@Skeeve - i don't want to turn this into a point by point, but i have several things to reply;

Firstly, i know plenty about motorbikes, do not presume that you automatically know more than everyone around you - motorbike knowledge is unimportant in thise case however as the connection was IN YOUR HEAD, not in his comment and therein lies the bullshittery. You superimposed YOUR opinion/meaning over his own words and then insulted him based on that. Please at least consider what i am saying carefully before you refute this, because it's undeniable. You made the connection, not him. He simply wished that the guy's bike was broken.

Secondly, i am not american.

The size of the speed limit is not necessarily the factor that makes what he was doing dangerous, whether it is 70 or 85, i believe this is unimportant. What is important is that we all agree to a speed limit. Other (more sensible) road users get accustomed to distances, reaction times, things like that and when people disregard the speed limit, it affects other road users. If i pull out of a junction or cross a street in front of a car travelling at 30mph, it's safe. If that car is travelling at 55 because he's "a good driver, in control of his vehicle", well now we have an accident, and i can hardly be blamed for assuming his speed to be the legally set 30mph or lower

I'll bow out of this now, i've made my point, i think anything more will just be rubbing it in. I felt someone had to stand up for the poor guy who basically got accused of something he never did and insulted for it.

He certainly had made no such assertion by the time you went nuts and I don't think he has since, but I might have missed something.

Lisa's death was negligent homicide at worst. I'm not saying that's ok, I'm just trying to keep it in perspective. Josephus's death is very strange, but there has been no evidence of foul play, that I'm aware of. It certainly doesn't look good for COS, but the evidence to claim they are responsible is not there either.

I don't have any love for COS, but I also see it as a drop in the bucket. It seems to get a disproportionate slice of the rage pie, to me.

The COS may well be insane, but it's neither illegal nor immoral to be insane. [side note: Is it really correct to refer to a mass suicide as a massacre?]

The problem isn't your indignance, it's your off-the-wall outrage at Yogi. Most of the things you're raging over aren't even things he's said; they're things you've put in his mouth. You repeatedly misrepresent his statements and then hulk out over what you yourself said.

Don't talk about Yogi's "weak arguments" when you've so far failed to make any arguments at all.

While this may be insulting, I hope you'll recognize it as a critique rather than an insult. You undercut your own position when you act like this in a debate, at least in the eyes of the people who matter: the opponents. Putting together a convincing argument in the eyes of the people who already agree with you may get you comment upvotes, but it doesn't make any progress when it comes to popularizing your views.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Look, the only reason I said anything was cause Yogi asserts that Scientology is unimportant & is no threat to humanity's well being, which clearly isn't true.
Look at these photos of Lisa McPherson and Josephus Havenith then tell me again that the Church of Scientology is "mostly innocuous".
It's quite evident that CoS's ideology is on par with Jonestown massacre level of insanity.
You're essentially stating that the terrified mothers & husbands clutching there babies willing committed suicide and we shouldn't waste our time with things like that.
Hence, the "sick fuck" comment.
So excuse me for being indignant, it just irritates the fuck out of me to hear a person defend the atrocious behaviors of any religion or abusive organization. Especially with such weak arguments.

@Yogi and @xxovercastxx

Look, the only reason I said anything was cause Yogi asserts that Scientology is unimportant & is no threat to humanity's well being, which clearly isn't true.

Look at these photos of Lisa McPherson and Josephus Havenith then tell me again that the Church of Scientology is "mostly innocuous".

It's quite evident that CoS's ideology is on par with Jonestown massacre level of insanity.

You're essentially stating that the terrified mothers & husbands clutching there babies willing committed suicide and we shouldn't waste our time with things like that.

Hence, the "sick fuck" comment.

So excuse me for being indignant, it just irritates the fuck out of me to hear a person defend the atrocious behaviors of any religion or abusive organization. Especially with such weak arguments.

In other unimportant conspiracies ...

Britney spears can't actually sing but has her voice edited in Auto Tune.

As a Rider, to me this is a great vid because it illustrates that you can be as prepared as you want but the dangers still exist.

Drivers don't see motorcycles - It's a fact!
A cyclist can take all the precautions in the world but they are still sitting ducks out there.

When I ride - I hold by one simple rule.
All other vehicles are trying to hit you - don't give them that chance.
This means: NEVER ride in a blind spot
Always assume that car at the intersection is going to pull out in front of you.
Peripheral vision is reduced in a helmet, take the time to look properly.
Always Ride with traffic, cars are not pylons to weave through.
Hold your lane - ride on the inside (not the shoulder side) of the road.
Avoid tunnel vision, like in a car, always watch everything - you need ten times the alertness on a bike!

And yes, we all know it was fake - no one claimed it wasn't - Funny? maybe not, but it still makes a point.
As a non-German speaker, maybe this is one time where language barrier enhances the video, we don't get caught up on unimportant things like diction and just see the message!

The GOP considers any judge an 'activist' if they happen to differ from their preconceived opinion of them or pass laws that while perhaps constitutionally in the right, are not agreed upon by the GOP. Their calling Thurgood Marshall a 'judicial activist' is akin to their understanding of law in the first place.

Of course then Kagan turned around and showed them all what douche-bags they really are when it comes to such matters. Likewise it shows how important civil rights are to the GOP.. or should I say how unimportant.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
All failures have two members responsible--the ones who win and the ones who lose. All failures come with consequences to everyday mortals. It is important that the other side "tried" but it is also important that the loser never receive a trophy (In this case, being viewed in a manner that the effort was almost or equal to victory.) (Unimportant Exception in this particular matter; if the event specifically denotes they give trophies then the second and third runner up can get one (Olympics for ex.) In politics, they do not provide trophies to perceived losers (I.e. re-election.)

Not to put words in your mouth, but this sounds like you're arguing that because the SDP failed to effectively stop the Nazis' acquisition of power, we should vote for the Nazis because we have to send a message to the SDP that failure is not an option...

(And yes, I am saying Democrats = SDP, and Republicans = Nazis)

I suppose this is the chief problem with our system right now -- I can't express my discontent with Obama's lackadaisical approach to some of the issues he committed to during his election campaign at the ballot box without effectively helping empower Republicans.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
So, not saying I know much about our government because I don't completely understand our silly nonsensical law structure that changes weekly anyways, but Obama is able to do so much---yet Republicans can just say no on the issue of Gitmo and boom! Obama stopped. Not to mention the issue of the constitution being on his side...
I get the filibuster, or other motions that shelve actions forever... but I understand also there is a way to get things done in office regardless of any roadblocks and their, uhem, "size." If not, well then that is your failure as a politician. It is your job to get shit done…
I am not saying Obama has not succeeded on issues important to Americans. I am saying failure cannot be acceptable because your opponent was smarter or stronger than you...

I guess I would say that to start with you should read up a bit on what's been happening on this front:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Media/obama-plan-close-guantanamo-stuck-political-legal-limbo/story?id=10752684
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/
http://washingtonindependent.com/85355/house-panel-deals-gitmo-closure-a-major-setback
http://washingtonindependent.com/75832/civil-libertarians-reject-obamas-guantanamo-closure-plan
The key element in there was a bill Congress passed with a veto-proof majority that prevents funding going to "transfer, release, or incarcerate" Guantanamo detainees in the United States. That expires this year, but congress is still making it very difficult to just start moving detainees to the US and give them trials in federal court.
To the rest of your comments I would say there's a huge moral difference between someone who tries to stop an immoral act and fails, and someone who wholeheartedly endorses the immoral act. I guess your presumption is that all failure is intentional, because all Presidents always get what they want, no matter what...I think even the briefest glances at history would disabuse you of that notion.
As for Congressional Democrats, they definitely deserve a share of the blame for acquiescing so easily to Republican political posturing over terrorism, but I think it's a big stretch to say there's some sort of moral equivalence between the two parties, especially on the topic of Guantanamo. One party created it and is loudly and openly opposed to closing it, the other is trying to close it, if more cautiously than I think is warranted.



No, not all failures are intentional---but thank you for not accusing and raging about it here (I take no offense to questioning.)

All failures have two members responsible--the ones who win and the ones who lose. All failures come with consequences to everyday mortals. It is important that the other side "tried" but it is also important that the loser never receive a trophy (In this case, being viewed in a manner that the effort was almost or equal to victory.) (Unimportant Exception in this particular matter; if the event specifically denotes they give trophies then the second and third runner up can get one (Olympics for ex.) In politics, they do not provide trophies to perceived losers (I.e. re-election.)

Remember, I am not blaming Obama for this insomuch as his effort of trying. Great for him and those who supported him. I am just not handing him anything but the moral high ground. And, sadly, for some of those in Gitmo, they could give a rat’s ass less about the moral high ground.

And no, I was not sarcastic. His and those supporting him are appreciated in this area.

All presidents will fail as you mentioned. And hell, a president isn't even the leader of the free world--nor the people or judges. It is really congress, but then even they are balanced a bit...

>> ^Stormsinger:
I agree that ruining stock value of the insurance companies shouldn't be a -goal-...it should simply be irrelevant. If all the health insurance companies go bust because reform made them unimportant, it would be a hardship for those working people they employ, but it would be a godsend for the rest of us.

I agree with that. Unfortunately, we're not doing something that would make them irrelevant.

It seems to me that if we pass a reform that relies on private insurance companies, but has the effect of killing off the private insurance companies, then the reform was bad.

It also seems to me that if we pass reform that relies on private insurance companies, and the private insurance companies start making record-busting profits without the quality and availability of health care improving for Americans, the reform was bad.

Ideally what we would see is that the insurance companies would grow in size due to more people being able to buy insurance, but their profits would shrink as competition makes them leaner. I don't know whether stocks go up or down in that case, but I think it's better for the country if we make these companies work for their money, and better for them if it helps them get on a sustainable business model (their current one isn't).

@NetRunner
Let me first say, I'm constantly amazed at how level-headed you stay...my hat's off to you.

I agree that ruining stock value of the insurance companies shouldn't be a -goal-...it should simply be irrelevant. If all the health insurance companies go bust because reform made them unimportant, it would be a hardship for those working people they employ, but it would be a godsend for the rest of us.

I don't use the word "evil" lightly, but health insurance companies are exactly that. Health insurance companies had record profits last year...and yet, claim they need record rate increases this year. Those two facts add up to only one conclusion: they're getting while the getting is good, before they get shut down. They're no different than the Wall Street tycoons, they'll rape us any way they can.

15 years ago, after Desert Storm, Powell had earned an amazing level of respect. Since then, he's managed to blow it all. He opposed gays in the military (and supported Don't Ask, Don't Tell). He played front man for forged evidence supporting the invasion of Iraq, putting his personal credibility on the line, and losing it when the truth came out days later.

Now one has to wonder whether it was his judgement or his integrity that was lost or sold. Either way, I find I just don't have much confidence that his opinions have any meaning any more.

As for the Christmas Day bomber, I'm still amazed that people -care-. A complete incompetent tried to blow up a plane, and succeeded only in burning his balls. Lightning is a bigger threat to our nation than guys like that. There were no heroes (no, tackling a guy who's balls are on fire doesn't make the passengers heroes).

You pretend like you would be willing to have a debate, but I can tell by your discourse that you're not

In short - "I don't wan't to talk specifics because that would mean I had to actually argue my case and I'm really only comfortable when I'm lobbing ad hominems safely ensconced in the anonymity of the internet. Now excuse me while I flee ignominiously..."

1. Are you saying that careful planning and getting things done right the first time are bad ways of working out problems?

Not at all. I'm noting with wry irony the hypocritical nature of Obama and his administration in taking a "let's go slow" approach with the military (so to avoid liberal backlack) while advocating breakneck haste and reckless speed with his domestic agenda.

the process of solving one problem does not necessarily logically follow from the process of solving a different problem, therefore your argument is non sequitur. Familiarize yourself with logic and the terms you are throwing around.

So - are you then saying that the issue of Health Care is one that requires no attention, no examination, and no deliberation? You are saying that the request for Afghanistan troops from a top general is SO critical that it requires slow, due consideration. And yet you are also saying that the nationalalization of our health care (the single biggest political issue in decades) is so UNimportant that it can be done with no examination of the bill, no open debate, and with undue haste & speed. I think you need a few lessons in logic yourself before you presume to attempt to instruct me. I was perfectly logical in my application.

3. The issue has been debated since May or possibly sooner. How many months is enough for you? Most of our country has had enough debate. Look at the polls.

Yes I have looked at the polls, and 58% of the country is opposed to Obamacare at last count. Does that mean according to your logic that the plan should be abandoned? Regardless, the 'issue' has been discussed but the SPECIFICS of the plan have not. There are no facts. There is no bill. It is only today that ONE version of the bill was submitted from the Senate - and there are 5 other versions which have never been seen. We can't discuss specifics when no specifics exist. Therefore we have discussed only generalities. That is not good enough. We need the COMPLETE finished bill in its FULL text posted for the entire country to read and deliberate over for weeks - preferably months. Without specificity, there is no 'discussion'.

4. Do you have proof that Obama's process for addressing military issues is more political than deliberative, or are you just vomiting your impressed opinion?

Do you have any information that explains why he will not follow the recommendation of his general and add troops? What other reason is there besides politics. When in a war, you follow the advice of your top leaders. They want troops. What else does he need to 'deliberate' except the political fallout he will suffer with his anti-war supporters? Everyone knows he is playing politics with Afghanistan. During his ENTIRE political campaign in 2008 he was constantly harping on Afghanistan being the 'real war' and Iraq was a pointless Bush distraction. Well, now Afghanistan is all his war and what's he done with it?

5. Let them continue acting the way they do. If health care doesn't pass this year, it will pass in two years after Republicans lose even more seats in congress for acting like spoiled rotten infants.

All the political polling to date shows the Democrat party losing a lot of seats in the house and the senate in 2010. It is kind of early for such polls though. Regardless, your peception of a 'demand' for Obamacare is a false one. Polling shows clearly that the majority of the public is against it. They are more concerned about the national debt. If Obama ramrods in Obamacare and increased our debt even more (which it will) then he faces a crippling backlash in 2010 and 2012. If he wants to be a 1 termer like Carter then he's well on his way.

I'll stop eating meat the day people stop killing each other. Why should I care about a bunch of chickens when even human lives are that unimportant. There is nothing I as a single individual can do about either problem, and if there were something I could do, I would prioritize saving human lives.

ooooooh, she means "little people" as in, "unimportant, poor, non-famous people". Here I thought she was using a current politically correct term, but she's really using an antiquated demeaning euphemism for the working class. Well played Barbra.

I know the colours are unimportant..., I was just pokin' fun - Cheers

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
@Sagemind: The color of the boxes are unimportant to me. Yellow was just randomly chosen by me. They don't need to be any color at all, really. A simple box around each category will work. Also the boxes could be smaller if I put the title above the list instead of off to the side. Like I said, I did this in a hurry, so it could certainly look better.