No Bob. That is simply not factual....except the anti Trump leaning part, but facts are anti Trump, just as Trump is anti fact.

The Obama line is also not a bit factual. Not by a factor of 1000. Obama didn't get everything right, for certain, but I'm not sure he ever outright knowingly lied to the public, which Trump does 4 times before getting out of bed daily. Need I remind you Trump founded the birther bullshit that was a total racist lie and strung you rubes along with promised mind blowing announcements that never came...need I remind you of fraudulent now defunct Trump University, or the fraudulent now defunct Trump charity? How many Obama organizations have been shuttered for fraud, or gone bankrupt from outrageous, even criminal mismanagement?

Yes, Tim Apple was nothing, until baby Trump couldn't let a nothing mistake go and fell over himself making up dumb lie after dumb lie to try to deny it...HE made it something, not CNN, not MSN....lil ole DJT all by his lonesome.

My what is no better?....it's no better that all the rest do what? WHAT?!

Bob, he admitted collusion with the secret Trump tower negotiations. It doesn't have to be illegal, only secret, which that was...he's not being charged with collusion, ok? Happy? We've been over that, you need to do your homework, you're failing class and you're going to have to take summer school again.

And to be clear, like Nixon, it's the cover-up, not the crimes committed on his behalf that's coming to bite him....but also to be clear, this is a much bigger malfeasance than not clarifying "what "is" is" to a hostile lawyer. Trump sent his lawyer to lie to congress about Trump's business, which he did, and knowing that he had lied, Trump did not correct the record, indeed he worked hard to further the lies and hide them.

I know you believe that, but you believe Trump who (ghost) wrote a book about lying to rubes get what you want, so your reasoning skills are in serious question. I'll just say I hope you are wrong, but if you are right and most Americans vote for him, he's the president we deserve.

#fakemelania ;-)

I don't really agree that the inevitability of losing it gives my life focus and meaning. I would like to live forever. There is an entire universe to explore. How could I ever think there would be no point getting out of bed?
I would waste a few more days than I do now, sure. But the difference is I wouldn't have such anxiety about it, because I have infinity more days.

Pretty much what I do each morning, in order to get out of bed.

Year younger than him and I fail that many times getting out of bed in the morning...

Your video, Funny Husky Does Not Want To Get Out Of Bed, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

A particularly bad day, sorry for my earlier comment.

I think i was trying to make the suggestion that i don't see it as a weapon against depression because if you're depressed - or at least, depressed as i know it - then you can't feel hope. There is no hope, and if you can feel hope for something then you're not depressed. I tear my hear out when i hear people saying something to the effect of "My dog died, i'm depressed!" I want to grab them and shake them and tell them they're SAD about something and oh GOD do i wish it was as simple as feeling sad about something.

Of course, this is only my viewpoint on it and it may be self centred. I can't in all fairness force my own definition on the word depression - it means whatever humans use it to mean, as is the way language works. But i feel like it puts an unfair label onto people feeling utter, raw hopelessness when other people can say that they're depressed because of this particular thing, and how brave they are for carrying on regardless or "beating depression."

If you've ever seen no point in getting out of bed because there is nothing in the world for any price or in any imagined daydream that could make you feel better. Not the power to resurrect a lost one, or the power to make someone fall in love with you, the ability to conjure money, a holodeck with sex capabilities - nothing. If you've ever sat with tears falling from your eyes - not crying though; not breathing differently, not choking your words or furrowing your brow - and you don't know why.... Then i think you have every right to feel contempt for the person who feels sad because of a particular thing that happened to them calling their sadness "depression."

I know what you mean though. I didn't expect to see such good comments about it. It's good to talk!

That is the crux, indeed. The cry from the "Generation of Entitlement" during Occupy just doesn't resonate with the masses of people employed in slave-like manufacturing conditions, penniless coffee growers that grow the beans that help the hipsters get out of bed every morning, or the astounding number living through absolute poverty, genocide or civil war.

The problem only grows worse. Occupy, although out of proportion with the global scope of inequality, brought much needed attention to the issue. I think the garment factory collapse in Bangladesh was another eye-opener for the west. Now, what to do about it all before the nukes get launched....

"but won't people be less inclined to be responsible if they have less freedom?"

You're making a claim that people will be less responsible. *you* need to prove that. I don't need to disprove it, however I have given plenty examples of how existing requirements on existing freedoms don't seem to lead to increased irresponsibility. Burden is on you.

"With gun control, you want to take people's freedom away to stop them from screwing up in the first place."

Again, I asked how people are less free by requiring something prior to exercising that freedom. You failed to answer that.

"How is making it harder to acquire or own a gun going to make people more responsible using them? That's all I was asking."

No, you're changing your argument. But I'll go ahead and pretend that you weren't attempting to dodge and answer it anyway. There is never any guarantee that anyone will be magically safer by taking a magic class or spending time with an instructor. It's a strawman argument to say that it would. There has never been any guarantee that any law will make anyone safer. We do it anyway because the public demands it. Will of the people and all that. Over 50 percent of the nation were in favor of SOME form of increased gun control post-sandy hook.

You're right, not all of those things I mentioned are necessarily rights, or at the very least, could be argued. But I also noticed you conveniently ignored the part about voting...which is a right. And even if an ID is never required to vote. You still have to register in order to vote.

There is no guarantee that requiring a test makes someone a safer driver. There is no guarantee that I'm going to survive the day if I get out of bed.
We don't legalize murder because some people ignore laws. We make it illegal anyway and incarcerate/execute those that break those laws and hope it provides an example of why not to do it. It's kind of what civilization is based on. If you've got a better answer, then you should publish some papers and get recognized as someone who revolutionizes sociology and criminal justice.

I'm going to play the odds and guess that you won't though.

Manning did the absolute wrong thing. If he didn't believe in what he was doing, he should have gotten the fuck out.

So...the gov't are terrorists, terrorists are freedom-fighters. These people are so confused I'm surprised they can get out of bed in the morning.

yea and if you are in the sun too long you can get skin cancer. whatever floats y our boat.

** hell, getting out of bed can kill you.

>> ^critical_d:

This is me getting out of bed each morning.


You must be cuddly as all hell then.

This is me getting out of bed each morning.

>> ^ghark:

>> ^A10anis:
I'm sick to death of the government (UK) pretending to care about the health of smokers. Cigarettes are now hidden from view (pointless and frustrating for staff), and the aim is to have plain packaging (which will simply mean people can buy the cheapest brand without other people knowing). These silly measures do NOT stop people smoking, or starting to smoke. If the government weren't so hypocritical they would either ban smoking, or make them £200 a packet. Of course they won't, because the tax they would lose would be unnaceptable. Why don't they f off and go campaign against others who take part in, possibly, fatal activities. They could start with ski-ing, abseiling, mountain climbing, or simply getting out of bed in the morning. We smokers know, and yes, stupidly, accept the risks, so PLEASE get off our backs.

Smoking harms others, smoking also costs the public billions of dollars because of CVD, lung cancer etc. healthcare, so I'd like to hope that they won't. Smoking simply isn't an issue that can be left alone. Australia just in the past few weeks successfully defended themselves against a lawsuit by big tobacco for the new plain packaging rules, we'll see what effects the rules have in time I guess.
Most of those activities you mentioned consist of some form of pretty strenuous exercise, which is beneficial to the health of the individual - so while there may be public costs associated with each of the activities, there are also many benefits, and little to no risk to others.

You TOTALLY missed the point. And I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to explain it to you..

>> ^A10anis:

I'm sick to death of the government (UK) pretending to care about the health of smokers. Cigarettes are now hidden from view (pointless and frustrating for staff), and the aim is to have plain packaging (which will simply mean people can buy the cheapest brand without other people knowing). These silly measures do NOT stop people smoking, or starting to smoke. If the government weren't so hypocritical they would either ban smoking, or make them £200 a packet. Of course they won't, because the tax they would lose would be unnaceptable. Why don't they f off and go campaign against others who take part in, possibly, fatal activities. They could start with ski-ing, abseiling, mountain climbing, or simply getting out of bed in the morning. We smokers know, and yes, stupidly, accept the risks, so PLEASE get off our backs.


Smoking harms others, smoking also costs the public billions of dollars because of CVD, lung cancer etc. healthcare, so I'd like to hope that they won't. Smoking simply isn't an issue that can be left alone. Australia just in the past few weeks successfully defended themselves against a lawsuit by big tobacco for the new plain packaging rules, we'll see what effects the rules have in time I guess.

Most of those activities you mentioned consist of some form of pretty strenuous exercise, which is beneficial to the health of the individual - so while there may be public costs associated with each of the activities, there are also many benefits, and little to no risk to others.

I couldn't have put it better myself, WELL SAID dude. I can't promote a comment, so you'll just have to settle for an ^upvote^
In reply to this comment by A10anis:
I'm sick to death of the government (UK) pretending to care about the health of smokers. Cigarettes are now hidden from view (pointless and frustrating for staff), and the aim is to have plain packaging (which will simply mean people can buy the cheapest brand without other people knowing). These silly measures do NOT stop people smoking, or starting to smoke. If the government weren't so hypocritical they would either ban smoking, or make them £200 a packet. Of course they won't, because the tax they would lose would be unnaceptable. Why don't they f*** off and go campaign against others who take part in, possibly, fatal activities. They could start with ski-ing, abseiling, mountain climbing, or simply getting out of bed in the morning. We smokers know, and yes, stupidly, accept the risks, so PLEASE get off our backs.