What I mentioned was couched as a quota/limit for Asian kids, not an advantage for white ones. It might not still exist, it was a while back and I'm well out of school.

Yes, reservations allow discrimination based on heritage.

Yeah, don't listen to people who watch breitbart, Fox, or Jones. Just walk away, they're either insane, liars, or dupes.

The racism you complain about is only meant to mitigate the racist policies and reality those students suffer from because we aren't working to end it. Like I said on your profile, we are making the disparities bigger here by defunding programs that do help and are mostly means based, not race based. We're idiots.

I think you need to stop thinking in terms of what you think society will tolerate. You should talk for yourself, maybe your group, but society will tolerate more than you could imagine. The groups getting the assistance tolerated FAR more than someone cutting the line at college. You forget, it's society that created these plans, not some outside group forcing them on you.

I'm not wrong, these programs are decades old with no revolution starting because of them, and there's less effort to crack that nut daily.

There's no racist law against whites here, only a few programs benefiting other groups. You can claim that's against whites, but then you must admit the totality of law and society is against minorities....at least here.

Not true here....sorry. we've survived giving disadvantaged groups a leg up for quite some time, and haven't resorted to using the military to enforce it since desegregation in the 60's.

Yeah its like a luxury resort for mosquitoes

https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download
"On or about December 29, 2016, FLYNN called a senior official of the Presidential Transition Team ("PTT official"), who was with other senior ·members of the Presidential Transition Team at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, to discuss what, if anything, to communicate to the Russian Ambassador about the U.S. Sanctions. On that call, FLYNN and 2 Case 1:17-cr-00232-RC Document 4 Filed 12/01/17 Page 2 of 6 the PTT official discussed the U.S. Sanctions, including the potential impact of those sanctions on the incoming administration's foreign policy goals. The PIT official and FLYNN also discussed that the members of the Presidential Transition Team at Mar-a-Lago did not want Russia to escalate the situation. "

^The Trump campaign knew about him breaking the law conducting affairs with a foreign adversary but still kept him in the White House until it was clear he was going to be indited.

Also, Flynn and Kushner (again this is prior to swearing in, aka illegal) https://www.wsj.com/articles/flynn-promoted-nuclear-plant-project-while-in-white-house-1505328226

--------------
--------------

I can go through the rest, but see for yourself
https://www.justice.gov/sco
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^All the indictments hosted on the justice department's website.

I could go through all of them like I did Flynn above, but thankfully, people are already compiling a list of contacts and the denials associated with said contacts: https://cdn.themoscowproject.org/content/uploads/2018/06/14110352/MoscowProject-TrumpContacts-0618.pdf

---------------
---------------

And last but not least, those denials about contact that were made to the investigators arguably constitute obstruction of justice, the thing Nixon and Bill Clinton were impeached for.

Here's a quote from Nixon's first article of impeachment:
"The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:

making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;

interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;"

http://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment


Honestly now, has Trump made any false or misleading statements about his team's contact with Russia? Has he withheld any relevant evidence?




Did he endevor to interfere with the conduct of an investigation?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N1MbFesSC7M" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
^ iframe not working https://www.youtube.com/embed/N1MbFesSC7M


-----------------
-----------------

So did he collude with Russia? who cares, no one is being charged or investigated with collusion.

Did he obstruct justice by misleading any US official or interefere with said investigation? That's debateable, and we'll have to see all that Meuller is going to put in the public record before anyone can make a clear decision. But it sure as hell looks bad, and it's very much NOT "Still no crime Still ZERO ZIP NADA"

If you look at the timeline for Nixon or Bill Clinton's impeachment, a lot of staffers (human shields) went down before the investigators got to the top.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Watergate_scandal
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/clintontimeline.htm

While I agree that CNN definitely leans left, I don't think they are going to this level of outright chicanery. Especially not when even Fox is starting to show cracks in the foundation in regards to Trump.

It doesn't piss me off, it just makes me annoyed because I want to believe you are better than this. If you have a viewpoint, use good examples to show it. Don't resort to posting misleading videos because then you are just the boy who cried wolf or chicken little.

It's sad that Youtubers have to resort to this.

On the chance your 'jokingly' isn't obvious, MLK, Ghandi and Mandela's causes ALL had support from those willing to use violence, aka better weapons would help.

Malcolm X would be the next most prominent figure beside MLK. Indian independence wasn't won with peaceful hunger strikes alone, and again lots of violence in South Africa.

Ghandi even bridged the gap to working alongside the effective army fighting for India's independence:
" I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.
But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment, forgiveness adorns a soldier."

Speaking more to the point of America today, pretty much no civil war has been fought exclusively with civilians on one side, and the government, police, army and all other branches of the state united on the other. The reason being that if that kind of unity within the government against the civilian population exists, you ALREADY have tyranny.

In America, the example would be if a president or a particular political party decided to try for tyrannical over reach, would the American public be better equipped to resist that with or without guns? In civil war, guns give power to the majority of public opinion that would need to be there otherwise. In a nation with an unarmed public, whatever the majority of soldiers side with is likely gonna win. With an armed populace, the civilian opinion matters more.

I think it's an overall modest observation, and one that really doesn't in anyway make it obvious that the modest benefit is worth the costs. That is another matter, but you can't factually claim that there isn't a meaningful difference between an armed and unarmed population when facing civil war.

That's an insane interpretation imo. There's no reason for the 'till heaven and earth pass' part at all then except to confuse the meaning, which would be crazy.

The reason for the Heaven and Earth part is to reaffirm what He said in the previous verse, which is that He didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill the law. He is saying the law cannot be destroyed. The reason He was strongly reaffirming that is because that is exactly what the Pharisees accused Him of doing.

As to pigs flying meaning 'never' you forget, in 2009....swine flu. ;-)

lol

I put them together because they are written together. You conflate fulfilling the law with "everything being fulfilled" for some reason, when it seems clear to me they are very different things. The Law is not "everything", right?

The law is not everything, but the context of that statement is that He is fulfilling the law. The "all" then is all that which is written for Him to fulfill. An example that ties in would be in Luke 4:21

Also, a main piece you are skipping over is where Jesus said He didn't come to destroy the law but fulfill it. That tells you the meaning of what He is talking about. He is definitely saying that the law can be fulfilled, and it can be fulfilled by Him. This is the meaning of the text, that He had come to fulfill it and would (and did) fulfill it.

Right then, Jesus opposed God's law, hardly moral by any religious standard. That Law was still in effect while he lived under any interpretation, something he reiterated in the passage.

He didn't oppose Gods law, He brought something into the situation that had never been there before, which is grace. Since He is the Lord, He can do that. That is exactly what He came to earth to do, which is to bring forgiveness and salvation by faith through grace.

You've ignored my question, or contorted around it. The Law during his life required killing infidels, either he followed it and murdered or not. If not, how is defying God and telling others to follow along not immoral, especially considering the passage where he said that's not OK for ANYONE?

I would venture to guess that the majority of the citizens of Israel had never killed anyone except perhaps if they were in the army. You make it sound like they were a bunch of barbarians running around and bashing peoples heads in. The reality is, everyone knew the law and knew the penalty of certain things was death. It probably would have been relatively rare that people were caught violating laws that led to the death penalty. Jesus followed the law perfectly but it doesn't mean He killed anyone. The only example we have in scripture of that situation is when He showed grace.

".....until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,"
Edit: it seems you give him a 'do as I say, not as I do, I am bound by no law or rules because I am God so infallible' pass, which doesn't seem like him as he's usually described in the least (teaching by example), and goes against any interpretation of Mathew:18 since he definitely hadn't fulfilled "everything" yet.

It would have been right for Him to stone someone who broke the law but the person would be judged by the priests before that could happen. I just doubt that it ever did happen and nothing is mentioned about it in scripture.

I thought I answered, but I'll try again. As I recall, the stories, fables, and parables attributed to Aesop did a great job of not only listing and describing good morals and ethics, but explaining the why of them without resorting to supernatural whim as an explanation. Imo, a much better, clearer job than Jesus and the bible with it's cryptically described, contradictory, changing morals and ethics usually without any explanation. Granted, the man may be just another myth.

Jesus is not a myth, first of all. Even Richard Dawkins believes He was a real person. I enjoyed Aesops fables; my grandfather gave me a book of them as a child (I wish I could find it now). I haven't looked them over in awhile so I can't say what I do or don't agree with. The question is, how are they objectively good? By that I don't mean, something that appeals to you personally. What I mean is, what makes them transcendent above mere human opinion?

That's an insane interpretation imo. There's no reason for the 'till heaven and earth pass' part at all then except to confuse the meaning, which would be crazy.
As to pigs flying meaning 'never' you forget, in 2009....swine flu. ;-)

I put them together because they are written together. You conflate fulfilling the law with "everything being fulfilled" for some reason, when it seems clear to me they are very different things. The Law is not "everything", right?

Right then, Jesus opposed God's law, hardly moral by any religious standard. That Law was still in effect while he lived under any interpretation, something he reiterated in the passage.

You've ignored my question, or contorted around it. The Law during his life required killing infidels, either he followed it and murdered or not. If not, how is defying God and telling others to follow along not immoral, especially considering the passage where he said that's not OK for ANYONE?
".....until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,"
Edit: it seems you give him a 'do as I say, not as I do, I am bound by no law or rules because I am God so infallible' pass, which doesn't seem like him as he's usually described in the least (teaching by example), and goes against any interpretation of Mathew:18 since he definitely hadn't fulfilled "everything" yet.

I thought I answered, but I'll try again. As I recall, the stories, fables, and parables attributed to Aesop did a great job of not only listing and describing good morals and ethics, but explaining the why of them without resorting to supernatural whim as an explanation. Imo, a much better, clearer job than Jesus and the bible with it's cryptically described, contradictory, changing morals and ethics usually without any explanation. Granted, the man may be just another myth.

Another terrifying angle

At least ten people were injured in a ski-lift crush in Georgia’s mountain resort of Gudauri.

The citizens of Georgia, Ukraine, Russia and Sweden were reportedly taken to a hospital with minor injuries.

A ski lift malfunction was reported at Sadzele mountain ski trail in Gudauri in the morning on 16 March. There was an emergency stop after which the ski lift chairs started sliding back. The riders had to jump off the ski lift to survive.
According to the Georgian Healthcare Minister, David Sergeenko, 8 people turned to the Gudauri-based medical emergency clinic.

“Luckily no one was killed or seriously injured. There are two patients, the nationals of Ukraine and Sweden, who still need to be paid particular attention,” said David Sergeenko. According to the Georgian Healthcare Minister, the Ukrainian citizen has an open fracture of a forearm, while another injured person, a Swedish national, is a pregnant woman. Both of them have been transported from Gudauri to Tbilisi by helicopter.

The Georgian Ministry of Interior has instituted criminal proceedings under Article 275 of the Criminal Code of Georgia – “violation of safety regulations or procedures for the operation of the railway, water, air or cableway transport traffic”.

Well, things are not as rosy as folks like Steven Pinker would like us to believe. As much as I dislike resorting to Hollywood for philosophical insights, True Detective was absolutely on point in this quote:

„Transference of fear and self-loathing to an authoritarian vessel. It's catharsis. He absorbs their dread with his narrative. Because of this, he's effective in proportion to the amount of certainty he can project.“

Now, they were talking about a preacher. But I'd argue this applies to scapegoats as well. And if your arguments undermine the scapegoat, it starts losing its efficiency as a focal point of people's discontent.

Most of us have so much day-to-day shit to deal with that outsourcing the macro-shit to a boogeyman, any boogeyman, helps us get through the day without wanting to bash our head against the wall. Or bash someone else's head in, for that matter.

This doesn't excuse this level of self-delusion, but maybe it explains it to some degree. I'd say keep doing what I know you've been doing for many years: present your case in a respectful manner.

Newt,

A certain person, yeah -- but there have been others from time-to-time.

Look, everyone knows we're talking about Bob, and I don't want to throw rocks at the guy. FWIW, for all his faults, I believe he's not stupid and is probably capable of presenting something rational if he could just get past bomb-throwing. He's presented a video where someone tried to intellectually defend the views that he holds. It wasn't the strongest set of arguments ever, but it was better than the usual bullshit.

Here's the thing: I actually want to hear what the other side thinks and feels, both from the standpoint of empathy and curiosity. Maybe there's something to learn from people on the other side. But I can't do this when all they present is HURR BLURF HURR CUCK SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE SJW LOCK HER UP ETC.

I hold vanishingly little hope that any kind of consensus can ever be reached again in this country (and the microcosm that is VideoSift) again, but I'm willing to at least listen and try to do my part. That doesn't mean I won't call bullshit, but if someone on the Right is willing to speak their piece without resorting to Alt-Right (Far Right) games, I'm game for something better than the usual flame war.

Your video, Kakslauttanen Arctic Resort in Wintertime, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I'm sold.
*quality resort

Now THAT is how you advertise your resort.

*promote

I upvoted your video because I appreciate the fact you're trying to present a cognizant backing for a lot of the things you say and believe.

I don't know if this was your strongest card, 'tho. He's well-spoken, with impressive CV and an interesting argument. The problem is he's cherry-picking the entire video and sometimes even resorting to rank hypocrisy (it's anti-American to campaign to minorities with a grievance, yet pulling the same stunt got Trump elected when he did it with white people).

I notice he falls back on the Coastal Elite trope, as if being successful and having ideals is somehow an antithesis to all that's good and pure about corn farmers in Kansas. Somehow, it's all those darned people living in that magical wonderland of those who can smell sea salt from the front porch of their homes that fucked middle America.

No. Sorry. Wrong answer.

40 years of Republican-dominated rule, 40 years of a sick social experiment being run by the disciples of Any Rand, is what fucked those people. 40 years of tax cuts for the rich and excess taxation on the poor; 40 years of stealing from schools to pay for subs; 40 years of setting the wolves among the sheep in the form of stripping consumer protections; 40 years of historical revisionism; 40 years of the kind of government that should have landed the perpetrators 12 steps from 6 hooded men with 5 loaded rifles.

Republicans have been calling the shots since Reagan, but yet 8 years of the black dude somehow set the country on a frenzy of self-destructive idiocy unseen since the French Revolution?

Look, I appreciate that you're trying to raise the tone with videos like this. But if you're trying to intellectually shore up the dike, I've got bad news for you: the facts will rarely be on your side.