but this is a ruse too.

the split between two halves of the same esurient pack of jackals can only be a gift IF they spend their energy against each other to allow their quarry to reevaluate their situation (escape).

'tho some of those on a smoking pile of manure end up burning.

and the recent 'flexing'...

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. - Isaac Asimov

You certainly repeat what’s made up and spouted on Fox verbatim, far more than once, and you’re always in lock step with them except the blue moon when they tell the truth about Trump. If you don’t watch Fox, how does that happen?
I never watched cable news…that’s your fantasy you made up so you can discard what I say without ever researching it. I sometimes post cable news YouTube videos because they make a certain point well, or have footage I’m looking to post, they aren’t my sources. I research, I read, I watch multiple respected news sources to decide what to look into…but never cable news like all “conservative news*” (*for entertainment purposes only).

Not wasting time or pimping for Democrats, I’m entertaining myself bashing on and triggering know nothing fascists. I would likely be a Republican if only THEY would, but the responsible, honest, honorable, non hypocritical, law respecting, ethical, fiscally sound, champion of clean air and water, worshiper of democracy, believer in and supporter of science “Republican” I was raised to believe in didn’t exist when I was old enough to vote, and they’ve gone down hill on roller skates since Reagan.

Not blinded at all, but I do hate liars, and those that excuse lies from their allies/prophet.

Wait, you WANT me WOKE!?! 🤦‍♂️

The economy is doing far better than expected after the apocalypse Trump left, negative GDP, 15% unemployment, skyrocketing inflation, massively increased debt and deficit….still not healthy but off the life support it needed after Republican rule. It would be much better today if Republicans hadn’t removed established common sense bank regulations in 2018 causing today’s bank failures.

I’m a newtboy, not a sheeple. Learn your animals. 🤨


“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”


― Isaac Asimov

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." Isaac Asimov

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" -Isaac Asimov

Sorry you caved so quickly. You can only wake a sleeping giant.

No, I've got documented proof that you wrote, and I quote, "FUCK YOU".

A signal that you have accepted their anger as your own. Now you prepare to give it back to them in War Games.

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play." - War Games

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

The winner of a fight does not make him the best man.


The round goes to bobby.

Edit: BTW, If we have to "teach those dumb rednecks a lesson again." then I guess we didn't get to the heart of the problem the first time.

“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” ― Isaac Asimov

Isaac Asimov: “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.”

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent", became one of Isaac Asimov's favorite sayings.

that was awesome.
i hope del toro gets to make "mountains of madness",because i love the imagery he used in hellboy,which was VERY lovecraftian.

i stumbled upon lovecraft from my dad,and by accident.
my dad had a ton of the those sci-fi,horror pulp magazines from the 40's and 50's in the basement.

i think i was around 9 or 10 and my dad had given me the job of clearing out the basement,because he was going to remodel it..and i remember coming across this old,and dusty cardboard box filled with those books.

i spent the entire afternoon reading..and reading..and reading.
and it was lovecraft that i fell in love with,although at my young age he was not an easy read.you have to absorb lovecraft rather than actually read him.

this was the weekend i also discovered isaac asimov,ray bradbury,fred saberhagen and jack l chalker.

so i fell in love with lovecraft before stephen king.

and then my big sister tried to introduce me to dean r koontz.
and well..fuck dean r koontz,fucking hack and plagiarist.

seriously..fuck dean r koontz.

http://videosift.com/video/Nature-is-better-than-Isaac-Asimovs-Brain

Dude. I mean really. Whoa.

Isaac Asimov looks like Bill Nye goes full supervillain over the next 20 years.

Hilarious! I would LOVE to meet the person who wrote this.

"In the future we will put a HAL like A.I. in everything and take away all fail safes because it will make everything better.Or will it? DUN DUN DUN!"

I think this writer might just be the next Isaac Asimov! I for one have been jolted awake by this razor sharp view into our dark future!

And disagreement is cool with me, I often disagree with people who like musicals but I can do so without being a jerk about it, I'm just not into them. An active imagination is often considered a sign of intelligence and higher thinking. I'm pretty sure creative minds like Neil Gaiman, Stephen King, Ray Bradbury, Isaac Asimov, just to name a few, are not lacking in the intelligence or comprehension departments. Gene Roddenberry could be responsible for god knows how many people going into the sciences, inspired to make the future, he imagined a reality.
Lincoln was great movie and I'd be all for seeing a movie based on the 47 Ronin that was more historically accurate, but that doesn't mean I can't also enjoy movies like Pacific Rim. As for 300, the movie was actually based on Frank Miller's graphic novel, which I doubt was ever intended to be a factual account of the event anyhow. Movies like this one are, for better or worse a product of market forces and the society we live in.

To answer my own question, it's the 2011 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate.
Full debate available here:
http://videosift.com/video/Isaac-Asimov-Memorial-Debate-The-Theory-of-Everything

@ReverendTed
Many issues to address here, but first, some clarifications. My analogies (wonky as they are) were to point out the immorality of the “you’ve got to live with the consequences” stance, they were not about who’s harmed. But speaking of harm, it would be more ethical to let the two analogical characters “suck it up” than to demand of a woman she bring an unwanted pregnancy to term. In the first cases, there is only one victim, but in the latter there are two. When I say abortion is “punishment enough”, what I mean is that it is already a disagreeable outcome of mistake-making/poor-choice-making, while obliging a woman to give birth to (and raise) an unwanted child not only negatively affects the mother’s life, but that of the child as well; it is a disproportionate price to pay for the former and completely unfair for the latter. Hence, imo, abortion is by far the lesser of two “evils”.

Adoption instead of abortion is “a non-solution and worse” for several reasons. First, there are already more than enough children already alive who need parents, and you know very well that most people prefer making their own than adopting, so many of these will never have a family (not to mention the often inferior care-giving in foster homes and social centres). Now imagine that every abortion is replaced with a child given up for adoption; can you not see the horror? It’s that many more neglected lives, not to mention the overall problem of overpopulation.

I’m going to go on a slight tangent, but a relevant one. I have a certain amount of experience with humanitarian aid in Africa, and one thing that causes me no end of despair is the idiotic, selfish way much of it is performed. Leaving aside corruption, proselytization, etc., the “West” pours food and medicine into Africa with that whole “life is sacred” “feed the poor” mentality – good intentions of course – but with disastrous results because education and contraception (not to mention abortion) are almost always left out, even discouraged, with the support of the usual religious suspects (remember the pope on condoms causing aids?). The result is simple, and simply appalling: despite aid and funds increasing globally every year, starvation and child mortality continue to rise. Why? Because the people being barely maintained keep making kids who grow up to starve and die in turn, instead of focusing on the education of one or two children to get them out of the vicious cycle (there is another argument to be made about the education of women, but I’m ranting enough as is).

The point of this digression is to show that the non-pragmatic “all life is sacred” stance is terribly counter-productive, and the same holds for abortion (viz: on adoption above). As for lack of pragmatism, the same goes for your comment on abstinence:
I appreciate that "don't have sex if you can't accept being pregnant" is not a magical incantation that makes people not have sex, but it has to be a part of it, because no method of contraception is 100% effective, even if used correctly.
What you’re saying basically is “people shouldn’t have sex unless they’re ready for childbearing/-raising”, which is absurd when one considers human nature and human relations.

All of the above arguments weigh into the question of the “ball of cells” vs “human being/identity”. The “sacred life” stance is one of quantity over quality, and in the long run devalues human life altogether. To quote Isaac Asimov on overpopulation: “The more people there are the less one individual matters”. In the abortion debate, what we have is one side so intent on protecting the abstract “life” that they disregard the lives of the two individuals in question, namely the “individual who is” (the mother) and the “individual who might be” (the child). The former is already a human individual, with memories, relationships, a personality, etc. The latter is not. The abortion question takes into account the future quality of life not only of the mother but of the would-be child as well, something the anti-abortion stance does not. Abortion doesn’t end an individual’s life, it prevents a ball of cells from becoming one. Here is where the religious aspect is crucial, because while embryologists see a complex mass of cells with no capacity for cognition/sensation, superstitious people assign an individual “consciousness” or “soul” to it, thus making abortion feel like murder instead of like the removal of a tumour. The question of potential is an emotionally manipulative one that does not hold up to criticism, because as @packo sarcastically (and the Monty Python brilliantly ) point out, you can go a long ways up the stream of potential.

I like the first half of @gorillaman’s tomato analogy for that reason (the second half is hyperbolic absurdity), that it underlines what is important in the debate: the living “thing”’s capacity for sensation/cognition/interaction. If you grew up with a tumour on your body which giggled when you tickled it and cried when you hit it, you would probably think twice before getting rid of it. That does not mean I’m categorically against late-term abortions, but for me the scale seriously tips between the 20-25th weeks when the nervous system of the foetus centralises. Of course, it is preferable that should an abortion take place it would be before the foetal stage, for the sake of medical and psychological comfort, but unfortunately one cannot always know so soon that one is pregnant.