This is likely separation anxiety. The cat is probably almost always in physical contact with her, and is confused/frustrated that it's unable to get past the water.

I had a cat that would do this to me in the shower, except he'd walk along the edge of the tub on the other side of the shower-liner and try to claw his way through to me.

That was a nice discussion about buying the election. I think that possibly the worst fact in the world is that marketing works. On everybody. If you spend enough money, you will influence more than enough people to do pretty much anything. The only defence - and what stops this from literally being 'buying an election' - is the other side spending money on marketing too.

In my opinion, two things need to change. 1) campaign financing, and 2) replace First Past The Post.

Having said that, I'm in Ireland, and we do have a good voting system, and reasonable (if not great) campaign financing laws, but it's still messed up. I've voted in every election I could, but have only ever voted against candidates, never for (i.e. I order my vote from least bad to worst). I've only seen one candidate I'd vote for, but he wasn't in my constituency.

The difference is, at least if/when a good candidate or new party comes along, we can vote for them without losing our voice.

This American election cycle has been the best ad for these facts that I've ever seen.

Nasty, but I'd love to see the other side of this.

"I was watchin' my cubs when this human comes up about 80 yards away. I mauled 'im good, but he got my right in the face with that spray. Right eye won't open. Mouth thtill burning. Sores coming up on my lips. My nose... I don't know what's goin' on in there. But legs are good, cubs are good, now I got to go the the creek."

Oh, I already know how much you care about facts and just bend them the way you need them. But Ill bite. Once.

At least half of that is a lie, not based on actual facts, only on your interpretation, and has been proven wrong already. Yet you guys still believe it. And on the other side you dont believe the stuff about Hillary, that has been proven long ago, and every normal person would have been jailed for it long ago and lost all support from true ethic people. I mentioned the hypocrisy. And you have proven my points perfectly. Youre going off over words.

Its unmasking how you believe so much stuff that is based not once on facts, and yet you only mention the emails on Hillary. Only one thing.
Seriously? Do you think I will start a proper discussion with someone that biased? You guys make a joke of yourselves, and then wonder why people like Trump get more and more support. You dont even get how you only hurt yourself with sick thinking like that. You dont know cause and effect, and thats why you dont get whats going on in the world because of politically correct liars like Hillary. Your hypocrisy is choking me. Maybe thats your tactic though? You having no facts, and thus annoying the shit out of people with such bullshit and hypocrisy, that they wont even bother with you, so you can keep spewing that crap without intelligent people touching you, because they know its useless with you guys. Whatever, as I said, youre only hurting yourselves with jumping on lies, like the side you accuse of them, marking yourself with a big fat red bullseye for manipulators to target you even more.

@newtboy
I admit that perhaps invading Palestine slowly was their best viable option before the war ended.....I just think it's helpful to be perfectly honest that that's what happened and not play some game about it and pretend they hold the moral high ground on that part of the issue.

I guess I just don't agree on calling it an invasion from the outset. European Jews had the doors closed to them everywhere the world over, illegal immigration or staying in what would become Nazi occupied Europe were their only options. Palestine was hands down the most attractive option, despite a hostile Arab Palestinian population. The main reason being that the Jewish Palestinian minority were basically a state within a state. The Arab and Jewish populations had both sufficiently failed to integrate already that they were operating as largely segregated and autonomous regions. Thus, Jewish Palestine was both reasonably close to Europe, and very much welcoming to the people leaving. I don't believe that's fair to be marked as an invasion from the outset. I must insist that if we get to insist all actors conduct themselves in their own self interest, that the Jewish immigration from Europe to Palestine could have been entirely peaceful, and if the Arab population had taken a live and let live approach things could have gone swimmingly. Of course humans aren't ideal or moral very often, so both sides fought and tensions arose. By the time WW2 was over it was too late, the dice were cast and another Jewish exodus from Palestine back to Germany wasn't gonna work. Neither were the Jewish people promised a thing from Germany and it would all be on a hope and a prayer. They had a better shot making their own future by standing their ground in Jewish Palestine. Truth be told, I really can't blame the Jewish side for saying enough is enough and we're gonna stand and fight. Neither can I blame the Arab Palestinian's over much as their biggest fight was really just for independence from the British. With the British gone, both the Jewish and Arab residents fought it out over who would control what, which is sadly fairly natural.

The point I DO lay blame is when the civil war took a pause and Israel declared independence on the UN mandated borders. The Arab world(not the Arab Palestinians) jointly refused to accept any Jewish portion of Palestine and swore to drive them into the sea. Worse, they vehemently called for the retreat of all Arab palestinians from the region to make it easier to clear the country out. Of course, they failed to win that fight and it's been a source of great shame and horror ever since. They didn't fail for lack of strength in arms or numbers, but because each neighbouring Arab state cared not a whit for restoring Palestine to the Arab Palestinians but instead each sought to seize a portion of it for themselves, as invaders. Luckily for Israel they exploited those divisions to come out the other side.

There's plenty of atrocities to blame on the Palestinian response, but also empathy for a displaced and, today, a decimated people still suffering horrifically, mostly for 'sins' of their grandfather's, namely the sin of fighting invaders stubbornly.

But that is all the more the tragedy, as that is very clearly the way the Israeli's started out. They remained peaceful and fled as nation after nation tried to destroy them. The most open place to them in the time probably was Jewish Palestine. For all the atrocities to blame on Israel, I also have empathy for the plight they started from. Even their whole history through today is a tight rope walk were losing any single one of the wars from then till now would have seen the end of Israel as state.

As much blame as one can put on Israel for meeting homemade rockets with professional air strikes, they aren't the only ones to be blaming. Yes, more empathy is needed for the Palestinians than blame. But their are plenty of states, mostly Syria and Iran using the Palestinians as proxies and pawns. So many Arab entities WANT to see dead Palestinians in the news because it plays well for them. I really insist they get as much or more heat than Israel for the tragedy unfolding.

The narrator's tone in this video was clearly condescending, and that is not how you reach the other side of an argument. Even if every statement she made in this video was objectively factually accurate, the way it was presented all but ensures a full-on backfire effect.

I would compare the tone of this video to the youtuber thunderf00t. Even though he is someone with whom I agree on nearly every topic, I still find the tone of his videos to be overly patronizing, and as a result the message doesn't reach as many as it could.

I usually despise overused, banal platitudes, but there is one, I think, that should be considered. "You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar." Even if it is factually incorrect, the spirit of what implies is clear. You will have a greater chance of conveying your side of an argument if you treat the other side with dignity and respect, even if they don't deserve it. I have learned this the hard way over the years in many of my debates with theists.

-----

All that being said, I can give the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe her tone was entirely for comedic effect, even though I think it utterly fails in that regard, and is a missed opportunity to contribute to a real debate.

Well, since the 'chump' is the one that got furthest of those two candidates, I don't know if a valuable lesson was learned at all. I think it's equally likely that the system will get more polarized along that axis as well - that the Republicans will double down on the crazy populism next time around, continuing the trend of Palin to Cain to Trump, and the Democrats will want to play it even safer* and more establishment because of the gaping maw of insanity on the other side.

It might even be that this is the preferred way for this to shake out in their eyes - the Democrats go on to take the White House this term and the next, and the Republicans lose the presidency but gain more ground on the local level. I'm not saying that the Republicans want to lose the presidency, but since almost every local Republican runs on the premise that they'll stand up to Washington, it doesn't hurt to be in opposition. Supporting Trump might not get you the white house but it might make you mayor. Plus, that's where the Koch money is, for now.

*On the other hand, let's not go nuts. Right now, given how the election's turned out, Clinton seems like an incredibly establishment, incredibly traditional politics, choice - but when they made the decision to run, it must have still seemed like a risky move, since no woman had ever made it all the way before. I can't imagine that anyone predicted what this race would look like (?), so maybe the 'lesson' from 2016 can't be accurately applied by either party.

You'd also confirm the pickpocket was guilty, wouldn't you? Well I would - I don't just believe everything I see or hear. I didn't mention it explicitly because I expect everyone to question all of their sources all of the time, like I do. But I don't see how that would make it make less sense, rather that it is more or less accurate of a comparison...? anyway.

In light of that, I think my example not only makes sense but is more valid than yours because yours introduces feelings and bias towards the involved parties that only make metaphorical sense if you refer to jingoistic crap about blindly loyal American nationalism and fear/hatred of Russians somehow. Which is kind of the point I'm questioning in the first place; there is a huge difference between 'applying reasonable doubt to your sources' (your point) and using the Russian excuse to ignore the actual problem (my point).

Also has there ever been an American intelligence leak/failure that was NOT linked to the Russians? I hope we're not reverting to the kind of cold war style paranoia that 10 years ago we would have laughed at around here. Somewhere there's a flow chart in the White House that has 12 boxes on one side listing possible internal failures and fuck ups and they all point to one box on the other side saying "Blame Russia".

If you're genuinely worried about the source making the leak up and it all being just faked, you best take that up with Wikileaks. They have a very robust reputation, the kind that you don't earn easily. It doesn't make them right, but it means you have to make a strong point against them. I feel like it wouldn't be all that hard for anyone with the clearance to check and confirm if it was a Russian fabrication, and then a story confirming Wikileaks was talking bullshit, releasing Russian propaganda, would be huge news.

The only problem is, NOT going there just proves the same thing to the people on other side.

Is anyone surprised?

The people want change. Bernie and Trump represent change, Clinton represents the establishment. The party conspired to put Clinton up and ergo people will lean towards the other side...

Settle the fuck down there Social Justice Warrior...I said nothing personal to you so cool your jets. I am honestly getting tired of taking the sane, reasonable route in everything I do. I just got off facebook responding to one of those "233 blacks, 411 whites" posts that "show" cops don't kill more blacks...and I get flak for not defending cops. I come here, point out that Marah and his minions are full of shit on one point, and I get flak...fuck both polar sides.

With that said let us get into the meat of your tantrum. I never even implied, hinted, suggested or whispered that many police actions are somehow mitigated or diminished because things are better. In fact, that whole distraction you ranted on is irrelevant to the whole meaning of my post. What the point was is this--THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO INCENTIVE FOR A SIDE TO BECOME A BETTER GROUP WHEN THE OTHER SIDE NEVER ACKOWLEGES PROGRESS. This is why Democratic and Republican lawmakers are so polarized. Why cops and blacks are so polarized. Why religions are so polarized.

I mean if we talked to our children like we talk about this, we would seem pretty fucking stupid. "Hey Timmy! I know you improved your D to a C+, but fuck you! That's not good enough you shit head. You miswell be an F student in this house!" Yeah, see how little Timmy might not come around to his dad's way of thinking? I swear, you mention some positivity and people flip the fuck out...like we are selling out to the bad cops or some stupid shit. And this is exactly what Marah's point was and is. His words were clear---NO PROGRESS. (You could argue that he meant only that there has been no progress in the thin blue line but then you would have to be a really belligerent asshole who takes words out of context to fit their meaning...)

Next, you mention all the tax dollars our police force gets...BWAHAHAAHA! Holy fuck, and I am sure the education system is overflowing with money too! Just because the numbers are large doesn't mean the actual tax dollars are significant nor does it mean the money flows to the actual police either. Now this does bring up your very serious observation that I find worrisome as well...the militarization of police...unfortunately our politicians cut sweet deals with companies that make war toys, just like in the military, and basically give away huge percentages of the police "budget." This drastically reduces the actual money police have to do their jobs while lining the politicians' pockets with contributions later.

As far as the shooting one unarmed person per week comment you made that should give YOU some perspective of how utterly stupid the side you are on is. 52 deaths a year in this manner (Say if your hyperbolic statement was actually right instead of being smartass.) 39 thousand deaths happen as a result of car accidents. Do I minimize the deaths? No. Do I put them in perspective? Of course.

I personally think that the no snitch code to crimes, whether on the street or in the force, should be a crime. Nowhere should be safe, period.

Several things always bugged me about the scene where they rush the MG 42, although I know that Spielberg had to have this scene the way it is to move the story along. Capt Miler assigns somebody to rush right, he takes the middle then waits for someone to volunteer to go left. And gets irritated when nobody volunteers, why not just order someone like he did on the right side? And then they have their only medic as part of the assault team. And why not have Jackson the sniper pick off the MG 42 crew? No doubt because his sniper skills already were the focus of two previous scenes. The MG 42 scene provided a turning point in the movie but the logic always irritated me.

And there always seems to be a perfectly intact piano in the street in WWII Europe, Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, and Fury all had one.

"Defilade, other side of the hole!"

Bet he signed something that's going to let him see life on the other side of the bars...

Heh, there's so much stuff on the left and right that I never hear a peep about in mainstream media. I'm unfortunate enough to have gotten my email into mailing lists on both sides, and I have to delete mountains of bitching political emails every day (and half of it is begging for donations while demonizing the other side).

Like I said, I have nothing against training.
But with 100 million people having access to arms, even if well trained, I would not count on zero accidents. Just being pedantic. I do agree with you in general.

More power to ya'.

-scheherazade