Great cover

Heh, there's so much stuff on the left and right that I never hear a peep about in mainstream media. I'm unfortunate enough to have gotten my email into mailing lists on both sides, and I have to delete mountains of bitching political emails every day (and half of it is begging for donations while demonizing the other side).

Like I said, I have nothing against training.
But with 100 million people having access to arms, even if well trained, I would not count on zero accidents. Just being pedantic. I do agree with you in general.

More power to ya'.

-scheherazade

haha..don't be.
have you SEEN my pque?



no really...
have you seen it?
it is a frightening mess of contradictory obscura that either everybody hates,or is too nice to tell me they hate.

you post what you like and what you want to share.
either peeps will dig it or they wont,but either way they are YOUR submissions.

now go check out my pque..

DO IT!!!

@RedSky

here is what i don't get.
how is it the governments business what i ingest in my own body for whatever reason?

may be it is for the relief of pain.
may be it is to alleviate stress or mental anguish,and even,in some cases,mental illnesses.
or maybe i just want to get high.

i realize you have already addressed the hypocrisy and horrible execution of,what basically comes down to a social issue,but how is this the governments business?

the science is in and weed has been proven to be fairly harmless,even in abusive situations.

the biggest problem america faces today,which includes booze and smokes,is prescription pain medication.which is basically heroin addiction,but since pain pills do not hold the stigma of heroin,it is not been addressed in any substantive way.oh..this country is arresting people in droves for selling and carrying but almost nary a PEEP in the form of education.

so why is government stepping into my business?
something i engage in at home,bother nobody and keep to myself.yet i am still deemed a criminal.yet my crime is a victimless crime.

if i drive my car,or operate heavy machinery while high,that is a different story and the law should be applied exactly as it is with booze for the exact same reasons.

the state should get out of my house and stop telling me which intoxicants are "state approved",because,quite frankly..i dont give it a shit.

this archaic and destructive social policy needs to go the way of the do-do.it serves no purpose any longer,and the massive propaganda campaign that was initiated by henry anslinger at the behest of big textile in the fucking 40's should not be given even the remotest credibility by todays standards.

people like their hooch.no matter what form it takes and the government has zero business dictating which "hooch" we choose.

so then what is your response to the hundreds of other "face-punch" games?
featuring justin beiber,to hillary clinton,to even jack thompson who was making similar arguments that sarkesian was making.

where was the outrage in those cases?
those people received threats as well.
how come in those cases were viewed as either satirical or just in bad taste,but in sarkesians case it had the possibility of translating to actual violence?

even though there is absolutely zero evidence to substantiate that claim?
couldn't every single one of those face-punch games be viewed as indulgent fantasy?

and if they ARE all viewed as such,how come there was nary a peep in regards to those games,yet the sarkesian one is supposed to be taken as an actual threat of physical violence?

do you not see the hypocrisy here?

this is playing victim to a victimless crime.
it is political theater dressed up as "oppression" using fear as the main driving force.

and it draws attention away from real,actual womens grievances,and THAT my friend,is the real crime.

Clearly it is important in a presidential race to be seen as religious, which is a shame. What I don't really fully understand is why they don't roll with the oft favoured fallacy of argument from middle ground. Religious peeps, you can pretty much have your cake and eat it here... as long as you're willing to drop the whole literal interpretation of Genesis you can just use Evolution as more "evidence" to the glory of God's creation! Surely only a divine being would be able create a universe in which life is its own watchmaker! etc etc. Hey presto, you've just positioned yourself between those two extremes as a voice of moderation and at least America would get a Rep Pres that doesn't seem to be waging a war on rational...well, just on being rational.

Wait. Unless the point is they all want to appear to be more extreme than the other guy in order to pander to the smallest minds in the room.

There should be nothing wrong with nudity for any sake. Nudity is a natural freedom that is unnaturally restricted and incorrectly considered as something which requires special circumstances. What about expression as the circumstance?

I was not aroused (And even if I was, so what?) but I enjoyed their natural beauty and the clever approach to the nude. Is a painting of a nude somehow more acceptable than a filmed nude? What is the point of either art form, if not the simple and profound concept of human dignity. Not a peep show any more than a series of nude paintings. Both are artistic expressions.

For the old school flash peeps: http://www.homestarrunner.com/porridgemaiden.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeOM_OTKsek&list=PLLXfVEsLI-qSO5XzEa0pOJyXlNVZJBupK&index=9

I had a response from the content creator and he sent me this link stating that he did use mayo. So I wonder what else was in it that did not make the cut.

Some people do what they talk about and some people just talk about it, this guy did something note worthy in his life. I cringe at some of the replies in this thread.

Edit : make it easier for the lazy peeps

I'd pay real money to see that version.

...and you forgot cut a peep hole in the trespass victim's drywall.

Over all the years, the "alternative media" over here never even acklowledged the existence of MMT. Not a peep to be found, anywhere, aside from the occasional blog entry. One might think the current crises would have been the perfect timing to take a closer look at matters of macroeconomic finance.

This month, however, I came across at least half a dozen articles about the basics of MMT on the most widely read news sources outside the mainstream, including numerous links to the works of Randall Wray, Warren Mosler and Bill Mitchell. MMT might finally gain some recognition among my fellow citizens.

Steven Tobolowsky's podcast is worth checking out:

http://www.slashfilm.com/category/features/slashfilmcast/the-tobolowsky-files/

(shout-out to my NPR peeps!)

I suppose you've come across the Sunday Times junk piece on Snowden?

As if that wasn't frustrating enough, all the major news outlets over here picked it up and ran with it, without any hint of double checking. Front fucking page, everywhere. Made me lose my shit when I read most of it this morning. Made me lose my shit again when all of them dropped it without a peep around noon.

Some quality journalism... they don't even get pissed anymore when they're being fed propaganda.

At least folks in the comment sections called them out on their shit right from the start.

Edit: https://twitter.com/NewsRevo/status/610118694241497088

Well, even if you did say they were toxic I'd have agreed with you, like others here have said any reasonable comments made would have been buried under a metric fuckton of bullshit anyhow.

I think there is a misunderstanding here however, when GenjiKilpatrick and others are talking about Sarkeesian "being called on her shit" they mean the reasoned criticism, not the threats, nobody here is arguing in favor of that.
I am curious though, unless you know something about these threats that I don't, how do you know that they are in fact "Serious"? Most people can dream up all kinds of crazy shit or even talk about it, but that still doesn't put you into Dexter Morgan territory (Dexter would be too polite to say anything like that anyhow, and Sarkeesian doesn't fit Harry's Code).
If you are referring to the UCU lecture that she cancelled, then no, neither campus security nor the FBI advised her against going through with the appearance, she made that choice on her own.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58528113-78/sarkeesian-threats-threat-usu.html.csp

You also say "It's unseemly to imply a single woman should ignore such threats or assume they are not credible", which makes me wonder if this was a man we were talking about would you still feel the same way? Adam Orth received death threats to both himself and his family and while it did create a lot of discussion, even heated discussion, it did not generate the same kind of mass outrage that this has so far. Gabe Newell also got a threat from a developer some time back and that got barely a peep out of anyone.
Simply put, we still live in a society that puts on a good public show of equality for men and women, but privately we still teach our little boys that men are still the true protectors of our society. We don't get as upset when men face danger because that is what we expect of them, and this kind of deeply embedded cultural belief is the real heart of sexism in our society. This debate over the role of women in video games is all superficial because I believe it comes from those much older beliefs.

Soros funds Free Press, whose stated goal is to dismantle capitalism and replace it with socialism. But Rachel won't make a peep about that, I'm sure. She's already got years of experience as a socialist mouthpiece, so she'll always have a job lined up.