I would do nothing to anger that beast not even film it from a distance.

@newtboy - I suspect that the reason you haven't seen it in print that Dems who support Clinton will vote for Sanders is because you don't read anything but Sanders stuff. Dan Savage has even said in print he will support Sanders -- and yet what you repeated was the fact that he supports Hillary. You missed that he will gladly vote for Sanders. How could that be?

We all have our biases. And we all are, more or less, trapped in our own echo chambers.

What bothers me most about the attacks on HIllary is that the vast majority are bogus that were ginned up by the REPUBLICAN SMEAR MACHINE. And nobody looks that nasty beast in the eye and names it. Or when Hillary has done it, she is ridiculed for it. Instead, these lies are repeated as truth. You say you don't like lies -- how about pushing back on that crap, instead of embracing it, since it helps your candidate?

What I don't get from your position is what exactly you want to happen? Hillary is ahead on delegates and the popular vote. You want her to just concede right now? Is that what you think should happen?

I have lost track, but last I read, Sanders needed to win something like 65% of the remaining contests to win the nomination.

So do it. Go out and do it.

And I'll vote for Sanders.

To me, this is all more proof that you want the world to be different than it actually is.

And as I have said repeatedly, as much as idealists annoy the hell out of me with their purity tests and unrealistic, not of this world, points of view -- I am desperately glad these idealistic warriors exist. Because otherwise, nothing would ever change.

(I'm not happy about conservative idealists -- Tea Party purists who are constipated, me-me-and-mine ideologues. And I have to acknowledge that we need them, too. The continual pulling of the middle by the fringes -- that is indeed the way the world works. The pendulum that swings back and forth throughout human history.)

The simple point is that you are not superior. You have made a lifestyle choice because you wanted to. You have no solid scientific evidence that food animals are fully sentient. Both dogs and pigs routinely fail self-awareness tests, they may be intelligent and able to learn, but they ARE NOT PEOPLE. Vegans want us to believe that eating a pig is tantamount to eating a 3 year old baby, and simply isn't. You are certainly welcome to your opinion on the subject, but that is all.

Now to address your issue with how people treat vegans. I know that I have never went out of my way to lambaste a vegan for choosing to be vegan. I will, and have, severely castigate vegans who start telling me that they are superior to other people because they choose to not eat meat. How can you not see that having the attitude that you are better than someone else because of your choices is not the same manner of thinking that leads to church people condemning people for not following their ethos?

So, let me ask you, how many people have given you shit for being vegan out of the blue? For instance, you were minding your own business and eating a salad, then a person jumped in your face and said "How dare you eat that salad next to me?" I'm willing to bet you might have gotten some gentle ribbing if you went to a friend's barbecue and asked for a vegan option, but I doubt anyone got in your face about it. On the other hand, I have absolutely had more than one vegan get in my face and tell me that I am a murderer and a beast because I ate a hamburger at a desk across from them or sat down at a table with some brisket without making sure it wasn't a 'meat-free' zone.

The sheer chutzpah that most vegans have towards non-vegans is what makes them a target for ridicule. I get it, you think you are better than us, but we wouldn't care if you didn't feel the need to trot it out every five seconds.

They are almost always relieved or suspended, at least while the investigation is in process. Once the initial furor blows over, they are either quietly put back on duty or sometimes fired. Since most departments don't bother to blacklist them, they will simply find another place to be a cop.

Just like the two cops who killed the kid with the fake airsoft gun (Tamir Rice) both had prior incidents that, in any normal job would have prevented them from working in that field ever again. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Tamir_Rice and read the background of the officers. Both had incidents that should have made them unsuitable for duty, but they both were able to continue working and then were let off the hook by a grand jury after the shoo...murder of Rice. Since they were acquitted, the wonderful police unions mean they get to stay cops.

Now you tell me another field of employment that gets away with this. You might say the military, but generally if you screw up badly they will make you go away. There might be a cover up, but you are going to be kicked out, court martialed, or put in a dead end place where you will never advance out of nor have authority to make any important decisions. Politics is close, but if you aren't super high up in the food chain you will pay for it as well. Police, though, they will walk 99% of the time. Even the officer who shot the teen here in Austin that was wandering around naked and threatening people, he was only fired and this town is one of the most liberal towns in the USA. We've already established that a lot of police forces don't even bother checking with previous employers, so I expect he will be able to go someplace else and be a cop again.

The most fun thing? This has been going on for decades, hell, probably a couple of centuries. Only since the advent of video recording technology that was easily portable have we been shown the true nature of the beast. But, and forgive me as I can't find the exact quote, someone said something along the lines of that the majority of the public will forget anything in six weeks. Over and over we seem to prove that as we keep letting these people get away with impunity.

*ban2.0
RHS TV Henry Danger 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9FsaKJO5oE

*related= http://videosift.com/video/Henry-Danger-Henry-the-Man-Beast-Part-2-of-4-Episode-10
*ban1.0
RHS TV Henry Danger 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmQOsXHhUmw

*ban1.0
RHS TV Henry Danger 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmQOsXHhUmw

*related= http://videosift.com/video/Henry-Danger-Henry-the-Man-Beast-Part-1-of-4-Episode-10
*ban2.0
RHS TV Henry Danger 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9FsaKJO5oE

Holy shit. If that's the worst thing you can lay at her feet, she will fucking beast the election. I mean you'll say literally anything, and the worst thing you can bring up is her email management? America won't care about that.

Your video, Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them Trailer (Apr 2016), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 9 Badge!

As a bass player I've tried playing some Babymetal for an internet forum challenge before. Not really my cup of tea, but some of the songs are fun. I don't think I've ever seen a video of them before, or if I have they tend to focus on the singer girls and not the band. So it was fun to see the bass player jamming out.

Dude's 6 string bass looks like it has a massively wide neck. Or maybe he's just proportionally small? I play a 5 string, and the neck seems like nowhere close to 5/6ths as wide as that beast... I thought maybe he was rocking an exotic bass with 8 or 10.

It does sound like the theme to Shadow of the Beast!

So many hours playing that as a kid. I remember it being really difficult but I loved the art so much.

i remember this on shadow of the beast

Hahaha... seriously, what kind of passive aggressive bullshit is that? "Ignoring the theoretical underpinnings of socialism, because I've decided that that's waffling, I say Jesus was a socialist." Next time, maybe just write TL;DR and make a farting noise while rolling your eyes.

You can't dismiss the actual meaning of the word Socialist as 'semantics', if you're talking about whether or not something is socialist. That doesn't help the discussion.

In order to use socialism as you appear to be doing, you would have to first:
- ignore the history of socialism and its political development,
- ignore the entire body of academic work, current and past, on socialism, and
- ignore how the word socialism "IS used now, like it or not" in actual socialist or semi-socialist countries

By doing that you end up at your definition of the word, yes. But you had to take a pretty long detour to get to that point

Marx's quote on religion is pretty straightforward - it can be, as you say, open to interpretation, but it's generally agreed that he didn't say that your Jesus was a stand-up socialist. He is more commonly taken to mean that religion is a false response to the real suffering of the oppressed; religion provides a fiction of suffering and a fiction of redemption/happiness, that will never translate into real change. It makes the oppressed feel like they are bettering their lives, while actually keeping them passive and preventing them from changing anything.

The slightly larger context of the quote is this: "Das religiöse Elend ist in einem der Ausdruck des wirklichen Elendes und in einem die Protestation gegen das wirkliche Elend. Die Religion ist der Seufzer der bedrängten Kreatur, das Gemüth einer herzlosen Welt, wie sie der Geist geistloser Zustände ist. Sie ist das Opium des Volks."

I don't know how to make that more plain, but I can try. Religious suffering is on one hand a response to real suffering (wirkliche Elend, by which one would mean a materialistically determined actual lack of freedom, resources, physical wellbeing, etc), but it is also a false reaction against that real suffering. Real oppression creates suffering to which there could be a real respones, but religion instead substitutes in false suffering and false responses - it tries to tackle real suffering with metaphysical solutions. He goes on to say:

"Die Aufhebung der Religion als des illusorischen Glücks des Volkes ist die Forderung seines wirklichen Glücks."

This, too, seems pretty straightforward to me, but you might see 4 or 5 different things there. Religion teaches the people an illusory form of happiness, which doesn't actually change or even challenge the conditions of suffering, and must therefore be tossed out, for the people to ever achieve real happiness.

A fundamental difference here is that religious goodness is internally, individually, and fundamentally motivated. 'Good' is 'Good', and you as a Christian individual should choose to do Good. A goal of Marxism is to abolish that kind of fundamentalism and replace it with continuous criticism; creating a society that always questions, together, what good is, through the lens of dialectical materialism.

You might recognize this line of thinking* from what modern Europeans call the autonomous left wing, or what Marx and Trotsky called the Permanent Revolution, which Wikipedia helpfully comments on as "Marx outlines his proposal that the proletariat 'make the revolution permanent'. In essence, it consists of the working class maintaining a militant and independent approach to politics both before, during and after the 'struggle' which will bring the 'petty-bourgeois democrats' to power." Which sounds great, except it can also lead to purges, paranoia, and informant societies.

My entire point is that socialism and Christianity are entirely different beasts. One is a rich, layered mythology with an extremely deep academic and political history, but no modern critical or explanatory components.** The other is an academic theory of economics and politics, with all the tools of discourse of modern academia in its toolbelt, and a completely different critical and analytical goal.

TL;DR? Well, Jesus (in a lenient interpretation) taught that we should help the weak. Marx explained that the people should organize to eradicate the conditions that force weakness onto the people. Jesus
taught that greed would keep a man from heaven, Marx explained that religion, nationalism, tribalism and commodity fetishism blinded the people to its common materialist interests. Jesus taught that the meek will be rewarded for their meekness, and while on earth we should render unto Caesar what is Caesar's; Marx explained that meekness as a virtue is a way of preventing actual revolutionary change, and that dividing the world into the spiritual and the materialistic helped keep the people sedate and passive, which plays right into the hands of the Caesars.

*I'm just kidding, I know you don't recognize any of this


**There probably are modern scholars of Christianity who adapt and adopt some of the tools of modern academic discourse; I know too little about academic Christianity.

That, AND I didn't know that it should have been 'toe' and not tow. That seems weird, but I do see that it's correct. 'Towing the line' (as in 'pulling along with you') seems more like what's meant by the phrase, but clearly is not the origin. Language is a capricious beast.

The American buffalo (Bison bison) is also commonly known as the American buffalo. Same for the European bison (Bison bonasus). From wikipedia:

The term "buffalo" is sometimes considered to be a misnomer for this animal, and could be confused with two "true buffalo", the Asian water buffalo and the African buffalo. However, "bison" is a Greek word meaning ox-like animal, while "buffalo" originated with the French fur trappers who called these massive beasts bœufs, meaning ox or bullock—so both names, "bison" and "buffalo", have a similar meaning. The name "buffalo" is listed in many dictionaries as an acceptable name for American buffalo or bison.

Well according to the clip of Stallone's arm wrestling show, apparently drinking automobile oil before a match does NOT make you stronger or better at it (much like Popeye and a can of spinach). BUT, it does seem to show that it has the ability to induce a superpower allowing a seemingly normal person to become schizophrenic...

BTW, I said superpower rather than mental illness, because from the schizophrenic individual's perspective he is surely battling Hell's most dangerous beasts, demons, and devils. Merely with the power of his arm wrestling techniques backed up by the miniature fission based nuclear reactor in his gut. It also leaves him in a perpetual manic state, where much like the Lego Movie, "Everything Is Awesome"...

I imagine that he may upgrade to a mixture of anti-freeze and power steering fluids; absolutely logical.

/insanity
//off-topic