"Lock the doors."

-- Flight Director LeRoy Cain

And yeah, if it's a choice between someone getting beat up and someone getting fucking killed, must be the Buddhist in me but I'd rather the former.

Speaking of not letting people die. Tell more of your flunky Rs to get vaccinated. And tell me what all these Hermann Cain awards have in common https://old.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/

Almost like all of them are getting a steady stream of misinformation.

See above...factual proof Trump voters are moronic racists was supplied.

Since you need lyrics, try these-

This is the United States of America, and you got a right to hate who you want!
So let's start bustin' heads!

Black against white
Yellow versus red
The fighting won't stop until we're dead
Until we're all dead

Burning, looting
Riots destroy the masses
Nightfall brings death
City reduced to ashes

Don't call me your brother
'Cuz I ain't your fuckin' brother
We fell from different cunts
And your skin, your skin's an ugly colour

Race war, we're going to a race war
Hate war, we're going to a hate war
Prejudicial homicide!

Bloodshed, rampage
Torture is not subsiding
Chaos, bedlam
Violent ethnic uprising

Muslims against Christians
And the Arabs versus Jews
The Catholics and Protestants
No one wins: we all lose!

Race war, we're going to a race war
Hate war, we're going to a hate war
Everybody's gonna die!

Xenophobic tendencies instilled in us at birth
Are mislabelled racism, hostilities getting worse
Accept the fact my distant cousin, we cannot live in peace
Isolated environments, they may just be the key

Human beings suspicious, soon fear grows to hate
We'll have each other by the throat if forced to integrate
Mothers watch their children die at each other's hand
Cain and Abel set the course, ethnocentric command

Race war!
Hate war!

You can run, but you can't hide!-Peter Steele-Carnivore

Remember, this guy is the reason Mc Cain went with Palin. He's pretty far to the right... now of course the Trumpers will claim Mc Cain isn't to the right at all and betrayed the country... and this guy is now doing the same... because any criticism of Trump is somehow bad, even within his own party. Not a cult at all...

What would Kwai Chang Caine do?

Short answer, no, not if they make cakes with messages.

Because there's no way to tell if it's really a firmly held belief or just douchbaggery, and it's far more likely to be the latter (examples of that above), no. The next step might be no cakes for blacks, because they're unclean descendants of Cain, or Jews because they don't serve Jesus, or people wearing blended fabrics because they should be stoned to death, and certainly no cake for atheists.

If you have a public business, serve the public, otherwise partner with your church and limit your customers to like minded people instead of singling out certain groups to publicly deny service....or move to a religiously intolerant country where your intolerance is allowed and not antithetical to the national morals.

Is that Jonathan Cain from Journey nodding his head next to her?

Arkin is a Sophia, Caine is the Rose, and Freeman is both Dorothy AND Blanche somehow.

My-Co-caine :-)

Funny, but flawed it's own way.

Let me preface this commentary by saying I am not in any organized religion. I go back and forth in believing in God and also not being able to find proof he exists, basically an agnostic theist. So this is not in any way an attempt to 'prove' anything other than that I disagree with the way the video is portraying the biblical tale. I also know there are far more egregious examples than this story of God as an uncaring, flawed being with an uncertain temperament.

First, this story is one of the 'go to' stories that most atheists or anti-religion people look to for a clear example of the 'wrongness' of the bible or God. The reason is, if you don't take anything else into context, this story is massively damning! What god would call for a mass genocide out of the blue, right? Certainly not one people consider to be good!

But, if we look at the context of the bible in the Old Testament, we see that this is not wholly out of line for the character shown of God. If we take the statements of the bible as literal, then God has already shown he will destroy any threat to those he considers his 'chosen people'; even those who are/were part of that group.

In this case, the Amalekites were descendants of Esau. Esau was the brother of Jacob (later named Israel) and was supposed to inherit the blessing of his father, as well as command over the 'chosen people' of God. Esau was of rough nature and was a hunter. Once he was starving and went to Jacob, who tended the fields (sort of the Cain and Abel bit all over again), begging him for a bowl of lentil soup. Jacob told him that he would give him the bowl if Esau would pass his birthright (blessing and command) over to Jacob, since obviously Jacob was more able to care for his people than a solitary hunter. Esau agreed, but never really meant it, he was just hungry and was willing to say whatever he needed to so as to get that soup.

Jacob was dead serious though, so he took the birthright and became Israel, the leader of God's chosen. Esau was livid and swore to murder Jacob, who fled. Esau never got the birthright back, but he did sire the people who became the Amalekites, who in turn swore vengeance on Israel-ites.

This becomes important as time goes on, because basically every single time the groups encountered one another, the Israelites tried to be peaceful but the Amalekites always attacked.

By the time Saul was king, God chose to have him go and destroy the Amalekites, deeming them beyond saving. As he had told Moses during the first Amalekite attacks, he had Samuel tell Saul to blot their memory from history, wiping them out completely. Saul chose not to do this, sparing their king and some animals. Because of this, God replaced Saul with David.

So, now we come to the main part of the discussion. Like I said, this story is used quite often to show the capricious nature of God. However, like I said, it uses the story out of context. Now that we have the 'historical' description of the origin and ongoing nature of the conflict, we can put it into context.

If you are going to dissect the nature of 'God' as shown in the Old Testament, you have to look at the information given to show that nature. The bible says he is all-knowing, but it also says that he gave mankind free will. If you look on God as more of a creature running a simulation, he hopes that humanity will come to follow his rules of their own accord, even though he knows many will not. He chooses Israel and his descendants to be his 'messengers' to the other people that have chosen not to follow his rules, basically they are his missionaries that he hopes will lead his simulation to the proper conclusion.

Any group or race that tries to eradicate his messengers is a threat to his simulation, so he eventually will deal with them harshly. Sodom and Gomorrah, The Great Flood, and other examples of God deciding that he needs to protect his 'messengers' and clear off the playing board. In the case of the Amalekites, by this time period mentioned in the story, we are talking about generations of them trying to destroy the Israelites. So, God tells Samuel to tell Saul that they must be wiped from the playing board. Saul exercises his free will, therefore David enters the picture.

If you look at free will and God's choice of his messengers, as well as his protection of them, you get this story situation. By telling Saul to wipe them out, God is saying that he has tried to look the other way, but the Amalekites will never stop as long as they exist. Therefore they must be dealt with in a manner that will prevent them from rising as a people in the future and attempting harm to his messengers again.

It still doesn't paint God in a perfect light, but makes him more of a tinkerer. He keeps creating flawed inventions that choose to follow their own path and not his. The sad thing is, if you assume that he is all knowing, he knows this is going to be the end result. He creates angels and they turn on him. He creates humans and they turn on him. Then he creates Jesus, a combination of god and human, who doesn't turn on him. It is almost like he decides to create a Hero unit that can show the other simulations an easier path to winning.

Realistically and analytically, I know it doesn't make perfect sense. That is why I have my struggles with wanting to believe and then not being able to logically. If you choose to look at God as being a flawed creature (again, assuming that you believe he exists), the whole thing sort of makes more sense. In any case, we all have our own opinions and beliefs. I hope that my wordy post has explained how I try to work through mine.

Cain't go wrong with this dude.

*promote

Support our Veterans - 22 Pushups a Day for 22 Days

Well, since the 'chump' is the one that got furthest of those two candidates, I don't know if a valuable lesson was learned at all. I think it's equally likely that the system will get more polarized along that axis as well - that the Republicans will double down on the crazy populism next time around, continuing the trend of Palin to Cain to Trump, and the Democrats will want to play it even safer* and more establishment because of the gaping maw of insanity on the other side.

It might even be that this is the preferred way for this to shake out in their eyes - the Democrats go on to take the White House this term and the next, and the Republicans lose the presidency but gain more ground on the local level. I'm not saying that the Republicans want to lose the presidency, but since almost every local Republican runs on the premise that they'll stand up to Washington, it doesn't hurt to be in opposition. Supporting Trump might not get you the white house but it might make you mayor. Plus, that's where the Koch money is, for now.

*On the other hand, let's not go nuts. Right now, given how the election's turned out, Clinton seems like an incredibly establishment, incredibly traditional politics, choice - but when they made the decision to run, it must have still seemed like a risky move, since no woman had ever made it all the way before. I can't imagine that anyone predicted what this race would look like (?), so maybe the 'lesson' from 2016 can't be accurately applied by either party.

This is really important. *promote
MM lays out how REAL a President Trump is, based on some of Hillary's fatal flaws, like the TPP support and the loss of the Rust Belt support.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/michael-moores-5-reasons-why-trump-will-win

Yet she still continues to make poor choices, like double-down on Wall Street/Banking support with Caine, and a big wet sloppy kiss to Wasserman-Schultz after evidence surfaces of their conspiracy. This is the behavior of the Entitled, not the Deserved.

Does it really matter? Trump has already accomplished the goal conservatives needed him to. The best way to keep the country divided, with more faith in corporations and churches than in the government, is to devalue the democratic process, and make it look ridiculous.

The reasonable part of the country is disgusted that a Trump, or a Palin, or a Carson, or a Cain, was ever treated as a serious contender for leading the country, and will lose a little of their faith in democracy. The true believers on the other hand, who buy into these idiots, will also be disgusted and confused when their candidates inevitably fail, and lose a little of their faith in democracy.

No matter who wins the actual election, the fact that the next president will have been up on the national stage debating with a reality show host who called them dumb, already tarnishes them and their office. Even if the Republicans lose, they'll have strengthened the American belief that politics are dumb and petty and need to be reined in, which is the Republican agenda. A Republican president would just be icing on that cake.

Francis Fukuyama does an interesting overview in his Political Order and Political Decay on how trust in governmental institutions is one pillar of any functioning democracy. Putting Trump and the other clowns on stage seems like a textbook action to undermine that trust.