I don't get how Trump and the GOP say the Democrats need to be willing to negotiate. They are offering $1.6 Billion in additional funding. But Trump is acting like Veruca Salt, and stomping his feet, saying he wants $5.7 Billion, and he wants it now. That's not how negotiations work. You want $5.7, they offer $1.6, you come down to say $4.6, they come back at $2.3, you come back with $4 and permanent residence status for Dreamers, they come back with $3 and permanent resident status, then you meet at $3.5 and permanent resident status. You don't just keep acting like a child throwing a temper tantrum and demanding the $5.7, and if you don't get it, the other side is the one's being unreasonable.

The "Pro-life" party, that loves the death penalty and war, so not really pro-life at all, is now holding millions of Americans (800k, plus their families, plus the millions of people who depend on those services) hostage in an act of economic terrorism, until the other side fully caves into their demands. They are the ones not willing to negotiate, but are doing some 1984 level doublespeak, and blaming it all on the Democrats. And the Fox News types are eating it up, which is probably why Trump thinks he's winning. "Just look. Steve says I'm doing good and that all real Americans support me."

They need to pass a law, that Congress, their aids and staff, the President, their aids and staff, the White House aids and staff... all don't get paid on any shutdown. If they've already given up their salary (I love how Trump followers commend Trump for giving up his salary, while ignoring he makes more a year off the Secret Service than he would in years of salary) then they have to reimburse that salary they would have made in that time. Congress and the President may not take back pay, and it takes a 60% vote to authorize the aids and staff back pay, but only if all other Federal workers also get their back pay first in a separate and prior authorization.

"Let's lay it right on the line. Bigotry and racism are among the deadliest social ills plaguing the world today. But, unlike a team of costumed super-villains, they can’t be halted with a punch in the snoot, or a zap from a ray gun. The only way to destroy them is to expose them—to reveal them for the insidious evils they really are. The bigot is an unreasoning hater—one who hates blindly, fanatically, indiscriminately. If his hang-up is black men, he hates ALL black men. If a redhead once offended him, he hates ALL redheads. If some foreigner beat him to a job, he’s down on ALL foreigners. He hates people he’s never seen—people he’s never known—with equal intensity—with equal venom.
Now, we’re not trying to say it’s unreasonable for one human being to bug another. But, although anyone has the right to dislike another individual, it’s totally irrational, patently insane to condemn an entire race—to despise an entire nation—to vilify an entire religion. Sooner or later, we must learn to judge each other on our own merits. Sooner or later, if man is ever to be worthy of his destiny, we must fill out hearts with tolerance. For then, and only then, will we be truly worthy of the concept that man was created in the image of God–a God who calls us ALL—His children.

Pax et Justitia,
Stan"

We lost Stan and Clownface Von Fuckstick is still alive.
There is no justice.

I hope they start with him. ;-)

So, he thinks Russia has no churches!?! He thinks Venezuela is religion free?! Lol. What a maroon.
"If" they ever get power? Like 2008, when thousands of Christians were hunted like animals and murdered in the streets and organized religion was outlawed in America?....oh, wait....

UnChristian "Christians" like him are why people are fleeing religions like rats on a sinking ship.
The church is a bastion of pedophiles, racists, misogynists, and charlatans. I, for one, would support legal prosecution and even execution of the leaders of these evil cabals and most vile perpetrators from them, just like I would active members and leaders of NAMBLA, and the forfeiture of all church assets like any other criminal organization would see, they have each destroyed far more than one life, it's not unreasonable to think they should pay with their own. Just think of the dent that could make in the national debt and the criminals that would remove from our communities.

Even I, however, don't advocate (anti) religious warfare, what he's suggesting. I believe our legal system, properly and fairly applied, could easily and righteously eradicate most organized religions if only people didn't turn a blind eye towards their undeniable institutionalised crimes and sins.

Also, shouldn't any Christian hope they would be martyred, isn't that a free ticket into heaven in their belief system? Didn't Jebus tell them to turn the other cheek, not to strike first?

Upvote for exposure, not agreement

More like Ford said he drunkenly hit and ran, Kavanaugh denied it, and 5 friends said they saw nothing and they think he's a good driver even when "going to sleep in public" drunk (he doesn't pass out, remember) in writing with no cross examination (making their claims completely meaningless under the law).
And let's not forget the other two who claim he hit and ran from them as well, still totally uninvestigated but the FBI is interviewing Ramirez today.

So, because there was no witness examination, there are no witnesses, so it's her word against his (now x3), by Republican design. If her (their) word(s) against his isn't enough to create reasonable doubt about his past actions to you, I declare you unreasonable.
If you're prepared to put another probable sex abuser on the court because they'll vote to protect Trump from his crimes (exactly why he's nominated, and why they won't rescind the nomination under any circumstances) I again declare you unreasonable.
If you think his demeanor and professionalism displayed in the hearings are appropriate for a lifetime member of the highest court in the land, yet inappropriate for a teenager caught drinking, I declare you unreasonable.

That's just, like, your opinion, man. ;-)


Anyone sharing the opinion that they are protesting the flag, anthem, or America got that idea directly (or by proxy) from Trump who spouted that vitriolic lie from day one, and they were all duped by him. Sorry, that's simply fact.

I've seen plenty of interviews with active military who said the right to protest is a large part of what they serve to protect.

You should maybe talk to veterans instead of standing on what you believe they think (with no evidence). They take a knee for flag draped fallen comrades themselves, as a sign of respect.
I cannot understand anyone who's taught proper flag etiquette disagreeing with other people following proper flag etiquette.

It's far more disrespectful to wear the flag as clothing, but I would bet 1/4 of those complaining have worn the flag as underwear, wiping their shit soiled asses on and pissing on it directly, but they think kneeling is disrespectful? Come on, you must admit that's moronic.

Honorable knowledgeable veterans don't think that....they know better.

Yes, if you ignore all your training, written flag rules/etiquette, common sense, national identity, and the clear, unambiguous words describing the intents of the protesters in favor of politically motivated divisive rabble rousing from consummate liars, that's definitely unreasonable...yes.

Then IMO your deeply disrespecting the opinions of a lot of veterans. Just because Trump happens to hold a strong opinion doesn't automatically negate it. Neither does anyone sharing that opinion automatically become duped by him or some kind of protege.

There are veterans working hard to make ends meet watching guys being paid millions of dollars to play football refusing to stand for the national anthem. I don't accept that every single veteran either accepts the gesture entirely, or is a racist Trump duped evil human being. I believe there are veterans that view standing for the anthem as a sign of respect for the country and fallen comrades, and I can understand many of those people disagreeing with the gesture and wishing they'd make their protest in another way than what is to the veterans, disrespect for their country and veterans. It doesn't make them 'right' but it hardly makes them unreasonable either, no?

People use the word "Atheist" to mean a couple of different things, you guys are describing the two meanings correctly. It's just genuinely a muddy term because usage is so split. Richard Dawkins has a handy disambiguation in the God Delusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

Honestly I think "strong atheists" are mostly just a straw man created so believers can say "look, these atheists are just as unreasonable as us!". But I guess a few real ones exist.

I watched this the other day, and honestly, I thought they were a little hyperbolic.

"Sometimes the nearest hospital is over an hours drive away!"

er, yeah.... the USA is a big country.

Even in NZ, a country over 30 times smaller, the nearest big hospital can easily be over an hour away from a small rural town.

It seems really unreasonable to expect that someone who lives up a windy mountain road should have an emergency obstetrics dept on their doorstep.

Your video, The Unreasonable Efficiency of Black Holes, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

That's not the proposed solution, though. The main idea is to keep control of your own story by explaining to your audience, not to the troll, what the truth is. But there is really nothing wrong with pruning remarks from people who are only trying to rile you or your audience up for their own amusement (true trolling). That's not the same as shutting down all contrary views, it's refusing to tolerate lies and unreasoned arguments that attempt to divert the conversation on a tangent.

Devil's advocate:

First up, If we're looking for "something we can't imagine", by definition we are unable to search for it.

Second, there's every possibility that aliens ARE very similar to us. There's a principle known as the Mediocrity Principle that states that if you pick a thing at random from a set, it's more likely to common than unusual. In this case, we are picking from the (hypothetical) set of life-sustaining planets, and using the only example we're aware of: Earth.

It's not unreasonable to assume that Earth is typical of life-sustaining planets. There doesn't appear to be anything particularly special about it.... it's a rocky planet in the "Goldilocks zone" where water is liquid. We've found plenty of those.

So there's actually a good possibility that life on other planets could face the same evolutionary pressures and arrive at the same solutions.

Aliens might not be that different at all.

You're mistaken. I've heard exactly that suggested by multiple people....not that there's any actual push for disarmament.
No reasonable person suggests that, but people are often unreasonable about this topic.

OK, a few things.

60 km/h is about 37 mph and although I don't know the exact speed limit on that street, it's not unreasonable to assume it's 50 or 60 km/h.

In the video, the light turns yellow approximately 1.5 seconds before he enters the intersection. He is going 54 km/h at that time. This means he is approximately 23 m from the intersection when the light turns yellow.

According to nacta.org, the safe stopping distance for an average driver at 35 mph is 136 ft or around 41 m.

From the Ontario Highway Traffic Act: Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular amber indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle if he or she can do so safely, otherwise he or she may proceed with caution. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (15).

Also from the Ontario Highway Act: No driver or operator of a vehicle in an intersection shall turn left across the path of a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction unless he or she has afforded a reasonable opportunity to the driver or operator of the approaching vehicle to avoid a collision. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 141 (5).

Two points.

Completely unreasonable to discharge a firearm in to a crowd like that, although I'm fairly sure that guy is drilled enough that he could accurately shoot someone at that range if he really wanted to. The guy has been charged, correct? Entirely appropriate.

Second, you notice the missiles incoming, the dickhead trying to turn a spray can in to a flamethrower? Do you honestly think these were isolated events? Do you not think that people prepared for this? Or does every person carry aerosols and lighters just for shits and giggles?

The pretext of antifa is that assaulting people is fine because it's proactive self defense, right? If it's okay to physically attack people for thinking and saying offensive things, then why the fuck is anyone complaining about someone drawing a weapon to defend others against an actual attack??? /grin

That's the problem when you justify unreasonable actions on one side, whether you like it or not you justify unreasonable actions for everyone.

And just to ice the cake, if you're dumb enough to show up with sticks/stones/cans of spray against the the white right who are well known to be armed to the motherfucking teeth, you might want to avoid poking the bear.

ps. Upvoted your vid because it should be seen (the more documentation about the whole shebang the better) and because I'm not a petty cunt... X D

There's a big difference between accept and endorse.
I don't think it's unreasonable to demand acceptance....our constitution demands it imo. If it didn't, being a Nazi would be illegal.