Not strictly, as I pointed out in multiple ways.
Do you contradict anything I said, or are you switching to a constitutional interpretation discussion to avoid it?

If they don't, he vetos, back to square one. It's happened, but it's rightly seen as a total lack of governance and dereliction of duty by congress to not negotiate and pass a budget that will be signed, so become law. Not sure that's possible anymore, the negotiating with the president part I mean.

They can, if 2/3 of them are willing to push it through twice.....good luck with that anymore.

We were discussing veto, and overriding vetoes.

Not the timeline I recall, but I'm not willing to dispute it.
Did you note how often the Obama administration complained that investigations into Burisma and it's founder were dropped, they never tried to stop an investigation. Did you note Biden wanted Shoken out because he shelved investigations into Burisma and Mykola Zlochevskiy ? Did you note that the UK found nothing illegal when they investigated?

Did you note that Hunter was hired before the investigations (by corrupt Russian prosecutors, btw) mentioned in the article had started, so couldn't have been hired to get them stopped? Impossible according to that timeline.
Did you note there was never any hint that he tried to stop any investigation?
At the time he was hired, there was no investigation to stop....and if he was hired to get American help with future investigations that backfired badly because we went after investigators that DIDN'T investigate or dropped cases, not ones that made cases or investigated thoroughly.


Most importantly, did you notice that there was NEVER any investigation into HUNTER for Biden to try and stop, as is the claim. None at all. Nada.

I didn't, but I grew up watching Mr. Wizard's World, 3-2-1 Contact, Square One TV, etc. Good shit.

Bonus points go to you.

You went farther than I did then.
All I can say is when I cut out squares in a piece of paper, I could see a difference until they 'masked off' the image, then it had changed. I know these can work without fudging, which is why I was disappointed.
Did you note the difference between the 'colored' image and the 'masked off' image? It sure seems like there's a difference to me, if I stop it 1/2 way through and cover all but 2 squares, one is slightly lighter than the other on my monitor. That went for both the cubes and the floor tiles. Maybe it's 'eye memory' or something, but it sure seemed to me that the center tile was noticeably lighter until the 'masking off' happened.
I used a piece of paper against my monitor to measure the table,....I must have moved it when marking it, because now when I do it, it seems the tables ARE the same size. Damn touch screen, kept starting the video every time I touched it.
If those lines were really pixel straight, my paper is cut with a curve or my monitor has a problem.
Again, you went farther than I did to prove it, so I'll defer to you and accept I'm seeing things, even when I mask them off myself.

EDIT: Just a thought why I may have seen it differently, do you think it's possible that 'light bleed' or 'color bleed' on my monitor has anything to do with it? I mean, since the pixel next to the 'grey' block might be glowing bright yellow, it could color the grey slightly yellow, while the RGB value would not change?

If I remember correctly, the Croatians put everything else on hold when they introduced their system and had their entire staff out in the field for 6 months to enforce it. After that, the system was widely accepted and controls could be tuned down to a normal level.

Greece cannot go down the same route if most of what little bureacracy they have is still in cahoots with the previous nepotic governments. Maybe some third party can provide personnel for a few months...

The €2B come straight from our Tax Avoider in Chief, Juncker. Some say he's more of a federalist, more willing to compromise to keep the EZ together. Doesn't really matter though, Greece is too far down the rabbit hole.

As for Syriza: your guess is as good as mine. If they don't start praying to our Lord Austerity soon, the Troika won't hesitate to let them drown. And if they do get on their knees, Syriza will split and everything's back to square one.

There is no doubt that these people are disgusting, but thankfully they are also rare. Every society has their fringe crazies - the US has Westboro Baptist Church, for instance - and they generally get way more attention than they deserve by being controversial.

This isn't to say that there isn't a problem with Israeli society's attitude toward the Palestinians, it's just to say that I think it is a problem that is far more subtle and widespread. Focusing so much attention on a small percentage of religious fanatics can be important because it does represent a movement and ideology that is problematic, but it has very little direct relevance to the current conflict.

The real problem, in my opinion, is a unique mixture of nationalism and a lopsided insulation from the reality of the conflict that is very common in Israeli society.

Israeli society is uniquely coherent in a particular way that stems from the relatively homogenous cultural identity facilitated by Judaism, and this coherence is also strengthened by the fact that Israeli society was built in the face of and as a direct result of considerable adversity. I think that this does allow for a sort of groupthink that inhibits Israel's ability to treat the Palestinians in a humane manner, but the effect manifests itself through society as a sort of cultural blindness and it manifests through the political process as hawkish policy.

(Also, whether or not you think they had the right to build that society in the first place is beside the point right now, I'm only talking about the existence of the unifying influence of adversity, and the effect it has on policy and the national psyche)

The other component of it is the simple fact that Israelis are extremely insulated from the realities of the Palestinian sufferings.

Even in the heat of a conflict like this, Israelis can pretty much go about their lives unimpeded. It is true that the rocket attacks are disruptive and that there is on a whole an unacceptably high level of danger from external attacks, but Israelis have leveraged a security apparatus that minimizes these realities in day to day life to an astounding degree, all things considered, and this fact is a double edge sword that creates a perfect breeding ground for indifference.

One side of the sword is that these measures are extremely effective at improving the lives of Israelis in the short term. However the other side of the sword is that it obviously makes these measures popular and politically successful. Furthermore, with all the calm and prosperity, it is very easy to forget about the abysmal conditions being imposed on 1.8 million people just thirty kilometers or so from your doorstep. The only time they really have to deal with the issue is when there is an inevitable flareup of violence at which point, naturally, people tend to be less empathetic. The rest of the time, during the lulls, the prospect of empathy is just placed on the back burner.

These are the tendencies that need to be addressed.

However calling Israel the 4th Reich and placing so much focus on youtube videos that give Israel's religious fanatics undue prominence is just as useless and destructive as all the Israelis and Israel sympathizers who insist on viewing Palestinian society as an unchanging, violent monolith that is accurately represented by its extremist elements.

The fact of the matter is that there are significant movements within Israeli society that are in fact attempting to change these trends. The same is true of Palestinian society, however it is more difficult for those movements because of the repressions imposed by Hamas, culture and environment.

If there is to be any hope in this situation, Israel's role as the dominant, occupying force means that they have the first move. They will have to shift from focusing on isolation and self-preservation to one of empathy to the average Palestinian, an empathy that is so strong that they must be willing to take considerable personal risks and let up their stranglehold on Palestinian society and allow them to prosper.

Because only then will the environment be in any way conducive for Palestinians to take considerable personal risks and defy the status quo en masse. Only then will the false succor of violent religious extremism loose its appeal.

Until that happens, we'll the cycle seems to return to square one every two or three years and I expect to have this discussion again sometime around 2017.

Unfortunately, it is going to be a hard and unlikely road because it takes a lot of empathy and effort to rise up and take huge risks during the times of quiet when prosperity and security easily distract from the continuing plight of the Palestinians. These aren't common traits. Humans are a very tribal species and we're not good at this kind of stuff when it concerns someone different who you don't have to interact with. This challenge is hardly unique to the Jews.

@alcom No hard feelings. I'm starting to get used to this. Please let me try to explain one more time, because I feel like I have an important point:

Videos like this are great for the people who are already in agreement, but it's my belief that they're intended to educate and bring positive change.
My belief is that we need to get people who disagree entirely with the subject and message to absorb the information if we actually want to make that change.
We're communicating with people who, for all intents and purposes from our point of view, are completely irrational. 'They' believe the same about people with our perspective. If you're going to approach them for a dialogue, it only takes ONE mistake, misquote, or sense of being manipulated to lose them, and then you're back to square one.

So the reason I criticize this video is because I could see someone who was ignorant of this information easily turning it off as soon as it got to the dramatic music and the matter-of-fact narrative presentation, or the misalignment with their Empirical analogies.
I'm sure you've seen enough mainstream media today to know that as soon as something smells fishy to one party or another, they hang onto that, no matter how trivial whatever that thing is, and it's the only excuse they need to stick fingers in ears and "La la la I can't hear you! You're wrong!"

I feel like I'm turning into exactly that kind of manipulative, psychoanalyzing communicator, which makes me sick. But my whole motivation is to clear the bullshit away, that's all. Thanks for your reply.

And once everybody achieves above average status it becomes the new mediocre and we're back to square one again.

TBH I kind of sympathize with Dennis Rodman. Look he's not a diplomat he was sent over there to open up the door. Dennis isn't going to be politically correct and he's not the most intelligent person in the world don't ask him to articulate everything he is saying.

George "So you agree with how he puts 200,000 people in prison labor camps?"
Dennis "Well it's amazing how we do the same thing here in the US"

Now most of the super liberal people on this site I imagine would agree with Dennis there. Locking up the poor, black people, unfair trials, the patriot act, etc. But everyone is looking past that because he is saying he love Kim Jong Un?

Dennis Rodman knows he's right he just has a hard time saying it.

If he came back to America and was like "that kids a punk bitch and I told him to stop xyz" we would be right back to square one.

Whoever sent Dennis there knows what he is doing.

But then by the same logic Hovind has no grounds to make an assertion either, because he is subject to the same laws of not having absolute knowledge as he is not a god himself. ===> back to square one.

So your argument is flawed too, because a perceived "revelation" is *not* the same as being demonstrably an actual god.

But yes, the kid should not have made a claim to absolute knowledge to the non-existence of a god.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^VoodooV:
Yeah I got no problem with the idea of a creator. There are plenty of science fiction stories that assert the premise that humanity is a created species. But you do have to prove that it exists if you want public policy to be based on a creator, and not only that, you have to prove that this creator agrees with your viewpoint/religion. None of which has been done. God is not an American, nor is he a Republican.
Till then, I'll throw my lot in with things that actually can be demonstrated and repeated.
It's fun to theorize and speculate on what a creator wants, but it really needs to be left out of civilized, adult matters of importance where lives and liberty depend on the outcome.

I wouldn't expect you to believe we should follow biblical morality unless you already believed in the God of the bible. This is what is written:
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned
I understand that this country is going in a secular direction, but I think any student of history would have to acknowledge that it has a Christian background, and was founded on those principles. If you want to disagree with that, that's fine, and I am not going to argue the point. It's not really about what our public policy should be, to me. Humanity has been in constant rebellion since the Creation began, and this isn't going to change while we are still allowed to govern ourselves. The nation of Israel, after seeing Moses part the red sea, and countless other miracles, fell into apostasy and worshipped idols during the short time it was waiting for Moses to return from Mt Sinai. It's not about evidence, because He has given it to us. It is that there is no limitation to the wickedness of the human heart. I'll direct you to my previous post for further illumination of this point.


And what you need to acknowledge, sir, as a self-proclaimed student of History is that is that Christianity meant something profoundly different to the Founders than what Christianity is associated with today. So claiming that the founders were Christian and thus America is founded on Christianity is pretty disingenuous. There might be a slight grain of truth to it, but you're willfully disregarding the larger evidence that they knew the dangers of Religion. It's obvious that a human being is going to attempt to govern according to their morals and back then, most people's morals did come from religion and the founders had a wide variety of different religions, so to claim that the nation was founded on Christianity willfully ignores everything else the founders drew upon and is deceitful at best, a sad attempt at a coup at it's worst.

There is a reason why only two commandments are actually laws.

The Constitution is a secular document. The establishment clause is pretty clear on how religion should be treated in regards to our gov't. There's a reason we don't tax church. Gov't doesn't involve itself in Church, therefore the opposite must be true, Church doesn't involve itself in gov't. No taxation...no representation. You can vote your beliefs at the ballot box all you want. More power to you, but you have to do it as an individual. And the Constitution is also pretty clear on what it thinks about the majority taking away minority rights.

With that separation in mind, and getting back to the original topic since you like to tangent. I have zero problem with marriage being a religious institution. You want to be recognized by gov't? Get a civil union. Want to be recognized by god? Get the head of your church to marry you. Since church is a private organization, that's up to them. But there are plenty of churches that do marry gays, so it really is a matter of time before the acceptance of gays becomes universal (we're already at 50 percent and those numbers aren't going to go back down) and there will be enough pressure for even the Vatican to change their stance. They've changed stances before. If not, they'll be left by the wayside like we leave other old and outdated things.

Just because you claim that there is evidence, doesn't make it so. I don't recall ever hearing about any published papers about evidence of a creator in any scientific journals. I would think it would be big news.

Therefore, we're back to square one sir, the burden of proof is on your God. If it wants a Christian gov't, it's going to have to do a lot better than an ancient book that's been translated countless times and has had its meaning changed countless times and portions of it's "morality" are flat out wrong. Not to mention the phenomenon by which people reject the faith when they actually read the bible. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that even you don't agree with stoning and slavery. If you do, then I don't think you and I can continue having a civilized discussion.

You are welcome to your faith, sir, but when you govern a nation of many people of many different faiths and non-faith, you have to have a better standard by which to govern by. The burden is on you to prove that homosexuality infringes on your freedoms and you simply haven't made your case...and you probably never will.

completely no evidence that he is gay.

That said...

...so what if he was?

We're back to square one here people. The burden is on the right. Why is homosexuality intolerable? WHY? We live in America where we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We are free to do what we want as long as it doesn't hurt others. And keeping in mind the separation of church and state so the bible's views on homosexuality are irrelevant when it comes to government. What is the evidence that homosexuality infringes on other people's rights?

And yeah. strong odds that this FRI guy is deep in the closet.

@Porksandwich:

According to Zimmerman, he was carrying his weapon in plain sight. So if he's telling the truth, I assume Martin would've seen it. Now, this is still all just speculation, but whatever the events leading up to the confrontation, if I felt I absolutely needed to hit someone who I knew had a gun, I would absolutely make sure that person was unconscious before the end of my assault. All this shit about how Martin had a responsibility to back off once he'd subdued Zimmerman is crazy. As if you would hit someone who had a gun and then back off and tell them to calm down.

Anyway, I could speculate forever, but what I don't have to speculate on is this: I support an American's right to carry a gun, even in public. There's a reason though, that most (practically all) neighborhood watch groups have policies about patrolling unarmed and in groups. The reason is to avoid vigilante justice, and even just unfortunate confrontations or misunderstandings that end in tragedy. The recommendation in ninety-nine percent of watch groups is that even if you have a license to carry a gun, you do not carry it on patrol and you always patrol in groups to avoid situations that escalate to unnecessary ends.

All that said though, the law is still open to interpretation. Even if Martin loses a murder trial, he could still appeal a conviction in a higher court and bring the whole thing back to square one. Unfortunately, this tragedy is just a another messed up event in a sometimes shitty world that people sometimes have to learn to live with.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Not the best TED.


That's because it's not really a TED talk. TEDx is an independently run event. She wouldn't get away with this at a real TED conference, because you aren't allowed to sell anything tangible in your talk, like a book.

People like Mel Robbins, Dr. Phil and their ilk mean well. The problem is that people rarely walk away from these self-help seminars, with anything they will able to use. You leave the talk with this fortune cookie wisdom, elevated adrenaline and a endorphin rush. However this wears off. You are then back to square one with the same problems and a wallet that is $200 lighter.

It's naive and simplistic to think that you can rid yourself of problems, with a slogan. Slogans that are ever so popular in western culture, that it's no wonder that these people have a cache of them, ready to disseminate at a seminar.

I have the impulse to down vote this video in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 .. damn I missed the 5 second rule. Sometimes practicing restraint and not acting on impulse, can be good.

Final thought: How she tried to distance herself from the other self-help charlatans (in the opening 3 minutes), was a touch of brilliance.

At $1,870 a pop there is no way in hell they will slack off. Fighting high crime is a lower priority because it does not generate revenue. Walk away from a meter to get some change for even 30 seconds and parking enforcement is Johnny-On-The-Spot.

Come home to a ransacked house and your lucky if the cops show up within an hour.>> ^VoodooV:

Here's the problem though. You know damned well that at some point, they'll slack off on enforcing the law again since mis-using a handicapped spot isn't exactly high crime and we'll go back to square one again.

It's great that they are finally enforcing the law.

At the same time though. I kinda wish they'd just abolish handicapped parking all together.

We hear it all the time, handicapped people are able to do everything non-handicapped people can do. They obviously can get around enough to get into their cars and go everywhere else. mobility technology is improving every day. So why is that distance from the store entrance to the handicapped lots so sacred?

And even if you can convince me that handicapped parking is still necessary. You have to acknowledge that SOME DAY mobility technology is going to advance to the point that special parking spots are no longer necessary. And once you give a perk to someone, it's harder than hell to take it back, necessary or not.

Here's the problem though. You know damned well that at some point, they'll slack off on enforcing the law again since mis-using a handicapped spot isn't exactly high crime and we'll go back to square one again.