You know, the history of communism is complicated. The idea in principle seems nice enough, a government where everyone owns everything. Or as Marx puts it: "all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."

But in reality, it's never been implemented. It's invariably the case that a ruling party emerges as the de facto "we'll make sure everyone is following the rules so that everything is fair and as soon as it's clear that everyone is following the rules, we'll relinquish power completely to the people."

Except...that second part NEVER happens. Russia? China? North Korea? Those are communist countries in name only. In reality, those are all totalitarian states by any definition. Any opposition to the ruling class when they are questioned ends in murder or massacre by the state; see https://newrepublic.com/article/117983/tiananmen-square-massacre-how-chinas-millennials-discuss-it-now

Freedom of political thought, religion, matters of economics are simply unavailable under "communist" rule.

There's decidedly very few ideas that are less democratic and less American than communism.

@bobknight33 you claim to be a patriot, I think you're a Russian troll who's assigned to this corner of the internet. Go preach your anti American propaganda in between borscht bites somewhere else please.

Sorry to hear that. As I have mentioned before (in a couple of different posts), I also grew up in a household that was deeply troubled and violent. My grandfather was a wonderful man when sober, unfortunately he was more often than not inebriated.

I experienced multiple styles of punishment, depending on the situation. If my grandfather was drunk, he was like as not to hit me. I still have a physical reminder of that method, in that he broke my nose once. I too learned to be elsewhere when he was drunk and to fear that version of my grandfather.

In times when he was sober, or when my grandmother was able (she suffered from MS), I received spankings. I learned that if I did not do certain things, I would not get spankings. So I stopped doing those things.

Same in school, I used to be a little shithead, very sarcastic and mean. I quickly learned that if I did things against other kids, I would get a paddling. The paddling didn't actually hurt that much, but the knowledge that other kids knew I was getting swats was very effective in making me stop acting out.

Later, as I became close to 18, both the school and my grandparents moved to a more hands off style. The school because, even in Texas, people were trying to get schools to stop using corporal punishment. My grandparents because they were older, sicker, and I was larger. My grandfather basically told me that I was close enough to being a man that I was going to make my own mistakes and he wasn't going to bail me out from them. I still got punished after the fact, but it wasn't physical.

Maybe I am an outlier, but that period was probably when I was the most wild. I got in trouble with the law, made terrible decisions, and probably would have done some serious time but for the guiding principles of my eventual wife when we started dating. I feel that if my grandparents and the school had been more strict during that time, I might have not had as many close calls as I did.

In any case, I would say that both of our experiences with earlier punishment would be taking it to the abuse level. I feel that corporal punishment, justly applied, is still better than not doing it. Fortunately we all can have our own opinion on the topic, so I can understand your viewpoint as well.

As far as the screwdriver, I wouldn't use it because it is completely ineffective. However, if I did not have a lug wrench and had a tool that could apply the proper force (say a crescent wrench or lockjaw pliers) I would use that tool.

I don't buy & never recommend buying Apple products on ethical principles since the iMac days.

Unlike liberals, logic and truth are my guiding principles , not race .

Bob, if you're going to be such an ugly troll, at least try to not be an easily debunked idiot at the same time.
Here's twice he claimed to be conservative I found in under 10 seconds

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuoS7HRdeD0

And he's clearly decided he's Republican, but you seem to be admitting now that he's not conservative (by incorrectly claiming he never said he was one in a misguided defense).....but what you said was "If you are a Republican you don't sell out conservative principles.----------------This is where I hang my hat."....and you 110% hang your hat on him....a non conservative wholly unprincipled republican.....sooooooo......

Repeatedly calling patriotic and heroic McCain, a decorated veteran (who's numerous military decorations and awards include the Silver Star, two Legion of Merits, Distinguished Flying Cross, three Bronze Star Medals, two Purple Hearts, two Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medals, and the Prisoner of War Medal) a traitor starting while his body is still warm and treasonous and cowardly draft dodging Trump a hero solidifies your position as a non American and a irrefutable troll. It won't be forgotten. #Derp state

WHAT?!?

Conservative principles like honesty, loyalty, honor, fidelity, respect, intellectual curiosity, fiscal responsibility, and being pro environment, pro education, anti war, supportive of law and order, adult......

What conservative principal has Trump not thrown in the toilet and pissed on? I can't think of a single one, can you?
He is where you hang your hat.

Did you ever consider they ganged up on him because he's so incredibly anti American and destructive that anyone who cares about American Democracy would oppose him, Democrats, Republicans, independents, honest media, the intelligence community, law enforcement, etc? Probably not, you're convinced his party is turning on him because he's winning too much.

Lol. Steele dossier....the one that was just upheld in court when Trump's lible/slander cases were thrown out....or did you not know that?

Yes. It was the turn to backing him that was the wrong, self serving, proven short sighted move.

Trump has not sold out conservative principles, he's thrown them in the trash and shit on them. Clearly principles are NOT what you hang your hat on, he has none and you've admitted it privately.

The creature from the bronze lagoon was hardly the one to help clean up the swamp, and his most criminally convicted administration ever is pretty good proof of that.

That $80 you got goes away in a few years and becomes a raise in your taxes by around $160, in case you won't read the actual law. You didn't get a tax break, you got a tax raise and a 5 year loan packaged as a tax break, and you bought it. Trump, according to economists that studied his public holdings, stands to gain around $1 million per year forever....his tax breaks are permanent. Not what he said, but you don't care he outright lied to you about it for months, do you, yet one corrected mistake by Clinton (Benghazi was a protest over Koran burnings in America, quickly retracted) and you still think she'll be indicted for....something you're incapable of naming, but something.

Fuck, Bob. Your insistence on backing Trump's every move no matter what has made you bat shit insane, inconsistent, and totally disconnected from reality. I hope you can get therapy.

McCain was a turncoat to me in 2008. ( well even before 2008) Same for Bush 44.
Deplorable Republicans. I did not vote for McCain in 08.

Bush 44 turn me against ( # walkaway) the Republican party and I then registered independent.


Republicans and Democrats are fundamentally the same .
In public they will "fight " each other for show. Behind the doors they serve their own self interest. They enrich themselves and family. Author Peter Schweizer book (Secret Empires) shines light on this.


Trump comes along, a true outsider, and both sides gang up on Trump, to the likes America has never seen. Media is right along for the ride (ratings). McCain, in my opinion had his hand in the Steele Dossier to destroy Trump.

The Republican kept their anti Trump position for nearly a year, and only then started to back Trump.

If you are a Republican you don't sell out conservative principles.----------------This is where I hang my hat. --


Bottom line DC is a self interest swamp. Every one wants something done. Liberals wanted Bernie. Republicans wanted Bush. America ended up with Trump.
I'm happy it was not Bush
My pocketbook is happy it wasn't Bernie.


As far as Trump Tax cuts They touted that average family of 4 making 70K would see something like 140$month
I see about 80$.. Not what they said but definitely noticed.

neat video.
small nitpick though - this is how 3LCD projectors work. DLP is a completely different principle.

I have a few French friends, and as I see it there's quite a fundamental cultural difference at play here. I'll do my best to explain it, although I don't fully understand it myself.

There's a very fundamental French principle of equality that's considered as sacred as American freedom of speech. It means that when you're French, you're French, and explicitly not a member of a sub-culture. I heard about this when they banned wearing a hijab (I think) in schools: the children are French first, and must comply by French norms above others.

The French government have fought very hard to fight the foundation of religious and ethnic sub-cultures within France. This is obviously very different to the American approach of embracing your heritage and, just as Freedom of Speech has unwanted side-effects, so does this. The players are French, not African. Their cultural past was indeed wiped when they became French (at birth or otherwise). Yes, they're of African descent, but that's considered very different to being African.

Now, it's fair enough to argue the the American approach is better, but I think it's important to understand that this is not the French approach. There is a fundamental cultural difference there, and without understanding that, you're going to miss the point of their argument.

The chart is quite informative thanks. If you put aside your focus on believers in God (as that's a separate topic to my first post) and try and see the difference between atheism and agnosticism in relation to scientists, you'll see what I mean.

There is a great difference between one who "doesn't claim to know no god exists" and one who "claims to know no god exists". Exactly as described on the chart, on the definition of athiest from Merriam-Webster (one who advocates athiesm) and dictionary coms definitions and synonym study. Or Merriam Websters own distinction between the 2 "The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who believes that there is no god (or gods), and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable."

Richard Dawkins would fall into the category of gnostic athiest I suppose. He is adamant that no God exists and he is fully at odds and advocates, actively, against such a belief. Whereas Thomas Huxley however, who may have coined the word 'agnostic' according to various dictionaries and other sources, is more someone who doesn't claim to know.

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorus application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, * Try all things, hold fast by that which is good"

Here he is actually describing a Biblical passage from 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Test all things; hold fast to that which is good" which is the scientific method in a nutshell, regardless of what you think of the rest of the book.

He goes on "Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary
according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved to-day may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, to-morrow."

A vast difference to the likes of some others in science today who boldly claim there is no God and ridicule those who might believe in one. Sorry for the long reply.

As Eric says, not a hologram. It's just a different way to project an image.

Not even new, though this is a step further than I'd recently seen. They've had those "holographic" clocks that work on the same principle for decades, and for the past few years, bicycle spoke lights that will project images.

Sorry, just by principle and because I'm stubborn, I can't vote for anything with a Click-bate title - Pretty sure we're above this here on the Sift.
I see it's getting worse.

It works on the stopped clock principle. Every now and then, Fox accidentally does some journalism...