@newtboy
i like the 'failing liver" analogy.
appropriate and easily understood.

and i can understand where milkmandan is coming from,but my perspective is more aligned with yours newt.

what consistently baffles me,is how so many people are willing to simply accept this short term strategy from our politicians.

there is no surprise when corporations push for this,they are just focusing on their own interests and bottom line,which is short term profit.

or the politicians who bow to their neoliberal masters to receive those tasty campaign contributions.

or even the banks,who again focus on their short term gains.

these players are all behaving as they always have:for their own self interest.so there should be no shock or surprise when they act exactly as they have always acted.

but when i see everyday,normal people defend the behavior and actions of oliticians,financial institutions and multi-national corporations.it baffles me as to why they would choose to do such a thing.

we can understand why those players seek to retain a system which benefits them,their shareholders and their bottom line,but that system no longer serves the interests of the people,community and society as a whole.

so why make arguments defending it?

it is,quite frankly,killing us slowly as a species.

look at germany.
that country has slowly been recruiting,educating and now poised to corner the market in:new energy,renewable energy and are leading the world in breakthrough technologies in all energy fields.

germany has long played the long game.
they now dominate the entire EU in finance,and are now focusing on dominating the globe with new energy technology.

and what are we doing here in america?
pushing through more and more neoliberal policies that immiserate the working poor,both here and abroad.desperately continuing our destruction of entire ecosystems to exploit our natural resources for:oil and gas.military conflicts,which only make this country less safe,all to exploit other nations and extract THEIR oil and gas,and the cost in human lives is absolutely indefensible.

all of it.
every single bit of it for short term gains for an extremely small minority.

and here we are,with trump opening the flood gates to further exploit and destroy our natural resources with no thought or plan for the future.no investment in our communities,nor our society as a whole.

and for those who wish to make an argument that hillary would be better.i will only concede that on a domestic level this may have been true,but hillary is a neoliberal corporatist,and she would have pushed for even MORE military intervention in the middle east.MORE sanctions against countries unwilling to play ball,in order to politically squeeze them out,and even MORE of this countries policy of "regime change" to exploit and extract from those countries their precious resources.

i strongly suspect Iran would have been next on her agenda.

so when are some of these people going to step up,and realize that both trump AND clinton are (or would have been) disasterous for us as a community,a nation and as a species?

because they both only offer short term solutions to long term problems.and those short term solutions only benefit a minority of the population.

we could turn this ship around TODAY,right now,if we so choose.
we need more politicians like elizabeth warren and tulsi gabbard.we need more integrity in our media and journalists willing to do their job and criticize power,not bow to it just for access.we need the people to become engaged and confront their representatives,and make them uncomfortable,not treat them as celebrities.

and we need to reject the system where rich people choose who we get to vote for,and begin to dismantle this two party duopoly.

because trump vs hillary?
this election cycle has just revealed that both these candidates are not the disease,but rather the symptom of a very broken,and dysfunctional political system.

we need to begin to invest in the future.
and reject the status quo as no longer being viable for the continued existence of the human species.

and with the newly energized american public,who are growing in numbers daily,and is a direct response to the unmitigated disaster that is trump.there may be hope for us yet.

because if we stay on this trajectory,we are fucking doomed.

Sure, Javascript can do some great and beneficial things. But along with that comes a massive amount of grey-area stuff like tracking, loading content from "CDNs", etc. And then there's plenty of utterly indefensible crap like XSS attacks, intrusive advertising and malware, etc.

To me, the bad apples spoil the bunch. At least to the extent that I want to be careful to the point of paranoia about what I allow in -- I'm rigorously inspecting every goddamn apple. Admittedly, if you stay on legit and mainstream sites, the chances of stumbling on one of the bad apples are very low. But you're still subject to a hell of a lot more of the grey-area stuff that way.

To me, my scorched-earth approach is worth it both for preventing really nasty stuff AND the grey-area stuff that is getting more invasive all the time.

-..."they" in that sentence is the Catholics and Protestants.....it's your topic. In a general sense, it applies to most religions as individual groups, and the more dogmatic the followers are, the less tolerant of any dissent they become.

I can read. It's in the bible, and never contradicted or eradicated from the religious 'law'...so it's not what I define their beliefs to be, it's what the bible defines their beliefs to be, and if they don't follow it, what in the hell are they 'believing'?

I think you won't provide evidence because you can't. Someone's misinterpretation of the clear instructions, that let you off the hook for following them, means nothing when you have the clear text to read.

Only one hefty book matters in this instance, and it's undeniably clear. If you don't murder infidels, you don't follow the bible's teachings and so must deny it's God's law....making it nothing but a terrible book of fairy tales.

Edit: I think there's a disconnect about disrespect here. Atheists may not respect your beliefs with lip service and placations, but most religions require the complete eradication of differing beliefs. Atheists absolutely respect your right to believe any nonsense you want to, even if we may try to convince you why you're wrong. Religions invariably do not exhibit that base level of respect, how can you possibly claim they are more respectful?
Could it be that atheists are more respectful, enough to engage the 'other', so SEEM more disrespectful because they're up front and honest about their disrespect for beliefs, while religious people might smile but rarely actually engage in discussion/debate for fear of actually having to defend their indefensible beliefs, so just consider them a subhuman demon to be avoided as much as possible and backstabbed at every opportunity because they, let's say, think Saturday is the Sabbath?
I grew up in Texas, I have plenty of experience with 'Christian respect' for the beliefs of others (or lack thereof)....and it's nearly non existent there. I was told more than once that if I don't believe in God or Jesus my opinion didn't matter, and I wasn't welcome there, and deserved death. A few of those respectful Christians tried to beat some Jesus into me....but never one on one, and never successfully.

You have to understand Fairbs... Bob doesn't really believe that... No one really does... but your going to start hearing it more and more as people find Trump increasingly indefensible. Even people like Bob.

? What kind of attention do you mean?
The protest was likely a glimpse into his head. Explaining why they were on the streets is getting inside the heads of black men, and also explaining why one black man decided enough was enough and took indefensible actions in a misguided attempt to 'defend' his community.
If you ignore what causes these shootings in order to not give shooters attention, you guarantee more of them.
That he needed to explain why someone might feel constantly under attack by police IS the problem, the explanation is not the problem.

I'm totally with you on the need to understand the motives that drove him to this desperate and indefensible action.
I don't think trying to understand what happened is condoning it, but I do think it's a necessary step in trying to keep it from repeating.

I don't think it's a stretch to think that he had some bad encounters with police. I don't think it's a stretch to guess that he felt abused by a nation that he served in war but wouldn't stand with him (or those like him) when police abuse them. I don't think it's a stretch to believe he thought his community was under attack from the police, and that belief was reinforced daily on the news. It's only a guess, but I would guess he didn't have a great life, so didn't have much to lose in this suicide attack (he couldn't think he would survive).

I also don't think it's a stretch to believe this won't be the last time this happens if the current division between police and citizens continues to grow. One can only hope that this terroristic act will foster empathy in both directions...for, and from police, or I fear we're doomed to see an escalation of this kind of thing.

75 years, to the day, since the launch of the invasion of the Soviet Union by Germany.

What's on the front page (online) of our 2nd (?) largest newspaper?

"Baltic nations practically indefensible", according to US General. Russian military would be able to capture capitals within 36-60 hours.

~27 million Russians dead at our hands and they have the audacity to print this warmongering horseshit, on this day...

I agree with most of what he says.

Get rid of the electoral college? YES PLEASE. I was amazed that there was pretty close to zero push to scrap the system after Gore "lost" to Bush. Not even from Democrats. And it (popular vote winner not winning the electoral college) has happened FOUR times! Why wasn't there HUGE blowback in each of those instances, especially in 2000? Hell, why isn't there consistent resistance to this indefensible "system" ALL THE TIME? Instead, people periodically get reminded about it and say "wow, that's pretty fucked up ... meh".

Have primaries settled by actual VOTES instead of weird-ass caucuses / conventions / delegates / "super"delegates, etc.? Undoubtedly better than what goes on now.

Get rid of the senate? Nah. The house is good for being a reasonably-accurate division based on population, which is a good thing. But, there are some issues where regional concerns are better addressed by equal representation per state (farming, manufacturing, business, tourism, etc.). It has the unfortunate side-effect of making a "rogue" senator that does things against what their constituents want worse than in the house, but I think that is a good argument for term limits (possibly *term* limit, as in one and only one) but not scrapping the senate entirely.

Right. The point is:
She's still a shitty people for defending terrible, indefensible actions up until there was absolutely no denying it..

Like.. who the hell still "needs to reserve judgement" of a serial date-rapist with 50+ identical accusations against them..

even after it's revealed they've already admitted to drugging women in order to have sex with them?!

I'm sure that with a research team combing through everything a person has ever said, you'd easily be able to find 10 (...thousand) instances of them saying "stupid" things, or defending the indefensible. I know it would work on me.

Doesn't mean that they haven't had time to revise their opinion.

Ah Asmo, this is humorous. Not in a way that has me thinking less of you, but due to the fact that even the smartest people make the most indefensible arguments. Stewart always has a joke when Republicans (and sometimes Democrats) do the same thing Chaos just did and which you defended--which is to ignore the "implied" in a statement. Usually Republicans use hate speech or such, but they just don't say the hate literally (Often when Obama's policies were compared to Nazi Germany's policies, for example.)

I.e, "Hey, I'm not saying Obama is like Hitler, but look at the smoke stacks coming from the White House?! They look like Jew smoke to you?!"

Another, but this one in more relation to our conversation.

I.e., Hey Lawdeedaw, when you have dick in your mouth does it taste good? WOAH, I DIDN'T SAY YOU SUCK DICK! YOU IMPLIED THAT! I just asked, you know, when dick is in your mouth...

See how utterly indefensible that above statement is? Or why Stewart gets so pissed, rightly so, when people make that argument? People can hide behind the most obvious statements and it's bullshit. Or people can be ignorant of the statements you make, and it's just as bullshit.

If you can't see the sense that makes, don't respond to this post please. I don't argue with ideology that blinds people to clear points and I have agreed with my fair share of points over the years when I have been wrong...so I expect it returned in kind.

Second, you do have a point about me being judgmental. I am jaded because every marriage I observed growing up was toxic. "Dad can't divorce mom, even tho she abuses us kids." Was a wonderful house I lived in. My wife was beaten for years by her husband, until she took poverty and destitution over that, and then met me. The list goes on and on, yada yada, no more need to explain my own life history because it isn't necessarily what happens in all of America. So I look at the worst aspects of marriage. Aspects that are as universal as the fact that we eat, breathe, shit and die.

Of course I also use history and stats to back up my judgment. So; marriage is a civil contract based on liberty and property (At least the part of marriage that matters to the government insofar as the rights they give you.) If the world's population of homosexuals is around 2.5% or so, depending on the estimates, then cheating (seeking out more than one relationship at a time) is much more naturally inherent to humans than sexual orientation by far. This is also natural in regards to the homosexual relationships as well. Cheating causes so much grief, repercussions, and yet it is only one bad aspect of being tied into a contract that many societies make difficult to break either through legal means or cultural taboos. Furthermore, abuse, divorce, long-term separation for business matters, much of these things kind of lend credence to the fact that marriage is created by society and has nothing to do with the "apparent" definitions we apply to it.

And Asmo, naughty naughty Asmo, you implied something...I am in no way shape or form telling other people what "their relationship is about." Just because I say something is inconvenient for damn near everyone (For some it is not) doesn't really mean much of anything. Shoes are inconvenient because you have to tie their laces. Is that me telling you how to shoe? No. How about kids? Kids are a hell of an inconvenience, but if you said I was degrading parenthood, especially my own, I would tell you to fuck yourself with that bold-faced lie.

If you are focused on the "property" aspect of that comment, well, you have an issue with my definition of the government's hand in marriage.

That's all well and good, but the fact of the matter is, all cops uphold laws, many of which are simply unjust. For example, almost anything to do with the "war on drugs" makes criminals out of nonviolent offenders, ruining families, destroying lives. Cops also follow protocols that give them license to do what would land a civilian in jail, like shooting dogs at their discretion (the endless YouTube videos of this happening is nauseating). So, the profession itself involves doing things that, while "legal," are unethical and dangerous to the public.

Whatever good they may do -- bringing justice for victims and such -- is a separate issue from the not-so-good they do, like pursuing an immoral "war on drugs" that damages way too many innocent victims, destroys far too many lives, to be justified as "good." However good of a person someone is, the reality is that cops have a job that involves things like arresting and/or shooting people for victimless crimes.

The "accident" that happened in the situation in this article, for example (in which a police officer attempted to shoot a family's dog, but missed, thus killing a woman in front of her 4 year old child, instead) would never have happened if cops didn't have crazy protocols like shooting dogs at whim.

If any civilian had taken a shot at a neighbor's dog and killed the neighbor instead, however, no one would be dismissing it as an "accident." Why, then, should cops get a free pass on such things by simply claiming that their immoral and indefensible activity is "by the book?"

(Of course, the purpose of this comment is not to be hurtful to anyone. But to serve as a wake up call that police services in this country have been getting out of control, just like the rest of the state apparatus.)

So, because I believe, and life has proven true, that de-escalation is ALWAYS preferable to escalation, I'm naïve? HA! That's the problem with police today, they think that violent escalation is the ONLY method that works, when in reality it's a method that NEVER works best.

Funny that you were completely unable to answer the actual question, or able to give even one example that supports your position, but instead you could only offer an insult, and yet you are still indignantly sticking to your indefensible position.

Your self serving, naïve, often racist, us-vs-them mentality is disturbingly astounding....especially from an officer.

"i know you like to poke the hornets nest from time to time and it gives you the giggles.
ok..thats fair enough...
but stop defending the indefensible."

Isn't that the definition of trolling?