I'm horrified that Home Defense Shooting is even a subject.

You accepted my challenge, so it's only fair that I accept yours.

1) If love is all you need then it follows (or precedes) that all you need is love. However, I believe in life after love, therefore I cannot accept the original premise. My answer is no.

2) Well, I may know the undercover agents, and therefore I possibly know who they are, but I'm not aware that I'm aware who the undercover agents are. I'll give this one a 'probably not'.

3) Communicating the entirety of my knowledge on any subject via text is impractical, therefore I will assume that an attempt at quantification will suffice. I'll say... six.

As for the code, it's been a long time since I watched ST4, but a short time since I listened to The Wall, so I'll go with my gut answer. Is there anybody out there?

I like a nice challenge. Thanks.

And you realize I say that as a man who lives in a country where men usually make these decisions for women without even basing their position in science or fact. I can only hope to insert some into the discussion about WHY it should be the incubator's choice of whether or not to be one...not some random group of guys, not the inhuman parasite, not some misinterpretation of stone age fables that say nothing on the subject, but the womb owner who should control the womb.

Yes, I got money out of them, but not for that.

Well newtboy, how about this? Start promoting the concept of taking action on your own behalf and on behalf of your fellow man in situations that most would normally delegate to the police force.

Start first with listing every situation that would cause someone to call the cops. Be comprehensive. It might take several days or weeks. You may even want to interview subject matter experts to help with this ideation phase.

Then, come up with 3-5 alternative courses of action for each situation that don't involve a police force.

How motivated are you? I organize these types of research projects for a living. Heck, even without you I might undertake this project. I have many others higher on my list though.

Once you are done, it's a matter of publishing and promoting your research. I do all that as well.

Since they set up a process to repatriate Confederates, I would guess either the law has changed or they were assumed to have renounced citizenship when they swore allegiance to the Confederacy...but I'm no historical law professor.

Yes, there are some non combatants who joined Daesh who claim to have not renounced or forfeited their citizenship, but since they gave aid and comfort to the enemy during "war" and could be executed imo, wanting to return home and be subjected to the legal system doesn't sound a bit smart. I think those who took up arms are in a different boat, with a much harsher likely legal outcome.

@dag also this may interest you regarding the subject

I despise almost everything about little Donny, he is an abhorrent human being.

The food he eats is absolutely as disgusting as he is... TO ME. Taste is entirely subjective. If that's how he likes his steak, that in no way effects me or this country. One of the silliest things we get hung up on.

Typical lefties, screaming racism where there is none (Religion is not a race) and becoming uncivil because they aren't capable of disproving factual claims.

This is Charles Murray at Middlebury College all over again. Thankfully this time nobody got injured when the lefties lashed out.

Once again lefties do not understand a nuanced subject so they cling to moral outrage which quickly escalates to violence when they don't get their way - silencing free speech.

The senator was not blaming muslims for the attack, he specifically said there is no justification for the attack, and CONDEMNED THE ATTACK. He was saying that lefties are silencing free speech, and that in turn radicalizes right leaning people - which is a problem, because the last thing the world needs is right leaning people being radicalized into full blown racists - because nobody is allowed civil discourse, which divides people into extremes.

And this egging is a perfect analogy for the problem the senator was describing.


-----

The lefties have got people so scared to have civil discourse about immigration, integration and other similar issues that the only people not afraid to talk about it are genuine racists. This is a huuuuuuuuuuuge problem. And as a centrist, this frustrates me to no end, because I have racists on one side of me, and lefty fascists on the other - both of which foaming at the mouth.

I'm always so disappointed in these "great big stories" videos.
They have such amazing, interesting subjects, videos are so professionally shot, but they all end up being too short and not really getting into the meat of things
This video should've been AT LEAST 15min long if not good 30+.
They could've shown how he sharpens different knifes, blades, etc etc, what customers think of him, etc. All their videos are such wasted opportunities

The only reason you hate bullies and liars is because you believe you have no other options. That makes you a hater and no different than that which you hate.

Anger is only hate if that's what you want it to be. You have a choice of what to do with the energy that anger creates. You make it destructive or productive.

Nothing is better than love. It leads straight to hell. It will be the ONLY thing to get you out.

He subjected himself to the abuse. He could have just said, knock yourself out fellows. Just close the door behind you. But instead he chose to waste his short remaining time on the clowns.

Are you still looking for the ugly truth? How do you expect to find it if you don't make yourself vulnerable? If you don't trust?

If you love someone or someone loves you, all your defenses have already been penetrated. Pretty slick, eh?

EDIT:

I hope you're writing all this down. There are a lot people that need help. That's where your talent comes in.

Perhaps, but in this instance it's my hatred of bullies and liars.
Being angry isn't a waste of time, it's one of the best motivators there is for humans....yes, better at motivating than love.

I dunno, he was recording them for a reason, and what group isn't going to jump at helping a dying cancer patient address the draconian disrespect and abuse of power he was subjected to? Over an anonymous accusation.

A love of cynicism IS me. If there were awards for cynicism, I would be famous. Blind acceptance isn't a positive or intelligent trait. It takes bravery to open your eyes and admit the ugly truth, especially when admitting it contradicts the willingly blind masses, much more bravery than going along with the crowd pretending everything's fine.

I thought it's more two wrongs exposing an established and growing wrong.

No, if they COMMUNICATE what they're doing, and do that well, it's not bad communication, and they did. It's not an objective fact, it's only your opinion. Sorry. "Bad" is a subjective word, not objective.

No sir, Westborough is not more accurate. They claim to be Christian, followers of Jesus, but ignore the new testament entirely. That is the antithesis of accurate. Because they lie and claim something doesn't make it accurate, their actions contradict their claims every time to a much greater degree than these Satanists (who I don't think denied the existence of Satan, they could be incredibly devout for all we know, they're simply clear that their main current objective is to stop the government's illegal and immoral support of Christianity to the exclusion of other "faiths", which in no way denies belief in Satan and embodies their churches tenets, unlike "Christian" anti abortionists who compromise their own religious morals to tell others how they must think and live).

Perhaps you are simply confused about what "Satanist" means?
Because you have a specific definition in mind doesn't make it correct .....if you can call Westborough "Christian" then obviously your standards are sub basement low, and anyone is whatever they claim, any evidence to the contrary be damned.

Again, when they COMMUNICATE both their actions and intent, that's not bad communication just because you don't like it, and certainly not just because you make assumptions about their beliefs and their zealotry.

That just sounds an awful lot like two wrongs making a right.

Claiming an established well defined name for your group/association, and then proceeding to define your group as something completely different is BAD communication. That is an objective fact, not something that varies depending upon your subjective POV. Whether that bad communication also has some morality attached to it sounds more like what your addressing, which is something I was saying nothing about.

Having groups like Westboro Baptists claiming to be either Christian or Baptist is like you said much the same. Morality wise, infinitely worse. Communication wise they might arguably be more accurate, although their words and actions look nothing like the Christ they claim to follow, I do understand that their group at least claims to truly believe in and follow their God. Secular Satanists apparently neither worship nor even believe in the existence of Satan, making the moniker more misleading. Their push for religious neutrality/separation of church and state however place them as far superior morally. Again, these examples are laden with my opinion regarding morality.

Morality aside though, you honestly can't say that claiming a name for your group with a strongly established meaning and definition isn't bad communication when your group shares neither the beliefs(grammar edit) nor practices of that established meaning and definition.

While we're on the subject, does anyone remember the news reports from around 1989 I think, of a private plane flying along the east coast of the U.S. near Florida and it was assumed the pilot was incapacitated. He wasn't responding to the radio but the jet pilots saw that the sun visor position had changed while they were tracking him so obviously someone was flying the plane.

I think he eventually landed but it was never clear what the explanation was for the lack of communication. It was a big deal at the time but I can't find any reference to it with Google.

I spent 25-30 years waiting, hoping, expecting those good cops to toss out the bad ones and be the upright pillars of our communities they take credit for being. I was sorely disappointed and decided I better change my assessment and expectations.

That doesn't mean all cops are bad people, many are outstanding people. It means they are part of a culture that puts even terrible workmates above the public and the law they enforce, and that, by their own definition, makes them as guilty as the known criminal cops they harbor.
I can only blame the police leadership and unions for protecting police criminals instead of the public, and the current fight about misconduct investigation records only highlights it's an ongoing and worsening issue. They should want total transparency so the public knows the police aren't harboring and protecting rapists and brutal thugs. That would make the job safer and easier too.

I don't think I'm giving the bad cops power, I'm recognizing the reality that the bad cops apparently run the show and make their own rules whenever possible, including investigating themselves in secret when they're caught breaking them.

Foolish test subject, that was a hologram of cake.