I'm right there with you...I've never been on FB, twitter, myspace, or any other social site unless you count the sift.

I do get your point about it being integral to the success of movements like the Arab Spring, and I can support using social media for that kind of organization, I just think that's the exception rather than the norm.

I took this as a jab at people who think retweeting IS action, not the precursor TO action. They seem to be a majority today, a statement I base on little more than third hand experience and biased reports.

wedding reception material right there

They should have less risk. They don't have carcinogenic chemicals added to make them stay lit or preserve them, and they aren't inhaled (by those who know how to smoke them).
That doesn't mean they're safe, as you mentioned. I think oral and throat cancers, while still a risk, are more likely with cigarettes because of the extra chemicals.
You are right, there's very little data about cigar risks. It would be silly to pretend they don't have risks, though.

I would note that I've seen people publicly harass cigarette smokers, then come tell me how good my cigar smells. I've also never had someone complain about my cigar smoke, but heard it often back when I smoked cigarettes.

"lashing out while accepting no responsibility" - Sounds exactly like every BLM, OWS, or any other Liberal hate group if you ask me. Talk about being drug into insanity. Besides, show me ONE Tea Party protest where there was ANY violence.. lashing out... Pft There is you face palm moment right there.

And no, true Conservatives are not anti-tax but pro-spending. You just described where the Republican party went, but NOT the Conservative. And yes, I know exactly what I stand for.

So I guess I can say every Liberal I've met is as racist and hate-filled as BLM, OWS, and militant Feminist groups. That makes it true since I posted it on the internet... *rolls eyes*

And if you want to talk about party base and abject stupidity, there are GOBS of examples of videos showing the complete ignorance of students on college campuses and protesters at some of these big Liberal events.

Seems to me like the typical Liberal has no idea what he is protesting other than they were told that something was bad and they should be mad about it, and the Professor said they could skip class if they go too! Oh, and can't forget all the PAID "professional" protesters.

"Vote for me and I'll set you free" ... if only

"People walkin' 'round with their heads in the sky" ...there's yer ball of confusion right there

That's what the world is today ... whoop! Hopefully the band WILL play on!

*promote some things never change [or are deregulated if they happen to]

3:47, damn! He's fast enough to to be an Imperial City guardsman in Cyrodiil. Just needs to work on his "Stop right there criminal scum!".

@enoch,

neo-conservatives
I've said in a couple other threads if I was American I'd have(very sadly mind you) voted for Hillary. Not sure, but that should really lay the neo-con thing to bed right there. Doesn't mean I won't agree with them if they notice the sky looks rather blue...

the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012
I don't base or form my morality around American law, so when and how it's deemed lawful or not for an American president to order something doesn't change my opinion one inch on whether the act is good or bad. Sure, it deducts a lot of points when a President breaks laws so that factors in, but if it's legal for a president to shoot babies we're all still gonna call it immoral anyways, right?

you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.
Between act of war, or peace time legal prosecution with proper due process.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.
and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

Sorry, but regarding Bin Laden that's a lie. The US state department held a trial and convicted Bin Laden already back in the 90s. The Taliban refused to extradite him then, and demanded they be shown evidence. They were shown the evidence and declared that they saw nothing unIslamic in his actions. Clinton spent his entire presidency back and forth with them, even getting a unanimous order from the UN security council demanding Bin Laden's extradition.

Smugly claiming that the US refused to provide any evidence to the Taliban because they were being bullies is ignoring reality. after spending several years getting jerked around by the Taliban claiming each new act of war launched from their territory wasn't their fault nor bin Laden's fault left a less patient president after 9/11...

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.
Can't say I'm very familiar with Hannity because I avoid Fox news at all costs.
Did he praise the killings afterwards and declare the shooter a hero like Anwar?
Did he council before hand in his books that killing those people was moral or just or religiously blessed like Anwar did?
Did he personally meet with and council/mentor the shooter before hand at some point as well, like Anwar did?

I have to ask just so we really are comparing apples to apples and all. If the answers are yes(and from Fox I suppose I can't completely rule that out just out of hand), then yeah, he's as guilty as Anwar.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

If he goes to Yemen we just laugh at our good fortune that he decided to kill himself for us.

To your point, if he finds a similar independent state to continue promoting and coordinating attacks as part of an effective terrorist unit killing new civilians every week then yes, bombs away.

Now if either he or Anwar remained in the US you arrest them and follow all due process. Oh, and to again shake the neo-con cloud you don't get to torture them by calling it enhanced interrogation, it's still a war crime and you should lock yourself up in a cell next door.

My whole thing is that setting up a state within a state and waging war shouldn't just be a get out of jail free card under international law. Either the 'host' state is responsible for the actions or it is not. If responsible, then like in Afghanistan it initiated the war by launching the first attacks. If not responsible, then it's declared the state within a state to be sovereign, and other states should be able to launch a war against the parasitic state, as has been happening with Obama's drones in tribal Pakistan.

Those countries have had problems long before any western intervention.

Again, this is the left being dishonest. Please stop doing it, you're only making things worse for the refugees by fueling the far right.

There are actual muslims (such as Maajid Nawaz)that say islam has a problem(especially particular strands of it), and it needs reform. Embracing the muslims who want reform is the only way forward.

EDIT: Everything you've said has been rebutted by Maajid Nawaz, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris, Hitchens and so on.

or star blazers(EPIC show right there) or grendizer?starvengers? danguard ace? gaiking?

duuuuuude....
come over so we can binge watch!

That's some *quality investigative reporting right there.

He needs a necklace that says "Please give me love, not treats" or something. Poor guy, he won't last long like that.

@newtboy
i agree in theory,but disagree in practice.
as i stated in my comment:discernment.

it appears we approach news and journalism differently.

i do not consume the institution,but rather the individual reporter.which is why i will watch a report by shepard smith from FOX,but ignore anything by tucker carlson or bill o'reilly.

the HUGE mistake you make about hedges,is just that,an assumption.

chris hedges mistake.
is the same mistake that other media personalities have made,such as cenk uynger when he was on MSNBC.

hedges criticized power.
in fact,in the run up to the iraq war hedges was pushing out story after story that was highly critical of the bush administration,and..ironically..was using the very intelligence reports that you mentioned.he was challenged by the new york times editorial board to either cease and desist,or face disciplinary action.

he chose to retain his integrity,and honor his father (great story right there,he always chokes up when telling it) and walked away from a successful career,full of adulation and respect,rather than bow at the foot of the kings throne and kiss the feet of the powerful.

the man has guts,in spades,and i admire him very much.

but if you think my opnion is biased,then let us take phil donahue who was hosting the most popular show on the newly founded MSNBC.

he too,was critical of the bush administration and had guests on that were countering the avalanche of white house narratives flooding the cable news networks.

he was fired,while simultaneously hosting the most popular and highest rated shows on MSNBC.

what i am saying,is exactly what hedges is saying:
criticize power and you will be branded,blacklisted and shunned from the "mainstream media".you will be relegated to the fringe for your defiance to power.

/chuckles..i find it interesting that pretty much everybody uses the term "mainstream media" to epitomize:lazy journalism,propaganda,fake news and yet the media THEY choose to consume..well...thats not mainstream at all.the media THEY choose to consume is top notch journalism.

i am not saying my choices are right,but i do choose them carefully.i do not subscribe to institutions but rather individuals who have proven the test of proper journalistic integrity:chris hedges,matt taibbi,bill moyers,henry giroux,laura poitrus,jeremy scahill,amy goodman,paul jay

you may notice that every one of these people are critical of power,and that..my friend..is the basic premise of the fourth estate.

the washington post,along with the new york times and wall street journal have become rags.just my opinion,feel free to disagree.

james o'keefe and project veritas are reknowned in their deceptions and their so-called 'gotcha" shenanigans.

and when i say "shenanigans",i mean clever editing to create a false premise that suits a political agenda.in this case:republicans.

o'keefe is not the first to kneel at the altar of political money,and suck the cock of his masters,simply to buy his way into the powered elites outhouse,located on the very edge of the property.(oooh i am being sassy today).

we can look back at the tea party and literally watch dick army,former congressman turned lobbyist (shocker right there),single handedly change the direction of an entire movement to serve the needs and desires of HIS masters,by the creation of "americans for prosperity".

i am not kidding.
go check it out.
when the original tea party started their message was very similar to the occupy wall street movement in 2011,but dick army and his merry band of fuckheads,manipulated the leadership from outrage against:big banks,wall street and the horrendous malfeasance of rumsfelds department of defense (still looking for that 1 trillion dollars of tax payer money)..

to...

big government and the democrats.

it was quite impressive in its simplicity and brilliance.
reprehensible and grotesque,but impressive.

we can even look at the private organization of the DNC,and how they openly attempted to undermine bernie sanders campaign.a man who was running on THEIR ticket for fuck sakes!

i seem to be on a kick today in regards to people who sell their integrity for cash.for access.for influence.

it appears john carpenters "they live" was not just a simple,cheesy,sci-fi movie but rather a documentary.

"i have come here to kick ass,and chew bubble gum.and i am all out of bubble gum".
rowdy randy piper (rip)

{insert brilliant segue back to video topic here}

Right now, I have two fondest Obama Administration memories that I think will stick with me in the future:

1) His original 2008 campaign and election. "Hope" and "Change" really resonated with me, and made him the first national political candidate that I got sort of actually enthusiastic about.

I am less enthusiastic about what he actually got *done*, but to be fair a lot of the blame for that goes to worthless obstructionist Congress. But not all. Still, Obama was (and remains) a smooth talkin' statesman that knew how to pitch "hope" and "change" in a way that made me believe he could deliver. Maybe I was just young and naive, but that had power.


2) "A few weeks ago, Dick Cheney says he thinks I’m the worst president of his lifetime. Which is interesting because I think Dick Cheney is the worst president of my lifetime."

C'mon, that right there is hi-larious!

Like Esoog, I've only got the one, which is a bit of hard work but easily manageable. Even then, though, I don't think anyone knows exactly how hard it's going to be until you have one... or two, or three, or four. OK, maybe by your fifth you should realise how much harder the next will be.

I think that no matter how many you have, so long as they're all still ok, it's great to go and sneak away for a treat. It's not like she went to the pub for a couple of hours; she was right there with them and would have heard a bump or a scream. I don't see any justification for complaint about her.

Teaching yourself independence from your kids is the first step to teaching them independence from you.

It's like people who complain about kids left in an air conditioned car while the parent drops in to the shop for 5 minutes. The chance of injury is minuscule, especially if the kid's asleep. Everyone has the right to parent their own way so long as it doesn't damage the kids permanently (within reason).

Of course, I have a low bar: I say that my parenting is successful if the three of us are still alive and talking to one another.

If Bundy would've gotten shot trying to take him by force I'd have understood. His entire group should be in jail for a terrifically long time too, not given a pat on the head sent on his way as he was....

And yes, I'm right there alongside if a harder hammer sits on these protesters than on Bundy's group. I just do side to the law should stand and I need some heavier proof before just dismissing it.