It follows exactly. We are accountable for the things we do and for the things we would do if circumstance allowed.

Were I to tell you I was, say, pro-choice, you would be in a strong position to guess at my attitude toward a particular ethical question. If you then learned that I'd had no abortions personally, would you therefore label me a pro-lifer in spite of my stated position?

Well then, what if I tell you about an infamous tyrant of my acquaintance, a monster who committed every crime against humanity he had the means to commit, and whom I believe to be the very best person who ever lived. I tell you I intend to follow the shining example of this nightmare, shall we say religiously, for the rest of my life. Do you really presume to claim that no negative inference can be drawn about my character whatsoever? What guess would you make about my propensity for insane, vicious murder?

I have yet to have an abortion, it might be said largely in consequence of my lacking certain procedural necessities. Yet I remain pro-choice. The majority of muslims in civilised countries, the minority in muslim countries, have committed no great atrocities. Yet they remain muslim.

Meh, you're not going to know unless you try.

My first passion was writing and that's what I studied while in university. I majored in film and really wanted to be a screenwriter. I was lucky enough to be living in L.A. at the time and going to a school that has really good connections with Hollywood (some of my teachers were retired producers, agents, etc.) Got two internships at different studios over the course of a year and got to see firsthand what the entertainment industry is really like. And it's actually pretty shitty in a lot of ways you'd expect (i.e. a lot of people trying to fuck each other over to get ahead). I was in fact offered a job at my second internship, but said "Nope!"

I still wanted to write and do something creative and it was getting close to graduation, so I started looking into other options. That's how I found game design. There was a local game studio that was looking for someone with writing experience to help write dialog and story for games. They brought me on as a tester so I could learn the ropes (I had played games but didn't know jack about making them) and promoted me to assistant designer less than a year later.

I worked in games for several years, and in the beginning it was everything I wanted--I got to be creative every day, the people I worked with were some of the smartest and most fun people I'd ever met, and I loved people's reactions when I told them what I did for a living. But two company banckruptcies later it had lost its shine. As I approached my mid-twenties I realized I wanted a more stable job as well as a job that I could be proud of when I retired (making games is fun and all, but I wasn't under any illusion that I was making much of a positive contribution to the world).

I had been volunteering as a tutor at the local Boys and Girls clubs when the game company I was working for went bankrupt and instead of applying for another game job, I decided to become a teacher. I went back to school and got my Master's in English. And that was over 13 years ago. I'm still a full-time teacher today. I wouldn't exactly say I'm passionate about my job anymore but what I've lost in passion I've made up for with experience. I honestly can't see myself doing anything else besides teaching for the rest of my life.

My point is, don't listen to this guy. Go ahead and follow your passion. Just don't be a slave to it. Assess the risks and take them voluntarily rather than be blind-sided by them. Recognize when you're about to hit a roadblock and correct course. I realize for some people this may mean giving up on their passion and having to completely re-evaluate their life but we only learn by trying--not by giving up before we even really get started.

Whenever someone is talking up Deadpool to me it's always: "The references..." (to other comic book movies I didn't care for), "the self-deprecation..." (agreeing with me that some of those movies were indeed shit), "breaking the fourth wall... ooh!" (a dramatic device so old it's Elizabethan... at least). And I'm supposed to be impressed by all that? Meta-, or up it's own ass?
Seems like you need to have watched every other comic book movie to enjoy Deadpool. Both to get the in-jokes no one else cares about, and to have a pile of mediocre crap that this movie can shine next to in comparison.
To me it was just another uninteresting superhero movie but this time with swears.

What does the President actually do? A few main things:

Chief Diplomat for foreign relations.
Commander in Chief of the military. (although legislature has some checks on that)
Appointing Supreme Court justices.
Presidential Pardons.
Veto power over Legislative bills.

Anything on any Presidential candidate's agenda that doesn't fall under one of those headings is hot air. Considering that, which of the candidates would actually be a better president?

Chief Diplomat role: Hillary wins here, pretty handily. Trump is generally hated by anyone outside of the US. Bernie isn't as smooth and well connected as Hillary. Interestingly enough, this is one area where I think Obama really shines. He's a good talker, and he increased the level of respect that other countries viewed the US with. Some of that was having a very easy act to follow -- Bush and the wars sent us pretty close to rock bottom in terms of how the rest of the world saw us, but Obama is legit as a diplomat even without the bonus of simply being an extremely welcome reprieve from Bush.

Commander in Chief: This one is more open to interpretation, but I think Bernie wins here. He had the right view on Iraq wars when most didn't, and a totally solid track record for a long time. Clinton acts like she was always on the correct side of that also, but she voted for Bush's war when she was in the Senate. Bernie didn't. Whatever she says to try to justify that doesn't change the simple facts of it. Trump could be pretty apocalyptically bad as Commander in Chief, but on the other hand he'd have the legislature and Joint Chiefs to keep him in check if he was doing anything truly insane. I think he's definitely the worst of the three, but I think saying a vote for him is a vote to "let the world burn" is a bit overly dramatic.

Supreme Court appointments: Sanders wins here by a LANDSLIDE. He's got the right idea on all of the judicial topics of the time, and knows exactly how important this is. Hillary is a massive corporate tool. She knows who pays her, and she'd definitely be looking out for their interests when it comes to stuff like Citizens United challenges, etc. I even think that Trump would be massively better than Clinton in this area.

Pardons: I'm specifically thinking of Ed Snowden here. Trump and Clinton both say he is a "traitor". Sanders at least acknowledges that Snowden's revelations did a lot of good, but still says that he should come home and face a trial. So that makes me think he's the best of the three -- but Jill Stein of the Green party says she would pardon Snowden, which makes her my favorite on this particular hot-button issue for me.

Veto powers: Opinions are going to vary on this one. I think Sanders wins considering that he simply stands by his record in the Legislature, which I think he deserves to be proud of. Clinton is a flip-flopping weasel of a politician, and she could easily swing things in favor of her corporate overlords with her veto power. Trump is a wildcard, but the inherent nature of veto power means that he can't do anything truly crazy with it unilaterally -- the worst he could do is get veto-happy and grind the legislature to a standstill (which they tend to do all on their own anyway) or pass something terrible (which would be more the fault of the legislature).


Depending on how any individual voter evaluates those topics, and how the prioritize them, I think it is perfectly reasonable for someone to think that any of the candidates would make a better president than any of the others. Personally, I think Sanders is the best of the three, but honestly I'd prefer incompetent President Trump to very dodgy President Clinton.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Arizona moon keep shining . From the desert sky above ...

You're a shining star ... shining star for all to see! Congratulations Mordhaus Tony V!

I second this - the book is actually very decent.

It is a fact that if Stephen King is in charge, involved, has influence or "is happy" with the retelling of one of his stories on the silver screen, it's going to be absolute dogshit. Stephen King based films are only good if they do not stick to the book - Shining, Running Man, IT.

Don't get me started on the Dark Tower film.

Outstanding...congratulations.

Shine on you crazy diamond.

Upvote at 1:20...then *quality for the Shining homage.

Oh you mean like when David Duke supported Trump and all the leftest / media said Trump is pro KKK. You guys had a field day with that.

Nice try.



America won't become a shining beacon just because socialism came to town.

Bernie is bad wrong for America.

Lol @bobknight33. Just lol. That man couldn't form a non-straw man argument if he tried. Trying to conflate Bernie's platform with some other party's platform just for the sake of attacking him. I can't even...

And in other news, in a surprising turn of events America has a chance to become a shining beacon of kindness and equality, in addition to being good at killing things. Good luck to Bernie.

Let me quote the Grauniad: "While much of the leaked material will remain private, there are compelling reasons for publishing some of the data."

Translation: no worries, chumps, we'll keep your tax evasion hidden good and proper.

Maybe WikiLeaks will come to the rescue at some point and publish the raw data.

Edit: As Craig Murray puts it, Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% From Panama Leak

April 1st ... great birthday date! May yours be festive Issy. Shine on

Happy Birthday theali!! Shine on ...

The sheer energy advantage of jet aircraft overwhelms any maneuverability advantages of WWII aircraft, so when a modern aircraft can't outturn and/or out-energy a 40 year old fighter, it's a steaming pile of shit...

And it's always completely irrelevant until it's completely relevant. eg. new technology comes online jamming guided missles and reducing planes to cannon warfare...

And I'd love to see how your prancing sniper does when he has to get in to knife range (close ground support where cannon fire does matter...).

The plane is an overpriced turd that has been repeatedly polished to give it the shine of a gem, but ultimately it's still a turd.

I love the last line though... "then the rest of the enemies would be mopped up by..." By? By the 40 year old workhorses that the turd is supposed to replace... X D

The F-35 will replace the US Air Force A-10s and F-16s, US Navy F/A-18s, US Marine Corps AV-8B Harriers and F/A-18s, and UK Harrier GR7s and Sea Harrier

Two of your three mop up planes are already F35's. Good luck with that!