Then we were answering different questions.
No, I said only in Japan and Germany did it go that way.
You said I was wrong, and implied the bases in Germany weren't founded until 54, yet, as my Wiki quote said, we occupied Germany from the end of WW2 through that date, and (by many estimations) continue to 'occupy' them until today.
That means we had bases there the whole time, for the reason I stated originally.

EDIT: You hit the nail on the head, once there, we never leave, so the original reason we establish a base in a region is the real reason we have each base offshore...no matter what the excuse we SAY we KEEP them is in the future.

So you may stand uncorrected if you wish. I retract my 'standing corrected' because you were wrong, at least in what you implied (and I inferred), if not what you meant.

Language that COULD be construed as racist is not the same thing as language that IS racist.
Mocking someone's racism, but not using racist language in doing so, is not very racist IMO. If Obama said "yeah, that (N-word) Obama", it would be racist, even if it's said to mock racists, IMO.
If Duke said it, he would not be mocking or joking, but agreeing with the racist statement, that's quite racist.
Yeah, the CK thing was odd to me, and racist IMO, funny or not. Professional comedians get a 'pass' in certain situations like roasts or if they're just really funny, but it doesn't make their statements not racist, they are just accepted by most as comedy, which is NOT PC and may be intended to be offensive.
You said it, he said something horrifically racist. He must be some bit racist to even consider such a thing, somewhat more so to say it. Because he has 'black friends' that find it funny does not make it not racist, as I see it. Just because he doesn't mean it, doesn't mean it's not racist, nor does it mean HE's not racist.
Yes, intent and context mean a lot, but not all. If you are completely not racist, you wouldn't think to talk about blacks, Jewish, Mexicans, whites, etc. It's racist just to think of people as different races...there's really only one race, just different levels of melanin in people's skin. (EDIT: I forgot about aborigines which I've read are actually genetically different from non-aborigines, but are still not a different 'race', but are possibly a different subspecies.)
I learned it went Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species, sometimes subspecies...no 'race' in there.
I think you misunderstand and are thinking binary, as in either you're racist (and a bastard) or not (and a good person?). I'm looking at it in shades, and very few are at either end of the spectrum, most live in the middle somewhere. Most people will act like you described, and infer intent and react properly based on that. I'm saying intent is not the only measure, it's only one variable in the 'what's your racist quotient' equation.
Yes, I would consider you SLIGHTLY racist, just as I consider myself slightly racist. On a 1 to 10, we're probably both well under a 3...but almost on one is a 1...or, fortunately, a 10.
No outrage here about it at all, I'm just trying to clarify that even seemingly innocuous, not intentionally hurtful racism is racism. (Please think, if a random black person overheard you joking as you described, would they not be upset and hurt by the racism? That's kind of my point, intent may be unknown, so can't be the only defining factor.)
Did someone say they would kill someone? That's not good. People don't normally say that jokingly, but fortunately they usually don't follow through on their threats either...that said, don't say it to Obama! ;-)

Seriously This is what you bring to the table? These are my "racist" comments? This is the BK33 racist highlight reel?

You don't need an anger management class you need to have you head examined.

Look at each BK33 quote and then read the rest of my text from each. Read them in context. Facts are not racist.

Then again you don't need facts. If I had chocolate cake with white icing and only ate the cake I would some how be racist for "sparing " the white icing.

And for the grand quote you bring up the Sifts wet dream of racist quotes"
"And you wonder why blacks are still call the n word."
The actual text does not imply directly or indirectly that I am implying such. It does infers that in the minds of some
( Democratic Senator Robert Byrd,
Democrat Harry Truman,
Democrat Hugo Black,
Democrat Bib Graves
Republican Edward Jackson,
Republican Clifford Jackson
All of which were KKK members) this thought could occur. I am not implying that. Good try.

While many Sifters have actually used the n word in its full spelling, I have not.

I don't think you like me very much.

How do you know that I am not a black person? Hint -Al Sharpton I'm not.

Racist? Disagreement of policies does not infer this .
Bigot? Look in the mirror.

So you are saying only white people are racist?
Chinese, Asian, Spanish peoples and Africans can't be racist?

I get it only White American can be racist.



as you say (I) "... have no idea "what's good for" black people."

Sure I do. It's the same thing we all want. A fair shake in life, to have a decent living and to have you children to do better than you.


Debasing yourself to name calling. Sad, very sad.

The pills look yellow and turquoise to me... I dunno what they were going for in that one. The yellow-handed one has a yellow highlight, the turquoise-handed one has a turquoise highlight, so I inferred they were yellow and turquoise...

Beared is dyed orange for something about 'Wear something Orange today to support the 10,000 Marylanders with MS!'.

Product placment is pretty suspicious. Is that a pillow or a bag? He also mentions McD's in another report http://youtu.be/NnOY0ODuK34

Although the attention gained may be a tiny bit offset by McDs trying to get away from obesity and poor health food image. Jimmy does not look like the peek of health and fitness. Its easy to infer his McDs diet is a contributing factor. Although im sure the publicity he gives them far out ways this.

And that's the issue right there. I think you and I are arguing about completely different things. In terms of the person who stole the photos and posted them, yes there is no middle ground--that person 100% committed a crime and needs to be punished.

However, in terms of responsibility of people for putting themselves in the position to be victimized, there is a huge range of possibilities--but often this range of possibilities isn't examined for fear of someone shouting "Blaming the victim!" The link I posted above goes to great lengths to point out that the criminal who commits the crime is 100% responsible for the criminal act (by virtue of having made the choice to commit it) but that the victim can in fact also have contributed to the crime in a continuum of ways starting with not at all (100% innocent, as in a child who is abused) to fully responsible (as in the case of a rapist who is killed by a potential victim in self-defense during the rape attempt--in this case the rapist becomes the "victim" of a shooting that he brought completely upon himself). There is lots of middle ground between these extremes.

Let's examine a simple case:

I am walking down the street in LA during the early evening in a neighborhood that normally has very little crime. A homeless man shambling past me suddenly pulls a knife, rams it into my chest, and steals my wallet which happened to contain several hundred dollars. I think we can agree in this situation I've no responsibility for this incident occurring. I could not have predicted it would happen and there is little I could have done to anticipate or prevent it. I am 100% an innocent victim in this scenario.

Now let's change the situation. I go down to Skid Row in the early evening and start showing all the homeless people there wads of $100 bills and telling them how worthless they are and how if they only got off their asses and worked hard like me they could have money too. Again, I get shanked in the chest and my money is stolen. Am I 100% an innocent victim in this case? It seems a bit absurd to say yes, doesn't it? My actions (choosing to go to an area that is not often policed, at night, alone, and flash money while belligerently accosting random people who don't have a lot left to lose) are directly linked to the stabbing.

Note that in both cases the person committing the crime is still 100% responsible for their own actions--they chose to stab me and steal my money. But in one case I clearly could not have foreseen or prevented the attack coming whereas in the other it was reasonably foreseeable that my actions were going to lead to problems (not necessarily a stabbing but at the very least some sort of altercation, unless the most patient and forgiving homeless people on Earth happened to be gathered on Skid Row that day). Does that mean the stabber in the second case should get a lighter sentence? No. But it does mean I have some responsibility for what went down and can be justly criticized for my actions. I can't hide behind the "don't blame the victim" catchphrase. I still deserve justice, though, despite being an offensive idiot.

Back to the case at hand.

You are correct, the woman did nothing "wrong" in the moral or legal sense, and the person who violated her privacy is 100% responsible for making the photos public. But I dislike the idea that because she's a victim of a crime, her actions can't be criticized. She might not have done anything "wrong" but she did indeed make a huge error of judgement when she decided to snap naked pics of herself and post them to a social network which is known for dodgy privacy practices. Given the state of technology today, one should be able to infer that there is a pretty high risk that racy photos are going to get leaked at some point, particularly if posted online. If you are okay with that risk, go ahead and post them. And if they are leaked, by all means prosecute the offenders. But don't expect people not to criticize you for gambling that nothing is going to happen, especially when there is plenty of evidence to believe the contrary.

Doesn't look scared at all. And not "Terrified" as the original boingboing post infers.
He simply doesn't want the pineapple and uses the words he knows to say so (he can't speak yet).

You forgot one....
'The Church says that the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow of the earth on the moon and I have more faith in the Shadow than in the Church.'-Ferdinand Magellan

I would say that many of these people in your linked list were not actually 'creation scientists', most were from before the invention of the scientific method, and many others were heretics that may not have stood in public opposition to 'creation science', but didn't believe it. At the time, stating something against the church's doctrine might get you tortured to death.
That's not why we call scientific 'laws' laws. It has NOTHING to do with church or god.
Not a single hypothesis in 'young earth' "theory" (a complete misuse of the word 'theory') is testable, because they're just plain wrong and based on a single person's terribly bad math based on the bible and the length of each generation listed within it. It was NEVER scientific in any way. Sorry.
Not a single hypothesis in creation "theory" (there's that misuse of the word again, it's not a 'theory') is testable either. Not one. If it were, you would have scientific proof of god, and you simply don't. Please don't lie about science.
Macroevolution has been seen in the lab, in fruit flies and bacteria amongst others. It has been observed and repeated with empirical testing. IT is a THEORY, not an inference based on an unprovable hypothesis (like creation science and young earth both are).

Hi Poolcleaner,

I think you're arguing from a false premise, that a belief in Creation science does not contribute to what you call true science. Some of the greatest scientists who ever lived were creationists. Here is a list of a few of them:

http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs_toc.htm

Their belief that God created an orderly Universe based on laws (which is the reason we call them laws) highly influenced and inspired their exploration of the cosmos. Here are a couple of quotes:

When with bold telescopes I survey the old and newly discovered stars and planets when with excellent microscopes I discern the unimitable subtility of nature’s curious workmanship; and when, in a word, by the help of anatomical knives, and the light of chemical furnaces, I study the book of nature I find myself oftentimes reduced to exclaim with the Psalmist, How manifold are Thy works, O Lord! In wisdom hast Thou made them all!

-Robert Boyle, Chemistry

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.

-Louis Pasteur, Medicine

Creation science is a collection of data which supports the idea that the Earth is young. Some of the theories within creation science are testable and predictive, but as a whole you cannot put it in a lab and perform a measurement any more than you could do so for macroevolution, because they both concern what happened in the past. You cannot observe macroevolution happening anywhere nor can you subject it to empirical testing. You can make observations and inferences based on a theory, but that is subject to interpretation.

I'm inferring here, but it might have something to do with the skateboard in the background. During tricks skate shoes will accrue wear on that spot from the sandpaper-like tape on the top of the board. Looks like the painted sole has been worn through to the white-coloured rubber and the black cloth parts in that area have been frayed.

</absurdly detailed shoe examination>

...you obviously feel quite strongly about an issue.

However, it is a nonissue here.

Ad hom attacks are unaccetable in the Sift and are actionable in the vein of which you have experienced albeit unreservedly so.

r_m was merely enjoying themselves as you somewhat inferred, may it be you do likewise.

Respective to the excising of the fins, this was my thinking as well with uncertainty as to the intent.

Never said that kind of crapola doesn't make money... just inferred that it's mostly rubbish and certainly no better than anything else.
I really doubt Norman knows much about or is in touch with 'the youth'.

Do you hear yourself? " If I disagree with something a BLACK person does, how come I'm a racist"

Maybe because you keep referring to them as black as a negative.

Maybe they're just people and not black people. You say we're playing the race card, but we're not the one making sweeping generalizations about how the looters were young black males, you did that.

Not to mention the desperate need by you to conflate the shooting and the looting as a single event. The shooting and the looting are two separate events, sure one is happening because of the other but they are still separate events. The inference by the racists is that apparently only black people loot and never other people and we know this to not be true.

You're picking and choosing which evidence you believe to be reliable and if what you claim is true and you're a cop so you're anything but unbiased. Hell even Bob of all people admitted that not all the facts are in and that some of the evidence doesn't look favorable for the shooter. If even Bob can admit it, why can't you? Because you're biased that's why. It's standard "I want it to be true, therefore it is true" mentality.

All the "leftists" (another term used with negative connotations) are saying is that racism exists and is still alive and well. Even if this shooting turns out to not be racially motivated. It still highlights the underlying problem. People don't trust cops and as you are so fond of saying, that trust and respect has to be earned, not mandated. I know you wouldn't begrudge the population taking possibly violent measures against an organization that is perceived to be tyrannical, now would you. Because otherwise you'd be a hypocrite and we wouldn't want that now would we.

But hey, don't take my word for it, just keep hurling insults and sweeping generalizations when people don't agree with you and you get mad and go into sour grapes mode and change your argument and use other distractions. It's worked out for you so well so far.

If you want to focus on science, then whatever God you prefer - intelligent designer, whatever you want to call it - is completely out of the discussion. If anyone wants a scientific assessment of God, then it goes like this - "I cannot measure it with any instrument, i cannot infer its presence by its effect on something else. There is no way i can measure or quantify any aspect of God or the effect God might have on the physical universe, so why are you asking me about it?"

What is your point? I don't think Dawkins has ever said that he can prove "God" doesn't exist, and if he did he's wrong because you can't prove anything about something that doesn't exist; if it can't be measured or inferred or otherwise observed, it doesn't exist to science, because science is simply our way of understanding what our senses tell us. A non-measurable entity does not form part of that understanding if it has no measurable effect on anything we can sense. It's like asking how loud a smell is - it doesn't have that dimension to it, it's not a measurable quantity.

I'd also like to add that "i refuse to respond to responses to this" is about as arrogant a statement as you can make. "This is what i think, and regardless of any new information i can access about the situation, i will not have my mind changed and i will not even listen to the thing that may change my mind." That statement is pretty much anti-knowledge and anti-understanding and clearly demonstrates the futility of discussing science with someone who believes in so called "intelligent design."

As for talking about Dawkins being able to "create" the "tools for evolution of a giraffe".....? What on earth are you talking about? You just told the man to stick to science - but we have a working scientific explanation for evolution with gene mutation, time and selective breeding. You're the one injecting anthropomorphism into the mix (and worse, implying that Dawkins needs to disprove that nonsense explanation in order to stand so firmly behind the SCIENCE of evolution), he IS sticking to the science. When he gets asked about "God", he dismisses it - because it is out of the question when it comes to science, and he sticks to science like you ask!