable policies.

Trump could not summon the effort to self control, but mainly he does not understand why he should restrain himself. He is like a travesty show performer, as long as he is billed in this performance as "president" he can do anything, no matter how stupid, and there will be people cheering.

What intrigues me is that in the US tradition past presidents are given a "respected" status for life. Should be fun.

Works with most hot liquids with powders, I think I first noticed it in a mug of instant hot cider......

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_chocolate_effect

The hot chocolate effect, also known as the allassonic effect, is a phenomenon of wave mechanics first documented in 1982 by Frank Crawford, where the pitch heard from tapping a cup of hot liquid rises after the addition of a soluble powder. It was first observed in the making of hot chocolate or instant coffee, but also occurs in other situations such as adding salt to supersaturated hot water or cold beer. Recent research has found many more substances which create the effect, even in initially non-supersaturated liquids.
It can be observed by pouring hot milk into a mug, stirring in chocolate powder, and tapping the bottom of the mug with a spoon while the milk is still in motion. The pitch of the taps will increase progressively with no relation to the speed or force of tapping. Subsequent stirring of the same solution (without adding more chocolate powder) will gradually decrease the pitch again, followed by another increase. This process can be repeated a number of times, until equilibrium has been reached. Upon initial stirring, entrained gas bubbles reduce the speed of sound in the liquid, lowering the frequency. As the bubbles clear, sound travels faster in the liquid and the frequency increases

Lets be frank.
Lyndsey Graham is a POS. He a political tool and goes with political wind.

The nicest thing I can say about him is that I hope he joins his friend ( also a POS) John McCain .


WRT of supreme court nomination. My first thought was no, not till after election. Then Democrats ranted and screamed that would pack the court and a few other things.

POTUS job is to nominate, as did Obama. Dems did not control the senate. Mitch McConnell was / is the Senate Majority Leader. It is his decision to or not to advise and consent.

AS to now the court will be conservative if Trumps pick goes through, that implies that it was had a liberal slant.

Sounds like liberals don't want that to happen

This is America it swings to the left for a while then to the right.

Woo boy, this is a doozy! The fact of the matter is a video comment section is not the place to have this conversation. There's too much to discuss, too many questions from one another that are best asked soon after they're conceived, etc. I frankly just don't have the time to respond to everything you said. Don't take this as acquiescence; if you'd like to have a Zoom chat some time, I'd be down.

In any event, I'll respond to what I find either the most important or at least most interesting:

Having theories is definitely the best way to go about most of the things you consider fact (for the moment), but the fact of the matter (no pun intended) is that at some point you'll need to use some of those claims as fact/belief in order to take action. And it's just human nature to, if one believes in a claim for long enough, it becomes fact, despite all your suggestions of objectivity. It's easy to say you're a scientist through and through, but if you're really someone who doesn't believe anything and merely theorize things, I think you'd be a sad human being. But that's a claim that I leave up to the scientists.

> Yes, and I eat animals because they're delicious.

You think that's a defensible moral claim? I find that disgraceful. If you truly think your own pleasure is worth sentient beings' lives then... I don't know what to say to you. That strikes me as callous and unempathetic, 2 traits you often assert as shameful. This is my point. You sound pretty obstinate to at least a reasonable claim. To respond with just "they're tasty". You don't sound reasonable to me.

> You may be correct, but eating meat is hardly the worst thing humans are up to.

Aw, come on @newtboy, I thought better of you than to give me a logical fallacy. The fact that you're resorting to logical fallacies wwould indicate to me that either you're confronting some cognitive dissonance, otherwise why would you stoop to such a weak statement?

> I gladly discuss vegetarianism with honest people, but I'm prepared when they start spouting bullshit like " eating any red meat is more harmful than smoking two packs a day of filterless cigarettes" ...

There is a lot of scientific research (not funded by Big ___) that is currently spouting this "bullshit". What happened to your receptive, scientific, theory-based lifestyle? It's true nutrition science is a fucking smog-filled night mare considering how much money is at stake, but I find it telling that a lot of the corporations are using the same ad men from Big Cigarette to stir up constant doubt.

Again, I find it peculiar that you are highly suspicious of big corporations... except when it comes to something that you want to be true.

Again, this is my point. Take a moment, take a few breaths, and look inside. Can you notice that you're acting in the exact same fashion as the people you purport to be obscenely stubborn?

Check out NutritionFacts if you want to see any of the science. Actual science. I would hope that it would give you at least somedoubt and curiosity.

That's a true scientist's homeostatic state: curiosity. Are you curious to investigate the dozens (hundreds?) of papers with a truly non-confirmation-biased mind? How much of a scientist are you?

> I've never met a vegan that wasn't a bold faced liar in support of veganism, so I'm less likely to give them a full chance at convincing me.

This, for me, raises all sorts of red flags. That's quite a sweeping claim.

> Again, that would be long held theories in my case, and it's not hard to change them. Mad cow disease got me to change until I was certain it wasn't in America. No, I'm not recoiling. I'll listen to anyone who's respectful and honest.

So, you're willing to make decisions based on self-interest and not morality? Well, duh. Everyone does that. It doesn't sound like you had a self-reflective moment. It sounds like you merely had a self-interested decision based on the risk to your own health.

And finally, all your talk about Bob -- of course he acts, consistently, like a twat. I just don't like feeding trolls. I don't think there's anyone on Videosift who's on the precipice and would be pushed over into the Alt-right Pit by Bob's ridiculous nonsense.

> Edit: in general I agree that dispassionate fact based replies with references are better at convincing people than derision, there are exceptions, and there are those who are unconvinceable and disinterested in facts that don't support their lies.

Ironically, I think science has disproved this. Facts don't change minds in situations like this. There are lots of articles on this. I didn't have the wherewithal to dig into their citations, but I leave that (non-confirmation-biased) adventure for you. [1]

---

I knew I wouldn't make this short, but I think it's shorter than it could have been.

Lastly, I'm with @BSR; I do appreciate your perseverance. Not everyone has as much as you seem to have! Whenever I see Bob... doing his thing, I can always be assured you'll take most of the words from my mouth. [2]

[1]
Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds | The New Yorker
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

This Article Won’t Change Your Mind - The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/519093/

Why People Ignore Facts | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/words-matter/201810/why-people-ignore-facts

Why Many People Stubbornly Refuse to Change Their Minds | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/think-well/201812/why-many-people-stubbornly-refuse-change-their-minds

Why Facts Don't Always Change Minds | Hidden Brain : NPR
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/743195213

[2] This comment has not been edited nor checked for spelling and grammatical errors. Haven't you got enough from me?