@newtboy
i like the 'failing liver" analogy.
appropriate and easily understood.

and i can understand where milkmandan is coming from,but my perspective is more aligned with yours newt.

what consistently baffles me,is how so many people are willing to simply accept this short term strategy from our politicians.

there is no surprise when corporations push for this,they are just focusing on their own interests and bottom line,which is short term profit.

or the politicians who bow to their neoliberal masters to receive those tasty campaign contributions.

or even the banks,who again focus on their short term gains.

these players are all behaving as they always have:for their own self interest.so there should be no shock or surprise when they act exactly as they have always acted.

but when i see everyday,normal people defend the behavior and actions of oliticians,financial institutions and multi-national corporations.it baffles me as to why they would choose to do such a thing.

we can understand why those players seek to retain a system which benefits them,their shareholders and their bottom line,but that system no longer serves the interests of the people,community and society as a whole.

so why make arguments defending it?

it is,quite frankly,killing us slowly as a species.

look at germany.
that country has slowly been recruiting,educating and now poised to corner the market in:new energy,renewable energy and are leading the world in breakthrough technologies in all energy fields.

germany has long played the long game.
they now dominate the entire EU in finance,and are now focusing on dominating the globe with new energy technology.

and what are we doing here in america?
pushing through more and more neoliberal policies that immiserate the working poor,both here and abroad.desperately continuing our destruction of entire ecosystems to exploit our natural resources for:oil and gas.military conflicts,which only make this country less safe,all to exploit other nations and extract THEIR oil and gas,and the cost in human lives is absolutely indefensible.

all of it.
every single bit of it for short term gains for an extremely small minority.

and here we are,with trump opening the flood gates to further exploit and destroy our natural resources with no thought or plan for the future.no investment in our communities,nor our society as a whole.

and for those who wish to make an argument that hillary would be better.i will only concede that on a domestic level this may have been true,but hillary is a neoliberal corporatist,and she would have pushed for even MORE military intervention in the middle east.MORE sanctions against countries unwilling to play ball,in order to politically squeeze them out,and even MORE of this countries policy of "regime change" to exploit and extract from those countries their precious resources.

i strongly suspect Iran would have been next on her agenda.

so when are some of these people going to step up,and realize that both trump AND clinton are (or would have been) disasterous for us as a community,a nation and as a species?

because they both only offer short term solutions to long term problems.and those short term solutions only benefit a minority of the population.

we could turn this ship around TODAY,right now,if we so choose.
we need more politicians like elizabeth warren and tulsi gabbard.we need more integrity in our media and journalists willing to do their job and criticize power,not bow to it just for access.we need the people to become engaged and confront their representatives,and make them uncomfortable,not treat them as celebrities.

and we need to reject the system where rich people choose who we get to vote for,and begin to dismantle this two party duopoly.

because trump vs hillary?
this election cycle has just revealed that both these candidates are not the disease,but rather the symptom of a very broken,and dysfunctional political system.

we need to begin to invest in the future.
and reject the status quo as no longer being viable for the continued existence of the human species.

and with the newly energized american public,who are growing in numbers daily,and is a direct response to the unmitigated disaster that is trump.there may be hope for us yet.

because if we stay on this trajectory,we are fucking doomed.

That's cool, but I think that's one of those "just because you could doesn't mean you should" deals. A big reason why battered and fried things are so tasty is the contrast between the crispy exterior and the tender/soft interior. Crispy and chewy isn't quite as appealing of a contrast.

Cat thought process: "I will secure this tasty tidbit from this moro.. OWWWWW HOW DARE YOU YOU FILTHY PEASANT!!!"

Dog thought process: "CHIP CHIP CHIP CHIP... Furry chip? CHIP CHIP CHIP"

Living in Thailand, I've grown to really appreciate locally grown meat and produce in comparison to massive factory farm stuff.

One good example: Tilapia fish. Back home in the US, I thought Tilapia was disgusting. It tastes like algae, because they are raised in man-made concrete tanks and fed exclusively on algae that is easy to grow. They won't breed in those conditions, so they have to pump in hormones to basically force them to reproduce, more hormones to make them grow quickly, etc. etc.

Here in Thailand, I live in a town close to a lake. If you go to the lake you can see huge enclosures made of nets, which keep the Tilapia contained but otherwise living very normal fish lives. They get a natural lake diet of insects, plants, etc., no need to give them any extra food. They reproduce without any encouragement.

Talk to one of the fish farmers, and they will pull up some of the net and present you with several fish to choose from. Point one out and they will pull it out, smack it on the head to kill it instantly, and then scale and gut it for you and put it in a bag. From alive in the lake to dinner in 15-20 minutes.

Or, if you go to a local market in town, people have stalls set up that serve the middleman function. They go to the lake and buy 20-50 Tilapia to put into a big tank in the back of their pickup, and keep them alive in there for a day or two until they are sold, for a slight markup so you don't have to drive out to the lake.


Roughly the same thing applies to pork, chicken, and most fruits and vegetables. Somewhat for beef also, but there is less of that since most Thais follow a branch of Buddhism that discourages killing/eating cows. So, gotta go to the Islamic Thai shops for beef.

Maybe the system here is old-fashioned, quaint, or a bit backwards ... but everything is really nice, fresh, and tasty compared to supermarket stuff back in the US.

But you have zero proof. You're stating that you have enough proof, but yet you really don't have any proof. You have circumstantial evidence.

I have zero doubts that DWS once in that position helped because she and Clinton are friends and political allies. But that's not quid pro quo. If Clinton hires her to help in her campaign, it isn't quid pro quo if Clinton hired her because of DWS's skills in the area. You have zero proof that's why DWS was hired. You have zero proof DWS did "whatever Clinton asked her to do". You have zero proof Clinton asked her to do anything that broke the rules in the first place. None.

You are inferring every single accusation you made against Clinton. There's absolutely no evidence of any of them at all.

Clinton has zero insights about what the public thinks? You're kidding, right? The woman who was the front runner for the Democratic nomination, who has been in the public spotlight at the national stage for almost 25 years doesn't have any insight about what the public thinks?

Come on, man.

Also, DWS's job wasn't solely to ensure the nominating process was fair. She had a ton of responsibilities, and many of them she did well. That was my point. All you're seeing is the part where she screwed up because it hurt your preferred candidate. Her job was also to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, too.

Perhaps a few might say DWS wasn't the reason Sanders lost? A few? You mean like.... ohhhhh, I dunno... Bernie Sanders? How about Bernie Sanders' staff members? But what the hell do they know, AMIRITE?

Dude, Sanders got crushed with minorities. You know where that can allow you to win the nomination? The GOP. Unfortunately for Sanders, he was running for the nomination where minorities are a significant part of the voting bloc. Absolutely CRUSHED. Clinton won 76% of the African-American vote. Before the primaries really began, Clinton was polling at 73% among Hispanics. You honestly think that was because of DWS? Let me put that to rest for you. Hillary Clinton did well among Hispanics against Barack Obama. Was that DWS's doing, too?

That's the thing. I have clear cut FACTS about why Sanders lost. I have the words from Bernie Sanders and his campaign staff. You have speculation about whatever small impact DWS's had on primary votes.

Valarie Plame? No, Bush never named her. It ended up being Karl Rove.

How did I shove Hillary Clinton down your throat? Explain that one to me. I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. In VA, I chose to vote in the GOP primary to do whatever I could to stop Trump, which was vote for Marco Rubio, as he was polling second in VA. I didn't do a damn thing to stop Sanders or help Clinton win the nomination.

Why didn't I vote for Sanders? Because of his lack of foreign policy experience, and he wasn't putting forth enough practical policies that I think would work. I like the guy fine. I'd vote for him as a Senator if he was in Virginia. I like having voices like his in Congress. But Commander In Chief is a big part of the job, and I want someone with foreign policy experience. He doesn't have that.

I also value flexibility in a candidate. The world isn't black and white. I like Sanders' values. It would be nice if everyone could go to college if they had the motivation. I very much think the rich are not taxed nearly enough. But I also think ideologies and ideals help to create ideas for solutions, but the solutions need to be practical, and I don't find his practical unfortunately. Sometimes they're not politically practical. Sometimes they just fall apart on the mechanics of them.

Gary Johnson has more experience? Uhhhhh, no. He was governor of New Mexico for 8 years. That compares well to Sarah Palin. Do you think Palin is more experienced than Clinton, too? Johnson has zero foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton was an active first lady who proposed Health Care Reform, got children's health care reform passed. She was a US Senator for the short time of 8 years, which is way less than Johnson's 8 years as governor of New Mexico (wait, what?!), was on the foreign relations committee during that time. Then she was Secretary of State.

Sanders is the only one who I'd put in the ballpark, but he's had legislative branch experience only, and he doesn't have much foreign policy experience at all. Interestingly enough, you said he was the most experienced candidate, overlooking his complete lack of executive experience, which you favored when it came to Gary Johnson. Huh?

Clinton can't win? You know, I wouldn't even say Trump *can't* win. Once normalized from the convention bounce, she'll be the favorite to win. Sure, she could still lose, but I wouldn't bet against her.

Clinton supporters have blinders on only. Seriously? Dude, EVERY candidate has supporters with blinders on. Every single candidate. Most voters are ignorant, regardless of candidate. Don't give me that holier than thou stuff. You've got blinders on for why Sanders lost.

There are candidates who are threats if elected. There are incompetent candidates. There are competent candidates. There are great candidates. Sorry, but there aren't great candidates every election. I've voted in enough presidential elections to know you should be grateful to have at least one competent candidate who has a shot of winning. Sometimes there aren't any. Sometimes there are a few.

In your mind, I'm a Hillary supporter with blinders on. I'm not beholden to any party. I'm not beholden to any candidate. It's just not in my nature. This is the first presidential candidate from a major party in my lifetime that I felt was truly an existential threat to the US and the world in Trump. I'm a level headed person. Hillary Clinton has an astounding lack of charisma for a politician who won a major party's nomination. I don't find her particularly inspiring. I think it's a legitimate criticism to say she sometimes bends to the political winds too much. She sometimes doesn't handle things like the email thing like she should, as she flees to secrecy from a paranoia from the press and the other party, which is often a mistake, but you have to understand at some level why. She's a part of a major political party, which has a lot of "this is how the sausage is made" in every party out there, and she operates within that system.

If she were a meal, she'd be an unseasoned microwaved chicken breast, with broccoli, with too much salt on it to pander to people some to get them to want to eat it. And you wouldn't want to see how the chicken was killed. But you need to eat. Sure, there's too much salt. Sure, it's not drawing you to the table, but it's nutritious mostly, and you need to eat. It's a meal made of real food.

Let's go along with you thinking Sanders is SOOOOOOOOOOO much better. He was a perfectly prepared steak dinner, but it's lean steak, and lots of organic veggies, perfectly seasoned, and low salt. It's a masterpiece meal that the restaurant no longer offers, and you gotta eat.

Donald Trump is a plate of deep fried oreos. While a surprising number of people find that tasty, it also turns out the cream filling was contaminated with salmonella.

Gary Johnson looks like a better meal than the chicken, but you're told immediately if you order it, you're gonna get contaminated deep fried oreos or the chicken, and you have absolutely no say which it will be.

You can bitch and complain all you want about Clinton. But Sanders is out.

As Bill Maher would say, eat the chicken.

I'm not voting for Clinton solely because I hate Trump. She's a competent candidate. At least we have one to choose from who can actually win.

And I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comparison of Trump to Clinton. One of them has far more governmental experience. One of them isn't unhinged. One of them is clearly not racist or sexist. You would at least agree with that, right? Clinton, for all her warts, is not racist, sexist, bigoted, and actually knows how government works. To equate them is insane to me. I'm sorry.

And this is coming from someone who voted for Nader in 2000. I totally get voting for a third party candidate in some situations. This isn't the time.

Edit: You know who else is considering voting for Clinton? Penn Jillette, one of the most vocal Clinton haters out there, and outspoken libertarian. Even he is saying if the election is close enough, he'll have to vote for her.

"“My friend Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called No One Left to Lie To about the Clintons,” Jillette says. “I have written and spoken and joked with friends the meanest, cruelest, most hateful things that could ever been said by me, have been said about the Clintons. I loathe them. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on just about everything there is to disagree with a person about. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I will put a Hillary Clinton sticker on my fucking car.”

But he says he hopes the race will turn out well enough that he feels safe casting his vote for Gary Johnson, who is running on the libertarian ticket, and who he believes is the best choice."
http://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-terrified-president-trump-431837

Black and blue. Healthy, no. Tasty, yes. *skillful

Sorry, but I feel bad for the guy.

Yes, he's way too smug about the whole thing, and the fact that he's vlogging makes it that much harder to sympathise, but if he's got an ethical objection to animal products I'm not surprised he's upset. If nothing else I'd say he feels sick to the stomach over it... imagine having a nice pork fillet only to find it's human meat.

I'm a solid carnivore myself, and a fan of People tor Eating Tasty Animals, but I still have to respect other people's choices. At least now he'll learn to ask more and more about the ingredients of what he eats.

Now back to my 'pork' stew.

It's Italy; there will be a beautiful view, something tasty to eat or drink, and if you are lucky, pleasant people with a tremendous love of life who persevere despite the fact that their country is a little bit broken.

The generic food thing is rather silly since often as not there is more than one brand of food and they taste different. At most one of those brands is being used as the store brand which means the rest will taste different. Sometimes it is totally different as well, the store may contract a major company to make it, but still have their own formula.

Basically store-brand food is just another brand and should be treated as such. It can be very tasty, I'm personally a big fan of Safeway's store brand olive oil, but acting like store brand food is the same as brand name is the same as acting like Coke and Pepsi taste the same. No, it's different stuff, buy the stuff you like the best.

Hello Tamandua! Nice to meet you. Please don't eat my friends. @ant may be tasty but we can't spare him. He's kinda important.

I'm feeling peckish for a little tasty late night duck....
*promote

i was a tad reluctant to post this video.
not because i didnt find it entertaining,because i did..this dude is off the rails with his passion and his rage,and i adore how he lays it all out.

no...i was reluctant because it is so obvious his bias and narrow interpretation of whats going on to fit his narrative,and i had a genuine anxiety that some of the sift would interpret my posting this as somehow representing MY thoughts on the situation in germany.

i was so unsure i went to a fellow sifter who i admire and respect very much,and who also happens to live in germany to get his take on this video (and if he found it offensive).

which he didn't and even offered up a very detailed opinion,not only on this video but the situation in germany (thanks @radx).

i don't really concern myself too much on if people feel offended.there is someone who will always feel/be offended and if i over-thought every nuance or detail,i probably would never post anything except cute kitten videos.

but the situation in germany is a clusterfuck and people are getting hurt,and i didnt want to come across as callous.

a main driving force why i posted this video is due to so many here in the states that are literally freaking out about 15,000 syrian refugees coming here,and this dude is part of that demographic.

my country has become a gaggle of bed-wetting pussies.

germany:population 85,000,000-refugee population 1,000,000

that is a pretty big damn influx of refugees,and it appears the german government was in no way prepared to assimilate that many refugees (thanks again @radx).

united states of america:population 315,000,000-refugee population (for the first year) 15,000.

and my country literally wet itself over that wee,tiny number.

so we get rants like this xenophobic bed-wetter.twisting the facts to fit his narrative,to feed his childish rage tantrum.

though it is a glorious rage tantrum.
hmmm tasty delicious rage.....

@Babymech

are we playing the numbers/statistic game?
oh goodie../claps hands
i love these games.
can i play?

since i actually agree that mens issues are different than womens in certain cases,and that you recognize that the "patriarchy" affects men as well as women.i see no reason to address something we both agree on.

so we can agree the base premise is "power vs powerlessness",and that women have a right to address this power structure,just like men do,because BOTH suffer under its influence.

but then you posted some tasty links for our enjoyment,and then made the specious claim that this somehow made your argument MORE valid.

ok..lets play by YOUR standards shall we?

1.the gender pay gap,which before 1962 may have been a valid argument,but since it is ILLEGAL to discriminate in that way in regards to pay,and if true would translate to waaay more women in the workplace (because corporations love them some dirt cheap labor).so why is this trope still trotted out?why is it given so much validity as being born as fact?when no serious economist ever sites this disparity,yet so many keep regurgitating this gap is being a real thing?

well,i will just let a feminist economist break it down for you:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

see? just got me one of them fancy links you like so much.

2.political power in regards to gender.well,i cant argue the statistics.there ARE more men in politics,but what your link fails to do is ask a very basic question:why?why are there more men than women?

pew research addresses that question,and is fairly in line with your link:http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/01/14/women-and-leadership/

3.as for who suffers from the most sexual violence.well,according to your link which uses cdc numbers,women suffer far more,BUT (and is the statistic that the women in my video pointed out) when you include prison (which the cdc did not) that number flips on its head:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html

so the situation is not some cut and dried situation,and there are extreme elements of any social movement,but those elements should not invalidate the message.

just like this woman in my video is not dismissing feminism,she is disagreeing with feminisms more extreme authoritarian bullies,who because they scream louder and are more controversial..get more attention,but that does not make their position MORE important just because they are louder and more obnoxious.

in fact i would posit that this obnoxious behavior works against the very thing they are trying to convey.

we can all agree that we all want equality,fairness and justice and the current,and historical power structures,have always sought to retain and even further their own power.which has been traditionally held by men,but this does not automatically equate to men getting a free ride,quite the opposite.

so women absolutely have a right to challenge this power structure,just as men do.what they do NOT have a right to is imposing their ideologies upon me,or this woman in my video.

this woman has received death threats and threats of physical violence from other feminists! just because she had the audacity to disagree with their position.

at the end of the day this is actually a human issue,and a valid one and we all have a right to our own opinion,but not a right to impose it upon another.

feel free to disagree.

Face=>Palm

So, you quote the same hyper partisan types of 'media' Fox uses and claim to not know about Fox at all...oh really. That's an impressive blindness to a political giant not only here, but in your country as well.

Yes, red herring. I'm not bothering with your over abundance of partisan right wing sites, but the one I did randomly check said almost exactly what I said, that they had found NOTHING illegal and probably could never prosecute even if they did because they could not prove she knew it was illegal, but more likely what she did wasn't illegal or improper at the time she emailed from/to her private server. I'm sure the rest told you what you say they did read in the right light...but you don't understand it's all BS. How do I know? No charges. If/when they ever found anything substantive, there will be charges pending the next day and republicans on every channel dancing a jig. Since there aren't, I know there's nothing there.

Your smattering of anti-socialist sites mean nothing. No one said socialism was perfect, just that it's part of society and railing against any instance you can identify is just plain silly. Too much socialism without incentive for production is never a good idea...but none at all is Mad Max, where your precious degree won't be helping save you from the gas boys.

Again, more crazed right wing articles making claims against the ACA mean...what? Nothing. It's survived every challenge so far, and hundreds of attempts to repeal it. It's alive and well, contrary to what you've apparently read. It could certainly be better, but obstructionists would have nothing of 'single payer' and many states have done all they can to sabotage it.

Now for Trump...not a single one of those ideas is anything more than laughable.
1. Good luck with just 'not letting any more in'. You'll need to put the entire army on the borders, and the navy off shore to even come close. Won't happen in any way. The borders and shores are too large to patrol or wall off, much less both.
2. What free Federal resources do you think exist that can round up 11 million people and move them across a border? They don't exist, and would cost the entire GDP to try if it went smoothly...and it wouldn't. And it ignores the millions of legal children left behind which would cost billions-trillions more to take care of poorly. It's just laughable.
3. Smile because you just ate a tasty turd Trump told you was the best, most luxurious chocolate mousse.
Uncontrolled immigration is an issue, but not one easily solved, certainly not with his outrageously expensive plans.

Mexico building a wall because we illegally stop trading with them? (we have a binding trade agreement that precludes any such thing by law) You've got to be kidding. First, can't and won't ever happen, it would cost us trillions to replace/lose the products and trade that come from Mexico, if we could. Second, as I mentioned, illegal. Third, what happens when other nations side with Mexico, who's being illegally and outrageously bullied and blackmailed by the US, and stop trade with us too...like China? The plan is incredibly short sighted and given no thought at all, he just assumes that if we push, they'll all lie down and cry uncle. That's not how the world works.

You claim to have a degree and work for a bank, but you have at least twice tried to pin the entire debt on Obama. Perhaps you don't understand that the debt was about 12 trillion when he took office with the economy in the toilet thanks to the kinds of ideas you support? Our last president, a "conservative" far more than doubled the debt, and took a budget surplus and made it a HUGE deficit (source-https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm) and those numbers were while keeping two wars 'off the books' that are now being paid for. EDIT: and Obama has taken an enormous deficit and shrunk it precipitously while also turning the economy around...the right way (yeah, the last pres. turned it around too) Don't get it twisted...I'm pretty disappointed in Obama, I was from the first term, but because he didn't go much farther, not because of what he did get done.

Trump's the Republican second place runner...among republicans willing to answer presidential poll questions a year before the election. He's completely toast in a general election, even if he managed to get the other 76+% of republicans to vote for him (hint...he won't), he won't get any independents.

Vulgar language?!? I re-read my entire post, and not a single vulgar word IMO. One abbreviation of a vulgar word. You have GOT to be kidding me about that. If not, wow...get off the internet NOW and never come back, it's SO not for you. ;-)