james o'keefe and project veritas are reknowned in their deceptions and their so-called 'gotcha" shenanigans.

and when i say "shenanigans",i mean clever editing to create a false premise that suits a political agenda.in this case:republicans.

o'keefe is not the first to kneel at the altar of political money,and suck the cock of his masters,simply to buy his way into the powered elites outhouse,located on the very edge of the property.(oooh i am being sassy today).

we can look back at the tea party and literally watch dick army,former congressman turned lobbyist (shocker right there),single handedly change the direction of an entire movement to serve the needs and desires of HIS masters,by the creation of "americans for prosperity".

i am not kidding.
go check it out.
when the original tea party started their message was very similar to the occupy wall street movement in 2011,but dick army and his merry band of fuckheads,manipulated the leadership from outrage against:big banks,wall street and the horrendous malfeasance of rumsfelds department of defense (still looking for that 1 trillion dollars of tax payer money)..

to...

big government and the democrats.

it was quite impressive in its simplicity and brilliance.
reprehensible and grotesque,but impressive.

we can even look at the private organization of the DNC,and how they openly attempted to undermine bernie sanders campaign.a man who was running on THEIR ticket for fuck sakes!

i seem to be on a kick today in regards to people who sell their integrity for cash.for access.for influence.

it appears john carpenters "they live" was not just a simple,cheesy,sci-fi movie but rather a documentary.

"i have come here to kick ass,and chew bubble gum.and i am all out of bubble gum".
rowdy randy piper (rip)

tldr: The decisions made in creating and rearing offspring are subject to a different set of moral criteria than all others because those decisions affect everyone.

Here's the problem with that thought. You didn't just make a decision that affected your life. Or even one that affected the lives of yourself and others you know. You intentionally created another sentient being. Because of human nature, that sentient being is now not just your responsibility, but everyone else's as well. Your decision quite literally affected the entire species. Or should I say infected.

There is no other decision anyone can make that has such an extent of repercussions (with the possible exception of murder). Whether you further choose to be responsible for your offspring is, from a decision making point of view, completely separate from the decision to create that offspring. And likewise, the decisions you make regarding the care of that offspring are entirely separate from the decision to create it. Those decisions are, whether you like it or not, subject to critique. You may not like it, and you may in fact see the entire process (conception, birth, weaning, rearing, etc...) as a single act. Either way, the entirety of the species is now constrained by your initial act of creation. The question is not whether you are a “good parent”. The question is how much of a burden upon or boon to the species will you be.

Just to make this contrast clear…. if I, as thinking adult, decide to consume alcohol in such excess that it causes my liver to fail, I can ask the species to help me to the point of giving me a new liver - which may or may not be granted based on my own words and actions. If you ask a similar favor on behalf your offspring, however, it’s an entirely different moral calculus.

Customer: They were able to resurrect my flesh, it's healed. And it's time for me to go home.

Cashier: Oh my god!

Customer: And I.. my.. e-they even told me my scales are turning gold as my father's were. My father was a piece of creation itself. He was the protector of god himself.

Cashier: Well that's good then.

Customer: That's the thing, people damn power. It's not evil it's how you choose to use it.

Cashier: Oh yeah most definitely. That's pretty much like how everything is.

Customer: But the dictation of true power is lost to this world. I'm returning home but I'm... going to come back. But I'm going to make it that no human is permitted to use power without sanction.

Cashier: Good!

Customer: You must give your soul to me.

Cashier: Oh my god!

Customer: I am the Sovereign of Power and I'm going to become what my father was before my birth: "Eternal Guardian Dragon of Time".

Cashier: Oh wow!

Customer: My father gave up much of his power when I was born. Because she.. (pause) h-he-his mate was Hecate (?), mother of angels. I was the only true born.. My brethren. Even Lucifer down in the pit for his fucking retardation, he was my brother.

Cashier: Oh my goodness!

Customer: I am not a fallen. I am a lost. I fell to Earth from my own folly- not following that bastard.

Cashier: (exasperated exhale) Wow.

Customer: Honestly look into my eyes. Do I seem mad to you?

Cashier: Not really.

Customer: Most humans denounce anything that is outside their realm (of...)

Cashier: (finishes Customer's sentence) Understanding.

Customer: But that is my dictation. I do not demand your soul as payment. It is moreso protection that if you abuse your power.. then your soul is (was?) going to be bound. You keep your soul within your flesh but your soul will be bound never to touch power again. That is the dictation of the blood contract. I give you my blood, you give me... a piece of your soul. You do not lose your soul. I am not the father, I have no rights to your soul. But I do have rights to claim how you use my power. And that is the only reason I bind your soul like that.

Cashier: Oh yeah forreal.. like.. that makes sense.

As well as that from Charles Dickens, who wrote in "A Christmas Carol":

"Oh, Man, look here! Look, look, down here!" exclaimed the Ghost.

They were a boy and a girl. Yellow, meagre, ragged, scowling, wolfish; but prostrate, too, in their humility. Where graceful youth should have filled their features out, and touched them with its freshest tints, a stale and shrivelled hand, like that of age, had pinched, and twisted them, and pulled them into shreds. Where angels might have sat enthroned, devils lurked, and glared out menacing. No change, no degradation, no perversion of humanity, in any grade, through all the mysteries of wonderful creation, has monsters half so horrible and dread.

Scrooge started back, appalled. Having them shown to him in this way, he tried to say they were fine children, but the words choked themselves, rather than be parties to a lie of such enormous magnitude.

"Spirit, are they yours?" Scrooge could say no more.

"They are Man's," said the Spirit, looking down upon them. "And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers. This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. BEWARE THEM BOTH, and all of their degree, BUT MOST OF ALL BEWARE THE BOY, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased. Deny it!" cried the Spirit, stretching out its hand towards the city. "Slander those who tell it ye. Admit it for your factious purposes, and make it worse. AND ABIDE THE END."
(emphasis mine)

Ignorance is a bill that always come due and it comes due like a motherfucker when you will least expect it and can least afford it.

To quote Orwell:

"The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."

Reality is a motherfucker, too: if ignorance is the fall, then reality is the sudden stop at the end.

Video omits something important :

NRA didn't need to be anti-gun-control prior to the 60's.

You used to be able to mail order machine guns shipped straight to your house... without any background anything.

It's the creation of affective (spelled with an 'a' on purpose) gun control laws at the federal level that gave the NRA a cause - hence they took up the cause.

The NRA is, essentially, a reactionary entity (in its current form).

-scheherazade

You did not listen? How could you have heard anything? Main stream media swayed its followers into a false bliss of an easy sure thing Clinton win.


The other 1/2 of the county listen to facts. no pay increase in years, insurance premiums hikes, illegals being send back time and time again, some even committing violent crimes and zero, zilch happens to them. Jobs leaving the country left and right. Buying power of the dollar diminishing. Falsely reported employment rate and low job creation of any presidency.

And then you have all the Hillary shit.


But hey its over. The people have spoken, A historic landslide. A mandate from the people showing their disgrace towards the political establishment.

That's not what you said. I quoted where you called homeopathy and creationism a false equivalence. . I merely removed the blahblahblah. Sigh all you want. If you're going to pull a Trump, I'm out.

Sigh.

It's a false equivalence because he's suggesting this situation:

Arguing whether it is OK for a Catholic based hospital to not offer services they don't want to offer.

Is the same as:

Arguing against creationism and homeopathy as dogma in general.

Once again, not an argument. At least you admit you don't have one to give.

I don't buy the "it's a waste of my time" bullshit. You "wasted" your time watching the video, reading the article, replying to the link, replying to my comment, etc. Suddenly when you're called out on your lack of argument you don't have the time. Bwahahahaaha.

Somehow I get the feeling you don't work in the field (medicine) like me, and if you are able to form a coherent argument about it, it will be from a layperson's perspective.

Creationism and homeopathy are false equivalences. Not even a good try.

Go read my reply to JustSaying above. This is how hospitals work.

I know that. I have 0 fucks to give about that article, and I'm certainly not going to waste my time rebutting it point by point, any more than I'm going to debate creationism or homeopathy.

As far a president moral fiber We can go back to Kennedy and Clinton both banning chicks left and right. SEX is SEX . I'm sure Bush would have like some babes backing up on him but don't think it happened. Reagan and Romney seemed to carry a higher moral fiber with regards to women and random sex.

If I would put Christian values above the candidates this election then non would get my vote. That would be a bad choice. One is clearly more destructive for America than the other.

Clinton is clearly wrong choice for leadership. Since 50% ish seem to think otherwise I have not choice but to try to block her by voting Trump. Will I hold my noise and bull the leaver You bet. Slowing down Americans moral decline ( as apposed to Clinton) is a fair reason to vote for Trump. Getting jobs creation going is a reason for a Trump vote.


If this was 30 years ago and Trump ( Bush Clinton) was running , do you think the media would have put it out? not a chance in hell? No network president would allow it.

This country has lowered it moral standard to a new low . And that is why this video was put out.

See, there are plenty of things we can disagree on and have a rational conversation about.

Are important services better provided by private corporations or government departments?
Does your right to free expression override other people's right to freedom from harassment?
How can we manage the economy while protecting the environment?
Most of these come down to individualism vs collectivism, and that's far from a settled question; I personally doubt it can be settled... life is too nuanced.

But there are some questions that are settled. The vote is in and the answer is known, and if you disagree, well, you're just on the wrong side of history. You are the Catholic church arguing the earth is the centre of the universe.

If you think that it's ok to discriminate against gay people.... you're a moron.
If you think climate change is a hoax... you're a moron.
If you're a creationist... you're a moron.
If you believe in homeopathy... you're a moron.

I don't have to "convince" you that those things are true. Your opinion on them is irrelevant. So is mine. They are done. If I change my mind tomorrow and decide that creationism is real, it won't alter reality one bit.

This is the problem with Trump.

I disagreed with Romney. I didn't like him and I felt a lot of his ideas were bad. Hell, I'm not a huge fan of Clinton either. But it's possible to have a rational discussion on their stances.

Trump may have one or two semi-reasonable positions, but so what? They are completely overshadowed by all his awful positions.

The Dreadful Chronology of Gaddafi’s Murder

"Much has been written about the catastrophe visited upon Libya following the murderous attack by France and the US—400,000 people driven from their homes, an endless cycle of terror and reprisal, the creation of yet another failed state in the wake of a US foreign policy initiative. But the real damage was done to Africa itself, for had Gaddafi’s proposal for a trans-African banking system reached fruition, that unhappy continent for the first time in centuries would have had true freedom and real independence within its grasp, a circumstance the Western powers could not abide. Freedom and justice were never part of the West’s agenda."

The main problem here is the hype for No Man's Sky was almost entirely a fan creation, so it takes some cheek to turn round and blame the developers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)
I admit I was wrong about the 8% figure, I got the columns crossed, recalculating, it was about 11% in 22, 17% in 31, and 32% in 47. That still sounds like a pretty huge influx by my standards, almost tripling the per capita population in 25 years (and more than tripling the actual population) compared to others in the region, mostly by imigration.

You said they stood along side the Nazis " upon the UN mandating a two state solution to the whole mess" (I think you've edited what you originally stated, that they then stood along side the Nazis, and clarified what you meant, that the leaders that turned down the 47 proposal had stood with the Nazis in the past, which I don't disagree with...too bad I erased the quotation for space). The U.N. mandated a two state solution in 74...in 47, they 'mandated' a 3 state solution that took massive territories from the Palestinians and handed it to Jewish immigrants, it turns out the Palestinians should have accepted because they've lost far more since then, but it sounded terrible at the time.

What points? Are these universal points? Can I redeem them for trips to the store by the universe...it owes me some milk.

In 48, when the illegal immigrants became land thieving invaders, the U.N.partition plan was to split the territory 3 ways, and for the U.N. to control Jerusalem. It would be like the U.N. agreeing today with illegal Mexicans in Texas and California that the southern 1/2 of all border states was now a new country because they are now a majority in many areas, with the U.N. taking control of the LA basin....we might say "no thanks" like the Palestinians did...at least I hope so.

The 37 British plan for Partition came before 47.
WIKI-The first proposal for the creation of Jewish and Arab states in the British Mandate of Palestine was made in the Peel Commission report of 1937, with the Mandate continuing to cover only a small area containing Jerusalem. The recommended partition proposal was rejected by the Arab community of Palestine,[8][9] and was accepted by most of the Jewish leadership.

You said they stood with the Nazis when the two state solution was proposed...which was actually 74, but I'll give you leeway and say you meant 47, which is still ridiculous, the Nazis were long gone in 47.

They didn't seize it as payback for the holocaust, but many allies went along, seemingly out of guilt for not stopping it sooner (a valid complaint about the US, but no reason to help take Palestinian territory and hand it away).

Yes, there was Jewish hatred in Europe before the Nazis, that's one reason why they were able to grab so much power, they had a ready made scape goat. Your point?

No, not every Jew in Palestine was a Zionist, but enough of the 11% were that they tripled their presence in 25 years....and far more importantly, today it's near 100%, and they are violent, expansionist, ruthlessly inhuman, and zealous.

I refuse to call it a civil war when one side was made nearly completely of immigrants....that's called an invasion.

I do agree, the inability to assimilate is not 100% the immigrants fault, but it is 100% their responsibility. Refugees, that are not expected to stay, so not expected to assimilate, are kept in camps. These people did not go to camps, so they were, at best, illegal immigrants, and many were coming with the goal of stealing inhabited territory for their own, which makes them invaders. The VAST majority of them came after the war ended, so could not be war refugees. During the war, Jews had an incredibly hard time traveling in Europe.

The few actual refugees there that the axis created were absorbable by the Palestinians. It's their multitudinous militant expansionist friends that continue to immigrate there to this day that are the problem, IMO. I'll continue to call them violent invaders, you've said nothing to convince me otherwise.