Politics needs a gauntlet of Al Frankens, like fear and corruption sniffing sphinxes, eviscerating the minds of every single pathetic puppet that enters our political rat race. If you can't get blasted by a room of geniuses, FUCK YOU.

After you get out of the mental gauntlet you won't want to go back if you're not qualified! Maybe the senate sacrifices and feasts upon the bodies of the unworthy.

No prob, I was just wondering.
Oh...I'm sorry you took it that way. I gave her a pass on this story alone, and only on the specific detail that she didn't say what the commentator claimed she did, but she did IMPLY what he said, and to those that don't listen closely, that's likely what they heard. I did not "buy it", I do hear what she came close to saying, and I call her out for being completely biased in her assessments and implications about what this means. You are correct, however, that while I APEAR to give her a pass for qualifying, I would likely not give those on the right the same....but that's only an appearance. Her IMPLICATION that this would "prove" they have something on Trump is just biased, conjecture, and wrong, and is a reason I don't watch her, even though I agree mostly with her takes on things.....mostly.
Kyle was lying when he reported what she said....and that's what I took issue with. I also took issue with his take on the issue that Russia militarizing it's borders isn't something to guard against...history proves him wrong.

The 'proof' of Russian involvement in the hacking is classified, you won't get to see it. That's an issue with Trump decrying the intelligence community (who didn't really get Iraq wrong, btw, they were clear in their uncertainty in their reports, but the administration erased any hint of uncertainty and claimed the redacted reports were fact publicly.)...but as a whole, I still have some trust in them...perhaps it's misplaced but I have a hard time believing so many intelligence organizations came to the same specific conclusions based on pure bias.

Um...Russia expanded into 2 countries recently, and are eyeing the other Slavic states. To me, that's a renewal of a hot war if we ever react like we're obligated to by treaty, until we do, it's a renewal of the cold war (and a violation of numerous treaties, including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances) ...one that the pentagon is probably quite happy about, granted.

Again, don't feel you have to defend your viewpoint from me, or your admiration for a reporter....but allow me to have my own viewpoint, and to state and explain it if I choose. I am also quite biased, but not to the point of exclusion of fact.


EDIT: As to the troop placement in the Eastern NATO countries, I would like to see minutes of the 1990 summit where this agreement/guarantee was either made or not, not just reports of what Putin says today VS what Gorbachev says today...I want to see what was ACTUALLY said in the meeting, and more important, what was SIGNED by the parties. That the Russians haven't produced a signed treaty guaranteeing NATO wouldn't deploy farther in the East EVER is a pretty good indicator to me that it was not agreed on, so claims about what may have been SAID during negotiations are moot and have no bearing at all on what was agreed on. It's possible there was that agreement, if they just point us to it, I'll be on their side on this topic (unless it included a clause like "unless Russia begins expansion back into it's now independent satellites")

I would be interested in a handful of names of who you think qualify in this way. Just curious. And or any news outlets that would qualify.

Holy cow!

So anyone with a history of having health insurance over the past decades knows the pain of annual rising costs and plan changes that offer less and less coverage.

But here we have people newly signed up on health care through the ACA, who experience rising costs and deductibles for the first time and believe it's because the program is no good.

It never even occurred to me that all the pre-existing problems in the health insurance industry would be viewed as unique to ACA.

We are ALL unhappy with what's been happening to our health insurance for the past couple of decades...you're experiencing the same pain we've all been dealing with for long before the ACA was created. This didn't start the day you first qualified for health insurance. How did the message get so mixed up?

And wtf!
You've never had a car...here's a car.
"The cost of gas keeps going up....the car you gave me is horrible."

Hence the qualifier "IF Trump is to be believed (he's not)".
I have not forgotten who and what he is....but I also know he's capable of being goaded into trying to do almost anything with the smallest provocation....just like president Garrison.
Someone just needs to tell him he's not man enough to do single payer because he's afraid of the right, he'll start pushing it right away. ;-)

Au contraire, I'd say the far right is VERY radical. Look how loudly the crowd chanted "let him die" at the one Republican debate, look how they cheer the idea of carpet bombing. Look at the abortion clinic bombing and the bombing of the Olympic Park in Atlanta... all Christian done, in the name of Christ.

Global warming is settled in the science.

Who cares if gay marriage is a sin? You are not sin free, so who are you to judge them for their sin? Who are you to say that their sin is so horrible they don't deserve equal rights under the law when it doesn't harm anyone but themselves?

And I never specified you as a homophobe, and I don't really care about one's fears or anything else, but it is the prejudiced in your (talking the royal your, as in radical right, not you specifically) heart, to judge them as illegitimate and not deserving of being treated the way you would want to be treated, though Christ said to treat them with love and compassion. The Right turns their back on them... As they turn their back on thousands of women and children trying to escape horrible conditions where women are being raped and children being raped and forced into war and radicalization, because radical right Christians hate Muslims so much, they would rather see those women raped, than help them.

I also said you can disagree with them being gay. You can say it is a sin, but to deny them human decency because they sin differently than whatever sins you do, is not a valid reason to be cruel to them. That is when you cross the line, when you say you won't sell them a cake at their wedding for being gay, despite your own sins, when you say they shouldn't be married or adopt kids, despite your own sins... that is when you cross the line.

The Right do want to screw the poor. Half the people who work for Walmart qualify for food stamps, despite the fact Walmart makes enough to pay them all living wages and give them benefits and much more, but they are so pissed at the poor needing food stamps, they want to end that program so they can love on the rich people who own and operate Walmart more... it's a fucked up priority system, when you choose wealth and success over needy and poor. Jesus and the Bible were very clear on what side they were on, and today's radical Right ignore that and have taken on a false Reconstruction message, which has in many radical right circles been further misaligned with the prosperity gospel.

And, I will judge God for His people, when He doesn't speak to your hearts and minds and even puts an iota of human decency and concern, or conviction in your hearts, for the needy the poor, the foreigners who need our aid, for this planet and the its welfare for our future children's sake. I rather God damn me and my children to Hell, then be around the like of Republicans for all eternity, people who would rather see my children die, than have their tax dollars go to help them just because none of the jobs I am capable of getting provide sufficient health insurance.

I have NEVER seen the sort of Love that Christ preached and showed in today's far right Christians... And I speak that as a former far right Christian, and thinking I was showing the love of Christ... but step out side, and see what it looks like to the world. Be in the world but not of it. See what your witness is to a hurt and dying world and see that those on the right are the ones turning people off Christianity. There's a reason that Christianity is loosing ground, because the lack of love from those that are most loudly saying they are Christian, and saying everyone must be Christian or else...

That's not true either. Following their directions doesn't mean you won't be negligent. Not following their direction doesn't mean you are negligent. You're conflating things. Each situation needs to be judged on it's own merits.

Removing safety features is not negligence unless you make the firearm unsafe. None of my firearms have a firing pin block from the factory. They're all safe firearms. My triggers have been lightened - they're still safe firearms. I've seen triggers lightened so much that they are unsafe. As before, each instance is judged on it's own merits.

I'll soon finish my mechanical engineering degree (and don't you know it, I'm looking for a job in firearm designing), so I do know a little about this stuff. Whilst with the proper equipment you can detect crack propagation or premature wear, this is not done on consumer products like firearms. That's why I wrote "this sort of item". Unless you're going to spend more money than the firearm is worth trying to detect cracks, you won't know it has cracked until you visually identify it.

Sure proper cleaning and gun inspection is part of having a safe, well functioning firearm. But don't fool yourself into thinking it's an aeroplane or space shuttle in inspections. Go ask your local gunsmith - the best one you can find - how many times he's done x-ray diffraction on a firearm for preventative maintenance. Chances are he's going to say zero.

Spend 5 seconds on google and I know you will find multiple videos of factory condition firearms discharging unintentionally. You'll also find recall information affecting millions of firearms - firearms at risk of unintentional discharge.

I should have qualified "much". More or less than 2500 rounds a year?

The Baltimore Sun lets Bill Binney and Ray McGovern weigh in on the topic of hacking: Emails were leaked, not hacked

I don't fancy the lack of specificity in the use of "emails". There are no "emails" in this regard. There are the DNC emails, the Podesta emails, the Clinton server emails (incl Clinton SecState, Clinton GI, Clinton personal) -- did I miss any?

Clinton server emails were made public through FOIA requests directed at the FBI and later mirrored by WikiLeaks, Podesta emails were acquired through Podesta being a dumbass and falling for a rookie spear fishing scheme.

Only the DNC emails could even qualify as a potential "hack", with Assange on the record as it being a leak.

The question isn't whether you can be good without God. Atheists and agnostics can do good works as much as anyone else can. They love, they have kindness and compassion, and so on.

Do you know that if, when I died, I arrived at Heavens gate and I met Jesus..and He asked me this question "Why should I let you into My Heaven?" and my answer was, "because of all of the good things I did", He wouldn't let me in?

Why is that? Atheists and most religious people actually have something in common; a fundamental misconception of what goodness is.

Most people have a list of certain crimes in their mind that, so long as they have not committed them, they consider themselves to be good people. They'll say to themselves "I'm a good person. I haven't killed anyone." "I may not be perfect but I am no Hitler or Stalin". Or, they think if their good deeds outweigh their bad deeds, they're good people. There are some religions like that.

It's a relative goodness. Most everyone will acknowledge that they've done some wrong, but most will tell you far more right than wrong.

The problem with a relative goodness is that is all it is; it is relatively good. It is only good some of time. That is how human beings are. Goodness in Gods eyes is not relatively good, it is perfectly good. That is why the bible says there is no one good except God. The reason why Jesus won't let me into Heaven based on my performance is because once I've sinned even once I have failed to meet Gods standard; moral perfection. That is the only thing God considers good. Once there is a fly in the ointment, it is ruined.

The inference here is, if that is true then no one can get into Heaven. That's the dilemma, and that is why God sent His Son to die for our sins on a cross. Jesus had met Gods moral standard, He had never sinned. He was Gods spotless lamb, qualified to be a sacrifice for our sins on our behalf, taking the punishment that we deserve. Because of sin we are disqualified but Jesus qualifies us, that is why we need Him, why He is the Messiah.

Because Jesus took the punishment for our sins, when we believe in Him as Lord and Savior, God can forgive our sins and impute the righteousness of Christ to us. God counts our faith in Jesus Christ as righteousness. Not because we ourselves are righteous, but because He is righteous and our faith is counted towards us as righteousness. It is a legal transaction, once we believe God can dismiss our case because justice has been done for our sins by the atoning death of Jesus Christ.

So, when Jesus asks me why I should be allowed in, the only possible answer is this: "I am not worthy to get in; it is your righteousness counted to me that will open these gates. You died for my sins and rose the third day; I believed your gospel and received you as my Lord and Savior."

Atheists can be good without God, so can hindus, buddhists and even Christians. The trouble isn't whether they can be good, the trouble is that it isn't good enough.

Ahhh, that's what you meant.
I submit that because you might not fear in one situation doesn't mean that, for someone less able or more cautious, fear isn't justified.
There are many legal justifications for homicide. Self defense is the most often used, but is far from the only justification. Enforcing a proper citizen's arrest for instance may use any force needed, including deadly force, to affect the arrest...but you better be ready to prove it was needed.

In this case, he used force to effectively stop a continuous attack and stopped the instant the attack was neutralized, and not even deadly force. I don't see why that's wrong, one hit for two, he just hits harder, a chance you take when hitting much larger strangers, no? Had she scratched his eye with her next attack, she may have ended his career.

Granted, with no audio, it's one person's word against another's as to what may have been said, but didn't she claim he attacked her unprovoked before the video surfaced? That's why I used the qualifier "allegedly", I can't tell for myself. It's pretty clear to me that she was instigating while he was walking away, though.

A bit off topic, but what I don't get is how so many assholes think free speech is limited to their speech. Listen to the idiot at 8:25.
"I don't think people are entitled to complain..." then he launches into a holier-than-thou speech about "free speech." What the fuck? Does complaining somehow NOT qualify as free speech?
Like half* the clips are this shit. "People don't laugh," "They don't like my offensive joke." Free speech is that you get to say your stupid joke. Free speech is also that I get to say you're a simple-minded unfunny asshole and your mother is ashamed of you. Anything else isn't "free speech" dumbass. By definition you don't get to pick which speech is free and which isn't.

Nothing to do with the Mike Ward stuff, where the government steps in. That's a whole other kettle of fish.

*half. at least. Fuck you.

Surely water freezing and boiling qualify as really fucking cold and really fucking hot?

Thanks @eric3579 but didn't I do that at:
http://videosift.com/video/Worst-Olympic-qualifying-race-ever-100-Meter-Dog-Paddle#comment-2010042

Modern liberals still missing the point:
Do you think anyone that voted for Trump will listen to more than 1 minute of this? They'll only listen for however long it takes their brain to make up it's mind whether they'd "do her" or not.

Also Bernie Sanders was the most qualified candidate, not Clinton.

A true liberal would be saying that both final candidates were bad. The noise should be made about why both choices are terrible instead of comparing two terrible choices. But it's a bit late now anyway

Awesome.

I would have liked to see it with a somewhat longer timescale (maybe 10 minutes for 1AD - now) and a lower threshold on what qualifies as a "significant event". But, this format is still very cool.