This is a mindset of a child.

"Pussed out"? Presidents aren't the ones on the front lines. There's nothing courageous about sending other men to die.

But you know who really did puss out? Your boy Trump, when he dodged the draft. He was young, strong, and played football. But when it came time to serve... "boo, I have heel spurts!" Pussy.

And I thought we didn't want to start new wars... Or are we back on starting wars? With you right-wingers, every position changes with the wind.

And, out of all things, you wanted Obama to start an actual war with Russia??? Do you understand the calamity that a war with Russia would cause?

...And I thought your boy likes Putin and wants to restore relations... So Obama should've literally gotten us into a war with Russia, but Trump is great because he's tight with Putin and wants to restore relations? There's that flip-flopping from right wingers again... You people really don't think.

I don't think he is; he wants the typical Republican things like trickle down economics, he wants to defund Planned Parenthood; he opposes trade deals which sadly isn't either D or R anymore; it's still a progressive issue though so that's about all I can agree with him on; I feel like he basically wants to line the pockets of rich people; nothing new there for the R's; plus I'm pretty sure he's going to start a war which is very Republican; cowards dodge wars themselves, but put our young men in harms way

Every social program is taken out of people's checks (unless those checks come from investments or inheritance), that's how they work, otherwise they would be called charities.
Yes, people have paid into those programs, some for a long time, but they want to contribute at 1970's rates and collect at 2016 rates, while defunding the programs. You see the problem, right? They were social insurance programs that now everyone wants to have pay out for them....this type of insurance is for those in need when they need it, not for the rich to use to pay every day expenses, it simply doesn't work when used that way.
Speaking of solar, how did the government programs we tried to keep all solar production from going to China work....not so bad. You can find a few failures, but there were far more successes for a net gain.
Again, if everyone takes from the social safety net as if it had been a savings account, it doesn't work. It's for the poor, there really needs to be a means test to collect, or it's doomed to fail.
In my experience, they like to say that, but then they raise goats for tax breaks, not for any product, and grow corn (or don't) for government handouts, and expect free or near free water at government expense, or use government land without paying (stealing from us all), etc. They are not nearly as reliant as they claim...and I come from Texas where we raised cattle and goats for exactly those reasons, not as livestock but as tax dodges, and that was the norm not the exception. Of course, my family would never in a million years have admitted that that was a handout, but it was.

And the argument is hilarious when paired with the accusations that 'others' that get government assistance are "takers" and welfare queens, but not them, they're just taking back what they think they put in (with interest and inflation added) when in reality they put in far less than they think and take far more than they admit.

Oh, well, I'd say he dodged a bullet there with the amount of E-Coli swimming in that junk they serve.

Kevin Gosztola's beautiful rundown of how the Clinton campaign tries to dodge, evade and spin the Podesta emails:

https://shadowproof.com/2016/10/20/clinton-campaign-makes-wildly-inconsistent-claims-emails-published-wikileaks/

Donna Brazile, in particular, needs to up her game. When Jordan Chariton kept pressing her on the issue, I almost felt sorry for her. Almost.

His follow-up is less entertaining, visually, but contains a lot more information.

So what I saw on the recent John Oliver segment, is these cops resigning does not mean they are no longer working. They simply resign to avoid a disciplinary mark on their record, and then jump over to another precinct.
I think though that action would not dodge the criminal proceedings, only the internal charges.
The lawsuit costs seems to be the only motivation for policy reform.

Man, so spooky. That place would be a really awesome setting for a video game. Can you imagine stalking through that wilderness, dodging mutants and bandits beneath those clear skies? I can almost hear Pripyat calling me.

(seriously, I think I recognized some scenes from the games in those videos... isn't that bit in the beginning with the cranes identical to the starting map of "Call of Pripyat"?)

1. My family was considered to be a 'organized crime' family by the police in Tucson, AZ.
2. I've committed 2 crimes in my life. My first was when I was 13, I shoplifted a Gen 1 Transformer from Kmart and was banned from the store until 18. The second was helping a friend load an illegally poached deer into his truck.
3. My first car was a 1974 Dodge Challenger
4. When I was 19, I almost ran away from my future wife to go to Dallas and open one of the first ink cartridge refilling companies with a friend.
5. My mother never married and let my Grandparents raise me.
6. I started smoking at 14, rolling my own from my Grandfather's Bugler tobacco.
7. I smoked for many years, quitting twice. Once when my Grandfather died from Emphysema and then for good when my Grandmother died of lung cancer.
8. I worked for Texas Instruments, Dell, and Apple. Their stock allowed me to retire early.
9. I've had a mental breakdown that lead to me retiring early.
10. I still suffer from depression and anxiety.
11. Online I can interact with people much better than I can in real life. I find it very hard to deal with people in person.
12. My wife embarrasses me in public because she is very outgoing.
13. I hate doing dishes. I mean I really loathe doing them.
14. I have two dogs.
15. I don't like cats very much.
16. I sometimes have weird dreams that my best friend is still alive.
17. I prefer being indoors vs being outdoors.
18. Other than my mother, my family is all dead or estranged.
19. I am a video game enthusiast.
20. I don't want children.
21. I once had a 4-wheeler roll over on top of me and pin me under creek water.
22. I used to use twilight as my online handle until Stephenie Meyer ruined that for me forever.
23. My favorite animated cartoon was the 1990's Batman animated series.
24. I used to be a huge Stephen King fan until he was hit by that vehicle and his writing suddenly started sucking.
25. I have very poor eyesight without my glasses.

I fear you have misunderstood what I was getting at.

He talks for full minute about the ironic idea of the victims hypothetically having a sense of cognitive dissonance about the experience (done from his perspective).

Timestamp: 3:40ish to 4:50ish

I don't for a moment think he is suggesting they actually did, but the juxtaposition of that can be funny for the reasons I already outlined.
i.e. it is a common phenomenon in other areas of our experience, with people we idolise. By associating it with an experience in which we presume most people wouldn't or didn't feel that way, we have more strings of that irony thrown into the comedy orchestra.

Cosby is famous and loved and his fans presumably find him funny. There is therefore humour in the ridiculous idea that there might be some starstruck joy in being violated by said idol.

I think the bit worked perfectly if one can detach oneself from ideological prejudices.

As I already said, Louis's bits about paedophilia don't appear to be doing anything different here and thus far you have failed to explain how they actually differ, other than using the unqualified term "truthful".

Louis talks about their desires and relates them in a way universal to the human condition. This is precisely what much of Jim routine is clearly doing. "think about the thing you really love to do, well that's how Bill feels about rape" (paraphrased).

I can't see a distinction right now other than you appear to be much more emotionally sensitive to the rape thing. This is understandable, but I'm not seeing the lack of equivalence between the two comics here in terms of composition and implied meaning?

This whole bit felt deeply multi stranded and was tackling many disparate concepts at once. The gradation of rape was merely one of them and I think it's unfair to break it down to only one, or to deny the "truthfulness" hiding behind the sham.

Without that "truthfulness" the whole bit doesn't work, the assumption that the audience recognises the reality beneath the sham is unavoidable. Unless of course you think the audience and or Jim to be genuinely callous and misogynistic (which you've made clear you do not).

I guess my whole point is that the two bits are functionally almost identical. The only difference I can really see is a different style of delivery and subject matter.

I notice you appear to have dodged the comparisons to his war jokes?

Is there no moral equivalence there? If anything there is far less empathy and personal "truth" being explored. The "little cunt" just dies, Jim never attempts to humanise him or relate the kids experience in an ironic way.

By your logic that routine should be far more offensive surely? (especially when we consider that life and subsequent brutal death in a warzone is quite possibly a more horrible experience than most rapes, especially the kind being discussed here)

I like coming up with wild hypotheses and narratives, so here is one: The lizard saw its reflection in the camera phone. Being highly territorial, it therefore attempted to chase off the intruder who was staring him down in the reflection of the backside of the camera phone. Eventually, the "tree" supporting the camera phone reflected intruder stopped moving and the lizard ran up the "tree" and confronted the reflected intruder. However the camera phone was eventually moved for a side view causing the intruder to disappear. The lizard suddenly found itself upon a moving "tree" whose branches could move and grasp onto him, and it decided to get the heck out of Dodge.

How do neighbor?

Happy Birthday to you.

Seems like yesterday, are you high and dry.

Still dealing with last year's and dodging raindrops.

I hope you have an outstanding birthday.

Enjoy!

Anyone who listens to RT about tax dodging is a complete moron. RT is owned by RIA Novosti and run by oligarchs who have been siphoning billions out of Russia over the last 20 years.

What's next? Al Jazeera giving the west tips on how to better treat women?

2:57 of dodging and redirecting to avoid any chance of confirming a release of transcripts.

She wonders why people think she is untrustworthy....she doesn't have anything to hide, right?

Dog fighting does not exist, and has not existed since WW1.

Even in WW2, planes attacked in passes. They start up high, fly down to pick up speed, attack and keep flying so that the enemy cannot catch them.

As that is happening, another pair of planes is already on it's way to make another pass.

Planes do not chase each other dodging around like X-wings and Tie Fighters. Because as soon as you do that their wingman shoots you down.

TopGun trains pilots in BFM and team work skills, not so much dog fighting. While one v one dog-fighting is part of learning good team work skills and becoming familiar with different scenarios, it isn't the focus.

In Vietnam, the missiles and radars were unreliable and missile had to be fired from a fairly close range. That hasn't been the case for some 30 years now, with missiles getting better all of the time with some insane ranges upwards of 80 miles. The plane is becoming more of a launch platform for missiles than anything else. That's why every fighter plane after the F-4 was designed that way primarily. The worlds best fighter is still the F-15 which has a massive radar and the best missiles. And less maneuverability than the F-16. Because they know dog fighting does not happen.



The scenario you mentioned where the planes are flying close together is not realistic - close in air to air combat is 100 miles.

Especially if the enemy plane has better maneuverability(which all Russian planes do already do anyway, apart from the F-16 if lightly loaded).
Pilots know very well the strengths of their planes, they would never put them in a position like that. They would be pinging each other to make their presence known (if a show of force was the desired effect) from over 100 miles away.


None of this makes the F-35 a good plane by any means. But I just don't agree with the reasoning in the comments here and in the media.

For example people keep mentioning the "Jack of all trades" issue. But they ignore the fact that ALL fighter planes built over the last 40 years have been turned into jack of all trades through necessity. Yet nobody criticizes them for it.

I mostly fly the same simulators as the US national guard does. So I'm hoping that it's accurate. But more than that I read a lot of books written by pilots about air to air and air to ground engagements. Which makes me more knowledgeable than 99.99% of the journalists reporting on the F-35. You'll notice that most aviation specific sites don't tend to bag out the F-35 because have a much better idea of how air combat works than the regular media sites.

EDIT: I was not aware they were ignoring failed tests. That's pretty worrying. Do you have more info on it I can read about?

For ground attack support absolutely drones are the way to go, and it can already be achieved with current technology. We just need more drones.

However drones can only fly if there is air superiority. Otherwise they are easy pickings for fighter planes. And that's where the F-35 comes in. The F-35 is supposed to guarantee air superiority and then also be able to help the drones out with ground support.

As for fighter plane style drones, I don't think the technology is quite there yet. Probably not the next plane, but the plane after that will be a fighter drone. Of course lasers might make the whole fighter concept obsolete. You can't dodge lasers like you can with missiles