Because I'm broken, so I have free time but no real physical capabilities, and because I don't think most of the world deserves or wants my help.

I did my good here at home, where being a good citizen starts. I grow much of my own food at home using poo, not artificial fertilizers, I make my own electricity (mostly, by solar), and most important of all, I got fixed without having children. That's far more good for the world than 99.99% of people can be expected to do in their lifetimes, so I'm waiting for the rest of you to catch up. ;-)
Besides, I'm of the opinion that it's all over at this point, that global warming is far beyond solvable at this point, not that humans are trying. I firmly believe that land, water, and food shortages are in the near future for most people, so all these little arguments are moot. The animals have less of a chance than man, and man has no chance. The methane is melting, in my eyes that's game over, out of time. It's time to party like it's 1999.

Maybe not what they intended, but I say that's *quality *art in my eyes.

That's why I said IF they go along with any stupid thing HE does....also....I was clearly talking about Republicans, who are much better at being united and playing follow the leader.

Because she hired Shultz as quid quo pro for clearly "cheating" (flagrantly being biased, contrary to the conditions of the job and repeated statements to the contrary) to steal the nomination for Clinton, she's corrupt. Beyond that, you've gone into ridiculousness with your basketball analogy. There aren't ethics rules in basketball, or a duty to serve your fans ethically, or a duty to be nice to your opponent, or a way to fight over a ruling that he fouled another player....and there's instant redress for a foul.
This is just one more instance, the latest in a never ending string, showing her contempt for the rules and laws, and showing that she rewards breaking the rules if done for her benefit. That's reason for disqualification in my eyes.
You are welcome to your opinion. I strongly disagree, and your insistence that she's the best candidate, contrary to all evidence and strong public opinion, is why Trump will win. Thanks a bunch.

We wouldn't know if Bush was worse than Clinton until after her presidency. I contend you can't have a whit of an idea how she would operate, as her positions change with the wind and she'll do whatever suits her on the day she makes a decision, not the right thing, not what she said she would do yesterday.

Heh, my friends and I were OG AD&D players. I remember my mom freaking out when all this media attention came and me just rolling my eyes and showing her the books.

"Yes Mom, there are demons in the books--we usually kill them."
"No Mom, we don't act anything out. We imagine everything that takes place."
"Yes Mom, we know it's just a game and magic isn't real."

Probably the first time in my life when I realized adults could be idiots.

@newtboy,

1000 acre farms do not count as "family farms" in my eyes, even if they are owned by a single family.

Your entitled to that opinion, but you are also flat wrong. If you want to support a family of 2 or 3 children and do something as outrageous as send them off for post secondary education it isn't happening by running a subsistence farm. I'm in Manitoba, Canada and we've got about 20 thousand farms and the average size is right around 1000 acres. Those guys are in exactly the same financial class as the mom and pop corner convenience stores. They've got about the same money for raising their families and retire with about the same kind of savings. I really don't care whether you agree with me on that or not, it is a reality of farming today.

BUT....overuse of equipment either over packs the soil, making it produce far less, or over plows the soil, making it run off and blow away (see the dust bowl).
...
No, actually overproducing on a piece of land like that makes it unusable quickly and new farm land is needed to replace it while it recuperates (if it ever can). Chemical fertilizers add salts that kill beneficial bacteria, "killing" the soil, sometimes permanently. producing double or triple the amount of food on the same land is beneficial in the extreme short term, and disastrous in the barely long term.


I've got family that's been farming this same land for better then 100 years and still getting better yields per acre ever year. Your idea's about what is sustainable or good practice is disconnected from reality.

In first world countries....yes, or close to that much. Agreed. Not world wide.

Mechanized harvest is accepted in "natural" old school farming. Agreed, it would fall under the "industrial farming" methods, but is one of the least damaging.
>1000 acre farms do not count as "family farms" in my eyes, even if they are owned by a single family. So is Walmart, but it's not a mom and pop or family store.

Again, mechanization is not the same as industrialization, but does still do damage by over plowing, etc. I'm talking about monoculture crops, over application of man made fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Grain was farmed "by hand" since farming existed with few problems, but more work involved. The work it takes to rehab a river system because industrial farming runoff contaminated and killed it is FAR more work than the extra work involved in farming using old school methods (which does not mean everything is done with hands, tools and machines have been in use for eons).

Roundup doesn't "break down" completely, and doesn't break down at all if it's washed into river systems and out of the UV light.

Once again, machines aren't all of "industrial farming", they are one of the least damaging facets, and they are not unknown in old school, smaller farming techniques. BUT....overuse of heavy equipment either over packs the soil, making it produce far less, or over plows the soil, making it run off and blow away (see the dust bowl). If it was ONLY about machinery, and ONLY industrial farming used machines, you would have a point, but neither is true.

No, actually overproducing on a piece of land like that makes it unusable quickly and new farm land is needed to replace it while it recuperates (if it ever can). Chemical fertilizers add salts that kill beneficial bacteria, "killing" the soil, sometimes permanently. producing double or triple the amount of food on the same land is beneficial in the extreme short term, and disastrous in the barely long term. (See 'dust bowl')

Man power is far less damaging to the environment than fossil fuels for the same amount of energy. Also, the people would use no more resources because they're in the field than they would anywhere else, so there's NO net gain to the energy used or demand on the environment if they farm instead of sit at a desk, but machines don't use energy when idle, so there is a net loss to the energy required if you replace them with pre-existing people.

Yes, you quoted it directly, buy your characterization of what that meant was insane. You claim they said Monsanto worked on the project (and other things) because they're evil and want to do evil and harm. The video actually said they do these things without much care for the negative consequences to others, and that makes them evil. I hope you can comprehend the distinct difference in those statements, and that your portrayal of what they said is not honest.

Thanks for the quality.

I just watched it again and it brought tears to my eyes.

Yes, we clearly disagree about independent voters' responsibilities. That's fine. Just know that when you assign blame, many won't accept it.

Yes, I also hope current poll numbers and trends reverse....unless Sanders IS the nominee, in which case I hope current poll numbers remain the same.

What? What argument? Instead of answering? I discussed your two suggestions, and offered two of my own, one being (I think) a more palatable alternative to your tax proposal for steadying markets, the other being campaign reform. To quote myself...
"Tax on investment transactions...you've GOT to be kidding, she'll never consider any such thing, it goes against her own, and her donors interests. A speed limit on trading info so everyone has an equal chance would work better.
The one you didn't mention is the MOST important in my eyes, and also a non starter from her or them....campaign reform...both finance AND how elections operate from districts to electronic voting machines and everything in between."
Is that an argument? It certainly wasn't meant as one.
It was meant as simple and fairly civil (if slightly snarky) answers to your question (answers that I guess you missed), with a note that IMO, my (and likely your) preferred planks are not going to be addressed acceptably by Clinton, and clear reasons why I think that. That was not meant to start an argument, I'm sorry you take it that way.

No, I don't think I said that. Again, it would be nice, but if she locks it up (not counting super delegates) then Bernie's run as a Democrat is over, as is all hope. I don't hold onto even a shred of hope that he'll sway her policy, no matter what he gets her to say during the election.
She's already been incredibly inconsistent on the minimum wage thing, actually taking 3 positions in one sentence in one debate. Can't trust her.
Tax on investment transactions...you've GOT to be kidding, she'll never consider any such thing, it goes against her own, and her donors interests.
A speed limit on trading info so everyone has an equal chance would work better.
The one you didn't mention is the MOST important in my eyes, and also a non starter from her or them....campaign reform...both finance AND how elections operate from districts to electronic voting machines and everything in between. Without that, we'll never get candidates that will work for us OR fix the system that supports them, or even be able to trust our elections. As I see it, Sanders is our one and only hope of fixing the system, so the only hope of saving the union.

remember these guys?
http://videosift.com/video/death-politicians-in-my-eyes-rare-70s-detroit-punk

I'd eat you and your baby in a heart beat if it meant survival for me. But the fact is almost nobody on this planet is currently in that situation, probably never will, and the more people that become vegan, the less likely that is to happen as well.

So yes, people that have made a conscious decision to not do cruel things while they are unnecessary are superior. Just like in the way you don't go around murdering people for shoes right now, even though in the apocalypse you would, makes you a superior person compared with some thug that does that now. You would probably steal food from people that need it, but you aren't doing that now, so you're definitely superior to people that do steal unnecessarily now too. But you don't see anyone telling people who don't steal to get off their high horses.....

There is no humor because the situation is so serious, not because it's puncturing a balloon of superiority. Or do you think that people who opposed concentration camps where simply doing so to feel superior too?
The other thing that makes it totally not funny is because I've heard this ignorant and false stereotype stuff so many times it makes my eyes roll. Vegans are as a diverse group of people as can possibly be, with the only thing in common is their compassion for animals, and care of the environment.

I'm also not a lion or a chimp, I don't copy their other behaviors like throwing poo or licking my own ass, so I don't see why I'd copy their carnivorous behavior either. It's a good thing I have a frontal lobe and can use reason to make decisions based on my understanding of the consequences.

Also while I would eat meat for survival, I would not be eating it for the taste. It sounds to me like you're under the impression that vegans are like ex-heroin addicts, always being tempted by that next hit. It's not like that all, taste buds adjust dramatically over time, in fact they adjust second to second - eat an apple after a swig of soft drink. It'll taste sour. Yet do it before, and the apple is sweet. I honestly find the thought of meat revolting now, just like you would if you had to eat something like a dog or rat. I feel the same way about milk the way you do about drinking human breast milk. I'm not just saying this to be dramatic or superior, I'm saying it to give you an example how easily your taste buds are influenced.

I was so FUCKING bored AND tired (like barely keeping my eyes open; falling asleep, then writing more, then eventually hitting: POST!--lol) when I wrote that, can you tell?

The best part about this is that I didn't need pot or anything to make such a crazy post/comment. This was fully driven by my sleep disorder. Basically, I start to go into an "REM" like state when I get really tired (or in my case, when the right time of day hit). Sometimes I'm unable to catch myself before I do something...goofy and or funny.

THUS, you now have this wonderful post created from my sub-conscious and conscious self-working hard together to create a masterpiece!

Personally, I always find it amazing that I'm able to put sentences together and that at some points they are actually understandable, so long as you take them into consideration in a mystical and crazy freaking world/Universe where certain rules are true... The best you can do to re-create this experience is to get a mild form of Narcolepsy that MOSTLY preys on your dream and "sub-conscious" aspects belonging to the REM stage or staging... Then you have to deal with LOTS of "night terrors", hypnagogic hallucinations, and other issues (like Cataplexy). Then, you too can write mystical, strange, and WTF(?!) writings like I have above!!!


Enjoy!

HAHAHA! Your channel pic and name just caught my eye ... love it

I can't stand Clinton, i put her just a hair above a man like Cruz who i'm not sure isn't the worst politician in the country on a national level.

Having said that... I feel just about the same about BS titles like this one. That may be how she feel and what she really thinks but she most certainly didn't say that.

There are endless reasons to be concerned about someone like Clinton becoming president... this sort of BS just damages credibility in my eyes and effectively treats people exactly how its suggests she treats them.

So many nights blaring my stereo with the lights off in my room and laying on my bed with my eyes closed. I miss enjoying music in the way i did in my youth.