I don't know if this link will open---
This is Donald's reply:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-father-fallen-soldier-ive-made-lot/story?id=41015051

In his first response to a searing charge from bereaved Army father Khizr Khan that he’d “sacrificed nothing” for his country, Donald Trump claimed that he had in fact sacrificed by employing “thousands and thousands of people.” He also suggested that Khan’s wife didn’t speak because she was forbidden to as a Muslim and questioned whether Khan’s words were his own.

“Who wrote that? Did Hillary's script writers write it?” Trump said in an interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos. “I think I've made a lot of sacrifices. I work very, very hard.”

No one else has thrown it in yet, so I will:

"Revenge is a dish best served cold..." (Khan, Star Trek II, "Wrath of Khan")

Apparently, preferably with a snowblower...

It seems really strange from an outside perspective. It isn't all that long ago - at least in my memory - when certain types of American were almost celebrating that they were willing to torture and maim people if they 'got their answers'. Even if some of those people were innocent, it was an acceptable price to pay.

When Ed Snowden came out and told us that our governments were spying on us, trawling through our data and tracking our entire history online and in reality through surveillance cameras. The majority of America was against Snowden (in all the polls I've seen) - in any other day he would have been given the Nobel peace prize and celebrated as an all-time hero that stood up to impossible odds just to give the human race full disclosure on their 'freedom'. That's the stuff of legend, the stuff that people should be talking about in 1000 years time like we talk about Genghis Khan or something. Instead he was treated like a traitor and forced to live in exile in Russia because it was the only country that wouldn't hand him over to the torturing, controlling, law-breaking bastards he'd just made to look very stupid..... Gee, I wonder why he didn't want to face "criminal proceedings"? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear - except if you cross the wrong people?

Not too long ago freedom WAS an acceptable sacrifice for security.

When a lunatic got hold of an automatic rifle, killed 50 people and injured another 50, the prevailing argument seems to be "Hey, hey, let's not over react here, we can't sacrifice our freedom because of one terrorist act."

The only difference in this situation is that it isn't about "other people's" freedom and "my security" any more. It is about "my" freedom and "other people's" security.

You probably weren't one of those people, but I think it's fair to preface my comment with that contradiction.

I accept you have a decent point in this case; people shouldn't lose their freedom because the FBI made a mistake. But that's not the question being asked, let's talk about the general case rather than this specific one. The question is does legislation exist that will make mass shootings less common in the US? And I think the answer is yes, but I also think that culture is the biggest factor, not just access to guns.

As an example of what I mean - what if there were legislation that limited his ability to get hold of the weapon, registered that he had expressed an interest with the FBI who could then investigate based on his history? And maybe some other legislation could make it harder in general for him to just go and borrow one of his friends', or steal one from a local lax firing range, or whatever other illegal means exist to get hold of one.... perhaps because there were less in circulation, or those that were in circulation were more stringently secured?

At the end of the day it might not stop him getting hold of one, but it might make it harder and he might have second thoughts or make a mistake and be caught if it were harder. Hell, at least then the families of the dead would be able to say that a CRIME was committed when this fucking lunatic who had been under investigation was allowed to get access to a weapon that could so easily kill or maim a hundred people.

Saw Wrath of Khan on the list, hesitated to push play.
Saw Old Yeller . . . nope.avi

It would take super-human effort to one-up Brent Spiner's failed attempt to cast Data as TNG's 'Spock' in Nemesis, with that pathetic carbon-copy Wrath of Khan script.

Nothing about this looks appealing. Jumping from "reconstructing ship" to "destroying recently reconstructed ship" does nothing for me. Clearly nothing is sacred and everything can be pooped back out brand-new, this incarnation already has its first resurrected character, so what's at stake here?

Ever since Wrath of Khan, Star Trek writers have been convinced they can only produce Khan-a-likes as a path to success. I was only partially onboard after the first film, I checked out completely after the last one, but I'm particularly surprised at the laziness of this one. The CG and action direction seem to be the only areas that are getting any creative engineering in any of these films.

The warplane is designed to kill, but who is it killing - is it killing an evil dictator in order to save innocents? It might be on a peace keeping mission to discourage any killing. If it the warplane is killing only people who would otherwise be killing the innocent, then it's a tool used for good, it's saving more lives than it's taking, and more importantly it's saving lives that are more important to maintaining a civilized society.
I'd even say that it would be less moral to not build the warplane and let innocents die through inaction, when the consequences are well known.

Even further down the chain, killing isn't inherently bad, there are plenty justifiable reasons to kill someone.

It's the same with veganism -making choices which are less harmful, not necessarily perfect.


Non smokers are definitely way better people than smokers. Especially given that 2nd and even 3rd hand smoke causes cancer. Even if smoking only harmed the smoker, it's still a strange idea to be harming yourself. Perhaps they lack the appreciation of how lucky they are to be alive. I mean the odds of being born are like winning the lotto, let alone being born healthy, being born in this day and age, in a civilized country, being born to the dominate species, being born on the only planet that seems to have developed life. Some people have rough starts to life, but harming themselves isn't going to make it better, just shorter.


I agree that everyone is capable of making good moral stances, you've obviously drawn the line somewhere (otherwise you'd be going all Genghis Khan on everyone). But where the line is drawn is tends to be influenced a lot by misleading information and lack of information. And that makes it very hard to make logically sound choices. It's even harder when in order to understand the real impact means having to watch footage of animal cruelty. Most people find it confronting and uncomfortable at best, so it's easier to put it away, not think about it and continue consuming.

I know most people are moral, but if they don't act on it, it doesn't mean much to the puppies being strayed in the eyes with chemicals, or to the piglets being slammed into the concrete floor for the crime of being born male.


Regardless of how you categorize it, analyze it, or philosophize it, this always remains true: Animals feel and respond to pain, they will do their best to avoid suffering, and they have a will to live.

I get a little bit Genghis Khan...
I don't want you to get it on...
With nobody else but me...

I've been known to get a little bit Ghengis Khan from time to time...

I find a lot of these complaints to be pretty silly. Particularly the roles of 40+ years ago, like John Wayne as Genghis Khan, etc.

And The Last Samurai is awesome. OK, Tom Cruise (white guy) is the main character -- because he is a lens through which an American audience can reflect on the respect that he gains for the real (Japanese) samurai. All the roles that the script/plot dictates should be played by Japanese people are. I'd even argue that the title doesn't refer to Tom Cruise's Nathan Algren, but rather to the whole group of samurai (notice how the word can be plural or singular) led by Ken Watanabe's Katsumoto.

There are some (plenty of?) legit gripes about "whitewashing" movies, but accusing movies like the The Last Samurai of it (when they are actually doing things exactly right and making a movie FULL of non-white roles played by non-white people) seems counterproductive to the argument...

I would be curios to see how many Mongolian actors that applied for the part in 1956 for Genghis Khan.

And they explained away Khan's original appearance being transformed into Khanberbatch as just futuristic cosmetic surgery in the prequel comic I think.

But yes, it's still stupid. In their defense, how else were they going to do Khan? The person would have had to have looked like Montalblan otherwise.

But going back to stupid since it was just stupid to reboot the Khan storyline. Cuz yeah, a genetic superman from the 1990s would be a really big help fighting a war in 2200s. Obviously war in the 2200s is exactly the same as it was in 1900, no leap in logic for this fossil to design a hyper advanced starship that dwarfs the flagship of the day...not at all.

@JiggaJonson
khan noonien singh was a genetically enhanced human prince from the 1990's and participated in the eugenics wars,which consequently was the reason for his,and his followers,fleeing to space and escaping the inevitable aftermath from their defeat.

his spaceship the botany bay was discovered 300 years later by captain kirk and the starship enterprise,perfectly preserved in cryogenic sleep.

you all may bow to my geek prowess.

i think this video is referring to the original actor and appear to have taken issue with cumberbatch not being a latin actor.

which i agree with you is pretty damn nitpicky.

on another note.
my first date ever with a young black woman was soul man,starring c thomas howel.i didnt really research the movie and was mortified when c thomas howel painted his face as black man.thank god she was a good sport.though she did bust my chops for months after.

true story.

Uhhhh... I gotta take issue with "Khan." Wtf race is someone from another planet supposed to be? You guessed it, alien.

Aside from that, it IS a big deal. I loved the movie "The Book of Life," for example; but for a movie that is a celebratory explosion of Mexican culture, the cast probably shouldn't include so many old white actors: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2262227/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm

Laughed out loud at John Wayne as Genghis Khan.
*quality ending