I can see how your lack of understanding (being an Australian and all) of how that term is used in America would make you think that. In general that word in America is a derogatory/hatful term used exclusively in reference to women . Americans don't call men cunts, and never use it in an endearing way as i often hear it used when men use it with their friends(by other cultures/countries). So yes it's looked down upon by many.

Personally i went from hating the word to loving it after hanging around an Irish dude who called all of us cunts. Im all for calling dudes(friends/people i know) cunts.

Seriously, he's taking a shit on "purist liberals"?

Remind me again, who was speaking up loud and clear about the danger of running another corporatist against a right-wing populist? Who was that again? Was it the strategists and consultants of the DNC? Was it all the celebrities who were „with her“?

Or was it maybe those liberal idiots whose candidate is, I don't know, the most popular politician in the country? Sanders gets cheers from Trump voters at townhalls in red states, and you're putting the blame for Trump's election at the feet of purist liberals?

Honestly, mate. You want to know what a neoliberal disaster looks like? Look at at the White House. Neoliberal policies are the breeding ground of right-wing populists. You think someone like Trump gets elected because of his convincing policy proposals? Right-wing populists are the answers to „centrist“ policies that enrich the few at the cost of the many. Everyone knows the effects, from widescale poverty, historic inequality, the opioid epidemic, all the way to the two-tiered justice system with fraudsters and torturers running free while not being able to pay a parking tickets gets you jailed.

Too abstract for you, Bill? Then look at Detroit. Look at Cleveland. Is that enough of a visual representation of what a neoliberal disaster looks like?

In this situation, they decided to run a corporatist, with the message „America is already great“. How was that supposed to resonate with the working stiff, Bill? The people whose despair is the main driver behind the opioid epidemic, as Case-Deaton has shows us in such detail. Who had the glorious idea to run exclusively on identity politics and ignore the economic plight of the lower class?

Was that the purist liberals, Bill?

Did the purist liberals run a campaign whose own people, if „Shattered“ contains any truth at all, described it as nothing short of a disaster? Even Clinton's own people didn't seem to know why she was running, and were toying with the idea of just going with „it's her turn“. Seriously, the way they describe Clinton's paranoia and refusal to interact with her own staff makes it sound like her campaign was not much less of a clusterfuck than Trump's presidency, from an organizing point of view.

But yeah, go ahead and blame the purist liberals. And Comey, while you're at it. And Russia. And Jill Stein. And fake news. And WikiLeaks. And sexism. Anything but the DNC and their corporate candidate.

Let me know when you're done, maybe then we can have a proper post-mortem of how the Democrats managed to lose the White House, Congress, most state legislatures and Governorships. And we'll start from the top, because we have a saying in German: „der Fisch stinkt vom Kopf her“. Maybe you can get an option to vote against Wall Street, against the war on drugs, against big pharma, against the MIC, and against the destruction of our biosphere. Because you sure as hell didn't have one this time.

I don't know that Carlin's voice would be the right one, but doing so wouldn't necessarily be an issue for the character of Blaine. Seems reasonable to have a computer simulation of a particular voice rather than a voice actor specifically acting out each line. I'd argue however that if we're going to resurrect someone to voice Blaine, let's go with Alan Rickman. Just the right blend of civilized / polite and deadly serious / menacing.

Edit:
I've been a fan of the books from sometime between 3 and 4, and love most of the story. The last three books lost me some, as they felt quite different in tone. Even Wizard and Glass felt a bit of a miss, though it was a solid story in its own right. I frequently avoid watching trailers for films I know I'll see, so as to avoid spoilers and being mislead if the trailer happened to be poorly made. I plan to see this movie, and originally came here for the comments exclusively; having read them, I chose to watch it. I get the impression that the actors treat the characters well, and they feel like good interpretations. McConaughey's Walter is hard to read with what little we see here, but I've generally liked him in other things.

My biggest worry is that visuals all seem too clean, and the more sci-fi direction bothers me some. To me Mid-World always seemed like a character itself. An ancient thing, being stretched thin, fighting to hold itself together and losing. High tech doesn't feel right there, like the extreme entropy would have rendered it all non-operative. There was some tech here and there in the books, but most of it was broken or breaking down.

I don't agree that the two are mutually exclusive.

HBO? When did it move to HBO?

On August 13, 2015, as part of a five-year programming and development deal, Sesame Workshop announced that first-run episodes of Sesame Street would move to premium television service HBO beginning with season 46, which premiered on January 16, 2016. HBO will hold first-run rights to all newer episodes of the series, after which they will air on PBS member stations following a nine-month exclusivity window, with no charge to the stations for airing the content. The agreement also gives HBO exclusive rights to stream past and future Sesame Street episodes on HBO Go and HBO Now – assuming those rights from Amazon Video and Netflix; on August 14, Sesame Workshop announced that it would phase out its in-house subscription streaming service, Sesame Go, as a standalone service; the service will remain in operation, likely with its offerings reduced to a slate content available for free or serving as a portal for Sesame Street's website.

The deal came in the wake of cutbacks that had affected the series in recent years, the changing viewer habits of American children in the previous ten years, and Sesame Workshop's dependence upon revenue from DVD sales.

/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sesame_Street

@newtboy,

Hate to single you out, but your missing most of poolcleaner's points by focusing exclusively on one. And your even doubling down on 'proving' the sentence you object to.

You first object by saying:
Atheists give theists much more respect than theists give us.

But then one sentence later:
Theists beliefs deserve no respect, neither do beliefs in Santa, Krampus, fairies, Lord Zenu, Ookie (my brother's imaginary friend), or any other belief in fantasy. You don't respect an inability to recognize reality.

And then your next post leads with:
Don't most of you know that Christians are required to murder you if you don't worship properly, or try to leave Christianity?


It is EXACTLY your extremely vitriolic responses that poolcleaner was no doubt referencing in saying Atheists are often the worst for disrespecting the beliefs of others.

Read over the balance of comments above, particularly including Shinyblurry's unapologeticly evangelical one, and tell me which group's representative in this thread is showing the most contempt and disrespect for the beliefs of the 'other'?

No prob, I was just wondering.
Oh...I'm sorry you took it that way. I gave her a pass on this story alone, and only on the specific detail that she didn't say what the commentator claimed she did, but she did IMPLY what he said, and to those that don't listen closely, that's likely what they heard. I did not "buy it", I do hear what she came close to saying, and I call her out for being completely biased in her assessments and implications about what this means. You are correct, however, that while I APEAR to give her a pass for qualifying, I would likely not give those on the right the same....but that's only an appearance. Her IMPLICATION that this would "prove" they have something on Trump is just biased, conjecture, and wrong, and is a reason I don't watch her, even though I agree mostly with her takes on things.....mostly.
Kyle was lying when he reported what she said....and that's what I took issue with. I also took issue with his take on the issue that Russia militarizing it's borders isn't something to guard against...history proves him wrong.

The 'proof' of Russian involvement in the hacking is classified, you won't get to see it. That's an issue with Trump decrying the intelligence community (who didn't really get Iraq wrong, btw, they were clear in their uncertainty in their reports, but the administration erased any hint of uncertainty and claimed the redacted reports were fact publicly.)...but as a whole, I still have some trust in them...perhaps it's misplaced but I have a hard time believing so many intelligence organizations came to the same specific conclusions based on pure bias.

Um...Russia expanded into 2 countries recently, and are eyeing the other Slavic states. To me, that's a renewal of a hot war if we ever react like we're obligated to by treaty, until we do, it's a renewal of the cold war (and a violation of numerous treaties, including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances) ...one that the pentagon is probably quite happy about, granted.

Again, don't feel you have to defend your viewpoint from me, or your admiration for a reporter....but allow me to have my own viewpoint, and to state and explain it if I choose. I am also quite biased, but not to the point of exclusion of fact.


EDIT: As to the troop placement in the Eastern NATO countries, I would like to see minutes of the 1990 summit where this agreement/guarantee was either made or not, not just reports of what Putin says today VS what Gorbachev says today...I want to see what was ACTUALLY said in the meeting, and more important, what was SIGNED by the parties. That the Russians haven't produced a signed treaty guaranteeing NATO wouldn't deploy farther in the East EVER is a pretty good indicator to me that it was not agreed on, so claims about what may have been SAID during negotiations are moot and have no bearing at all on what was agreed on. It's possible there was that agreement, if they just point us to it, I'll be on their side on this topic (unless it included a clause like "unless Russia begins expansion back into it's now independent satellites")

@enoch,

but you and i may disagree on some things,but i would like to think we have both earned each others respect.


Agreed.

I also share a similar sentiment in lamenting the lack of actual legitimate journalism. I've only got a handful of people out there that I feel I can actually trust to make an effort to present all sides and the most relevant/important facts when presenting a topic. The dogged determination of most media(independent and otherwise) to show nothing but a single dimension to an issue that fits their own bias is saddening.

Chomsky in particular is a real lose to me as he has rapidly declined from shining a light on America's mistakes into someone that solely, and exclusively documents why America is evil. Anything good or reasonable in it's actions is never touched on or quickly glossed over, the corresponding evils and ills of any and all other parties is similarly ignored. The lone exception being those allied to America in which case their evil once again are documented.

I've lost patience with that kind of single mindedness and call it out as what it is, propaganda.

You have to realize, this isn't a problem you are having with Christians. This is a problem that you're having with Jesus Christ. He is the one who made the claim to exclusivity:

John 14:6

Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me

He said this because there is no other way to have your sins forgiven except through Jesus Christ.

Acts 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved

Note: This is hadouken24's partner posting, not hadouken24 himself.

I hate the word "lawmaker." It seems to be almost exclusively used to make minor local politicians who are probably relatively unknown in their own area seem more important in order to generate maximum outrage over their comments.

Thank you @enoch, I was trying to figure a way of replying on how there isn't a denial that a minority of Muslims believe in suicide bombing, but that it isn't as widespread and exclusive to Islam as the far right make it out to be. You summed it up pretty well.

I was also going to add all the abortion clinic bombings and the Atlanta Centennial Olympic Park bombing... all Christian and being done in the name of Christ. Then in Ireland/UK with the IRA... though that one isn't just religion and is more political (though again, many of those political differences has to do with worshiping Christ the wrong way).

There are militant Buddhist too, who do very violent and aggressive acts against others.

And there are plenty on the left who decry Islam, look at Sam Harris by example who argues the danger of Islam a great deal.

I agree, that we need to address the underlying political issues... and sometimes just need to let things go. There is a big civil war going on the middle east between denominations of Islam, and we are picking a side, which in turn makes us a target of the other side. We ignore the fact that the goal of terrorist groups is to make it an "us vs them" world, so that it makes it easier to recruit potentially radicalizeable people. I hear Christians bemoan how Christianity must be true because of all the persecution, proves Satan is trying to push Christianity down, but then they have zero empathy for how it must feel for a Muslim, and the persecution they feel, and how that must make them feel they are the right one for the same exact reasoning.

The fact so many Christians are not only willing, but calling for a war, for a new Crusade basically, shows that Christians are just as easily radicalized. They may not be strapping bombs to their chests yet, but I'd guess if they were in a Muslim country and felt they were being repressed, then I'd wager they'd be more than willing to engage in suicide bombs.

The pint being, yes, some Muslims do engage in suicide bombs, but it isn't just them. Christians have done it plenty in the past, and will undoubtedly return to it again, especially as the more radicalized and violent portion of them become normalized here in the US thanks to the election of Trump who encouraged them all through his campaign.

@bobknight33
why is @newtboy a dumb fuck?

for pointing out that historically suicide bombers have not been exclusively muslim.newt is not disagreeing that radical islamic suicide bombers exist,he is simply pointing out that the practice of bombing in the name of religion is not an exclusively muslim practice when viewed through the lens of history.

the problem is NOT exclusively the religion of islam,the problem is fundamentalist thinking.so while at this point in history it is islam that is the theology that is twisted for a sinister and destructive purpose,the same justifications can be found in ALL religions,predominantly from the abrahmic:judaism,muslim and christianity.

this is not a simple issue,there are many factors to be considered on why people will strap a bomb to their chests and walk into a crowded cafe and blow themselves up.

factors such as:education,employment,community,family structures and most of all...hope.we need hope.all of us need hope but when conditions for normal people are so oppressive and hopeless,people will seek to find hope anywhere,which can be in the form of religion.

look,
words are inert,they are meaningless until someone reads those words..and then interprets them.

this is particularly true when addressing religion.
if you are a violent person,then your religion will be violent.
if you are peaceful and loving,then your religion will be peaceful.

no matter which sacred text you adhere to,be it the quran,the bible or the torah.you will find justification for any and all acts you choose to engage in,be it violent or peaceful.

and THAT is what sargon is addressing!
sargon is dissecting the apologetics of those who are just not getting the plot.radical islam is a problem,a big problem,and attempting to dismiss the underlying factors in order to make a more "palatable" explanation is wading into dangerous waters.

so we can understand the politics and motivation of a young man from palestine who straps explosives to his chest and blows himself up taking innocent civilians with him.we can look at the events that led up to that grievous choice.we know,because there is historical record,how badly the palestinian people are being treated,and have been for decades.the young man was stripped of hope,and the only solace he found was in the quran and so began his radicalization.

it is the politics that always,and i mean ALWAYS,sets the stage but it is the religion that lays out the justification.

which is what newt was basically talking about.
we can use the exact same calculus for fundamentalist christians,or zionist jews.

think about it,how many radicalized muslims live in america?
how many?
deerborn michigan has the largest muslim community in america.now go look at how many suicide bombers are born from that region.
notice anything?

politics is the fuel,religion is the match.

some here may take issue with sargon's take on this situation,but he is making valid points in regards to how some people (mainly on the left) engage in apologetics,while ignoring the larger implications.

if we,as a species,wish to curb the tide of religious fundamentalism and the radicalization of whole communities.then we need to address the politics first and foremost.otherwise this "war on terror" will become never-ending.because the "war on terror' is actually on "war on ideas",really bad ideas,predicated on even worse politics.

today it is islam.
tomorrow it may be christianity,and there is a whole army of fundamentalist and dominionist christians just waiting to be called for their "holy war".

or should i just call it "christian jihad".

EXCLUSIVE Leaked Audio Of Obama & Trump's Phone Calls has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

Worse than a teenage girl!
*related=http://videosift.com/video/EXCLUSIVE-Leaked-Audio-Of-Obama-Trumps-Phone-Calls

https://youtu.be/e6VDIrnmi50?t=26s

Previously, lines like "Give me a butthole!", "Put it in me!" or "Ahh, I fucked myself" were exclusive to vacations in San Francisco. Now even nerds like me can experience the glory at home on a friday night. Hooray!