"Warned about"....by Noah, not God, right? So Noah failed to convince them it was true, no? If they knew it was coming because they KNEW God was real and had warned them himself...good riddance, they must have been incredibly dumb or suicidal.

I've been warned that Zenu is coming back too....I've been warned that Vikings will pour over a rainbow and murder the world, or many other tales that existed far longer than this Jesus guy's been heard of. I've only been warned of these things by humans who were clearly delusional (or liars), never anyone trustworthy. When the message is unbelievable, and so is the messenger, and the proof is "believe", and there are dozens of contradictory messages with exactly the same level of proof, the idea that a person should choose correctly or suffer eternal punishment is the definition of evil.

If God withholds judgment capriciously out of fickle mercy based on no discernable pattern or rule, and just as often punishes the righteous and rewards the wicked as the reverse, how is that different from random chance?

Why do you stubbornly deny the undeniable existence of El and his son Ba'al, though you see their works daily? Their tales, which predate even the earliest Hebrew scriptures or stories, prove their hand in your existence, yet you refuse to give your devotion and would unfairly discredit them and hand all credit to this Johnny come lately deity. Mot shall have you if you don't repent.
Sounds silly, doesn't it?

No, it wasn't Noahs failing. The scripture says he preached righteousness, so the message was endorsed by God. The reason no one was converted was not due to a failure on Noahs part, or Gods. The message wasn't misunderstood, it was rejected by a wicked generation, which was their free will choice to do so. Because they rejected Gods message they weren't prepared when the flood came. The choice to reject God doesn't eliminate the consequences of rejecting God, in this case being unprepared for the impending global flood which you were warned about for 100 years. In the same sense you are unprepared for the impending second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, which you have been warned about your entire life.

When God withholds or suspends judgment out of mercy, ironically it has the opposite effect on the callous hearts of men:

Ecclesiastes 8:11

Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil

Because you don't see God out and out punishing people when they do evil, you feel free to live how you want regardless. That is how the pre-flood world felt, and that is why they were swept away. In your ongoing effort to put the worst possible spin on everything in scripture, you neglect to understand the fundamental narrative of the story. The reason for that is your stubborn refusal to say God did something good even when it is integral to the narrative which you use to unfairly discredit Him.

that was great
I'm a big fan of monty python and I recognized the name but couldnt figure out who Palin was until they showed the monty python clip, had no idea he was a journalist now.
Ive always thought that NK has been unfairly demonized; they were victims of imperialism and the cold war, and sabre rattling aside they havent actually gotten into any wars beyond their own independence/civil war. The food shortages and poverty, I believe the western powers have a big hand in (much like in Cuba, Chile, Venezuela, and everywhere else capitalism was shunned). Not saying i'd model my ideal society on them, but i dont think they are as evil as they are made out to be..

Sorry...some details that were hastily reported have turned out to be more nuanced than originally thought, for instance it's now being reported that there were adult chaperones there, but the kids absolutely surrounded, taunted, and acted threatening to the native American elder, mocking his ceremony with racist chants and tomahawk chops to derisive laughter, they were not trying to join him as some have tried to claim.
They also blocked the progress of the planned, permitted closing ceremony, intentionally or not.

More video has surfaced of what appears to be some of these kids shouting at and harassing other people (the video I saw was 6+ MAGA boys screaming at a pair of girls) on this trip, away from this incident.
These aren't angels caught up and unfairly painted, these are kids who have reportedly posted videos of at least 4 of themselves dressed in black face and the whole school's bleachers chanting "caramel" at lone black basketball players at their school functions apparently with the full support of their teachers and school....that video just removed from the school website, but after going public.
They've already been invited to the Whitehouse.

"There is plenty of scum to go around on both sides."

Ahh the classic false equivalency that Trump supporters often resort to.

First of all, every child should be taught at a young age that just because other children may act like little shits, that doesn't mean they can. The amount of functional adult Trump supporters who use "the Democrats are bad too!" as an excuse for Trump's behavior is just astounding. It's really just a pathetic diversionary tactic used to avoid discussing the issues at hand.

Second, your claim that Democrats are just as cruel is simply not true. Blaming Democrats for the very thing Trump is guilty of is a common smear tactic employed by extremist right wing propaganda.

Take Trump's zero tolerance policy which separated minors from their families for example. Right wing propaganda outlets like OAN love showing pictures of children housed alone in Obama era detention facilities and cry foul at the liberal media at the lack of coverage. The reality is that Obama faced a huge surge of thousand of unaccompanied minors from south america in 2014 who were detained. So yes, thousands of children were detained, but they were NOT separated from the families in the first place.

And while some families were separated during Obama's tenure, Obama's policies tried to limit this as much as possible. It is a far cry from what Trump's zero tolerance policy accomplished. The "liberal" media did not report this under Obama OR Bush simply because it was not an issue. If you believed that there was unfair media coverage for Trump on this issue, then you were lied to and manipulated. Its part of what we discussed earlier how Trump uses lies to discredit the media and further erode our democracy.

The point is that right wing propaganda and Trump himself routinely uses lies and deception to paint himself as the target of a "liberal media bias" that they themselves manufactured. And his gullible supporters like yourself love believing in his victim complex. If you don't believe me, then just refer to non partisan international sources like the BBC and you'll soon discover that Trump is just as shitty from an impartial view as the "biased liberal media" portrays him.

Both sides are not the same, no matter what lies Trump and Fox News et al. tries to tell you. And there are plenty of respectable media sources which are not CNN which also exposes Trump for the lying scum that he is.

You claimed he was portrayed unfairly because it was reported when he repeatedly dehumanized migrants, Arabs, and Muslims as pretext to treat them poorly, Obama didn't dehumanize and demonize them, nor did he just let them all in, so only Fox reports that he did....in opinion pieces dressed as news. You can try to hide from that claim by attempting to change the subject to Trump's poor performance but you won't be successful.

Obama did a better and more humane job on immigration, Trump did a worse, but undeniably more racist job.

Trump calls migrants rapists, murderers, and gang members. He gave up any pretext for middle eastern people and just calls them middle eastern with a derisive tone, because all middle eastern people and Muslims are terrorists we don't want here.
You claim reporting that is an unfair portrayal, painting him as a meanie, I say it's honest reporting of his unedited words and positions.

Soooo,

we believe women, unless they are accusing another even 'weaker' minority...

Ultimately it is fair to make the point that 'believe survivors' isn't meant by many people as a blanket belief of any and all accusations, but rather by the subjective standard of 'credible'. That this is thus remaining a subjective stance rather than an absolute isn't unfair to point out.

So what.. it was just one point... even if it was an unfair call. Unfair calls happen all the time... suck it up buttercup.

But noooo, not with this one... she lost her shit repeatedly and pushed her luck past the pale.

It was a pathetic display of entitlement.

Lol. Quote CNN, it's "repeating what lying disgraced fake news CNN says". Don't quote CNN, it's "I don't hear that on CNN".
Anything to be dismissive, eh Bob?
Sorry, I think for myself. I understand that's a foreign concept to you....but you really should try it sometime.

So, you watch a right wing crybaby claim the right is too infantile and unpatriotic to accept a likely legal future, and claim they (you) are going to throw an adult tantrum if you don't get your way, and your answer is "the crybabies are from the left". *facepalm.
Funny, I don't recall those leftist crybabies threatening revolt and armed insurrection when Clinton was investigated unfairly by unambiguously anti Clinton investigators for years on end, then impeached over being a good lawyer with a good vocabulary ("is" doesn't mean "was").

24/7/375 anti Trump reporting, because he's a disaster 24/7/365. It's not propaganda if it's true.

Trump polls dropped to 60% disapproval. Duh.

I agree there...only the fake stories help worried conservatives in their resolve, because only fake stories support Trump. Honest reporting turns adults against Trump.

All the antifa protest, huh? Funny, I haven't heard about them except as a distraction or subject change mentioned by you in some time.
#walk away is not real, Bob, except the part describing conservatives #walkingaway from Trump. Hanging your hat on liberals leaving Democrats and joining Republicans because Democrats are too nasty, are overtly racist, and are hyper supportive of Russia simply isn't going to go well for you.

Bob, you represent what's wrong in America....1/4 of us have lost touch with reality and decided that any fact they don't like can just be dismissed as a lie, no matter how factual it is, and an industry has grown to sell you stories that reinforce that mindset. (No one said Murdoch isn't smart). You are firmly in that willingly self blinded group, still supporting a undeniably disloyal, honorless, petulant fraud and consummate liar and fooling yourself that you're in a majority. 36% (his approval rating) isn't a majority, 60% (his disapproval rating) is.....but unflattering numbers are fake news, right?

I don't disagree, and we have much the same thing in practice if not by law with our native people's, they even have their own separate tribal police, courts, and laws. They are in many ways a different country inside our borders.
I agree, removing the disparities in lower education is far more desirable....but at least here we're doing the opposite, defunding public schools and programs that offer assistance like breakfast and lunch while also making it easier for affluent people to use public funds to pay for private schools, effectively defunding the public schools even farther.
That leaves us trying things like affirmative action in admissions to try to mitigate the continuing unfair, unequal opportunities lower income students face. Far from ideal, but better than another poke in the eye with a sharp stick, as my wife used to say....and she ought to know! ;-)

They might put the argument in different terms. Which do you prefer....giving admission advantages to aboriginal students in recognition of the piss poor opportunities they've had educationally, or give sentencing advantages to aboriginal criminals in recognition of the across the board piss poor opportunities they've had, recognizing that neither approach addresses the underlying problems, only the results of those long standing issues that simply are not being addressed at all.
What doesn't work is ignoring their lack of opportunities and expecting them to perform on par with other, non disadvantaged kids. That just gets you uneducated, pissed off adults with a chip on their shoulder and no prospects for improvement.

So.....until we actually get to work improving their overall situation, easier said than done, it behooves us to give a leg up to those trying hard to do it for themselves....no? Otherwise we're likely just perpetuating a cycle of criminality that hurts us all.

Your assumption is incorrect. As I've stated repeatedly, I think people should be seen and assessed individually on the totality of their character. It's just that I see the inpracticality of that in institutional settings where a few people must assess tens of thousands of applicants in months. That necessitates putting people into groups and making assumptions, sometimes by necessity that's by race. Fund education better, they might screen better. Fund all education better, they might be able to abandon all criteria beyond past performance, but that just won't happen (but $12 billion for Trump's trade war's damage to soy bean farmers, no problem, who's next?).

Ahhh....but those discriminatory practices have, and still are encoded in the law against these groups in many forms. Some have been rectified, many not, and never has there been a reasonable attempt to make up the shortfalls/damages these policies have caused these groups over decades and centuries. If I beat you daily and take your lunch until 11th grade, then stop, it's still horrifically unfair of me to insist you meet weight requirements to be on my JV wrestling team and yet not offer you weight training and free lunch to help you get there. Same goes for groups, however you wish to divide them, that have been downtrodden.
Creating policies to address the damage done in order to get the long abused back to their natural ability level isn't bad unless they aren't ever modified once equality is reached. We aren't close yet.

Some won't, most do. You make a thousand little sacrifices for the greater good daily, one more won't hurt you. If your ability is actually equal to the poor kid trying to take your place, the advantages you have over them should make that point abundantly clear and your scores should be excessively higher. If they aren't, you just aren't taking advantage of your advantages, making them the better choice.

Time will tell, but I don't see this as political, I see it as rational realism vs irrational tribal wishful thinking.
My parents both worked at Stanford, and are Republicans, and both support giving less advantaged students more opportunities to excell, and both think diversity on campus benefits everyone to the extent that it merits using race and gender as points to consider during the application process if that's what it takes to get diversity.

Your main problem seems to be that it's decided purely by race. Let me again attempt dissuade you of that notion. Race is only one tiny part of the equation, and it's only part because they tried not including race and, for reasons I've been excessively sesquipedelien about, that left many races vastly underrepresented because they don't have the tools required to compete, be that education, finances, support of family, support of community, extra curricular opportunities, safety in their neighborhood, transportation, etc., much of which is caused by centuries of codified law that kept them poor, uneducated, and powerless to change that status. No white male with a 1600 and 4.0 is being turned away for a black woman with 1000 and 2.9, they might be turned away for a black woman with 1550 and 3.8 because she likely worked much harder to achieve those scores, indicating she'll do even better on a level field.

I don't see why Republicans care, they're now the proudly ignorant party of anti-intellectualism who claim all higher education is nothing but a bastion of liberal lefty PC thugs doin book lernin. Y'all don't want none of that no how. ;-)

Edit: note, according to reports I saw years ago, without racial preferencing FOR white kids, many universities would be nearly all Asian because their cultures value education above most other things so, in general, they test better than other groups.

@newtboy

Your being dishonest and unfair to people with stuff like this:
"predicting so many of the educated would go along for short sighted, purely tribal reasoning, that's tougher."
and
"people have been claiming white men are the downtrodden powerless whipping boys.

I saw an op-ed in the nytimes back when the supreme court nomination was hot and had hoped the author's opinion were a minority. Segments of this Daily Show clip and your own feedback make rethink that. The op-ed wanted to concisely show how dangerously right wing and extremist current Justice Roberts was. To do this, the author stated that the Justice own chilling rationale for one of his decisions should tell us everything we need to know about him: "To stop discrimination based upon race, we need to stop discriminating based upon race"

Being insulting and dismissive of people's frustrations at being racially discriminated against as your post appears to do just makes for more division still.

OK, the actual statement made by Melania's camp (as seen on screen at 1:10):
"I don't believe Mrs. Trump has ever discussed her thoughts on anything with Mr. Giuliani."

That's a pretty significant nudge. To me, pretty clearly says "don't put words in my mouth". You can infer it as "don't put words in my mouth, you weaselly little prick", but the statement itself is pretty carefully reserved in the exact wording.

Newsworthy? Sure. But to me, I think a good journalist (and I'd usually include Anderson Cooper in that camp) should show the statement itself, without any opinion or commentary first, and then make a distinct segue showing that we're now moving into pundit's reactions and opinions.

The lead here was "First Lady Melania Trump's Office Fires Back at Rudy Giuliani Over His Remarks About Stormy Daniels". That just seems a bit clickbait-y to me. "Fires Back" requires reading between the lines of the statement itself. Accurate? Probably. But I think they should have honored the carefully worded nature of the actual statement and gone with something like ..."Responds to" instead of "Fires Back".

Furthermore, they should have kept the full text of the statement itself up on the screen during the whole reaction/opinion portion segment where Cooper and the other talking heads discuss things. By all means, discuss. I even mostly agree with their interpretations and take on the situation. But keep the text of the actual statement up so that viewers can decide for themselves.


The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was actually fantastic for hoisting people on their own petard by fairly and accurately showing their actual statements and reacting to them -- no bait and switch / obfuscation necessary. Stewart's kind of subtlety in pointing out contradictions and bullshit was awesome.

I guess I feel like the best response to Trump's "Fake News" shtick is to be doubly rigorous when it comes to journalistic integrity. Trump's gonna give you plenty of ammo to use against him. Use it, but do it in such a way that any allegations of bias or unfairness are clearly wrong.

I have no idea if it's within the rules (the commentators don't seem to have a problem with it), but IMO it's perfectly fair. All the other competitors are free to do the same manoeuvre, so while it's an advantage, it's not an unfair advantage.

I fail to see the relevance of that. Whether the staff are right or wrong only changes my opinion of the staff, not of Peterson.

If I tell you I hated Hitler because he was a vegetarian, I'd imagine you think that was a pretty stupid reason to hate Hitler, but I doubt you'd change your own opinion on Hitler just because I'm being unfair about one thing.