Bwaaaaaahahahaha!!! Well, Trump got his wish to delay his treason trial (the stolen top secret document one, I know, there’s so many it’s impossible to keep track). Smith had requested a Dec 3 2023 start date, Trump requested no trial date but a meeting after the election to see if there will be any trial at all (because he assumes he will be able to just pardon himself) and Trump friendly judge Cannon delayed the trial like Trump requested….to May 20, 2024! Perfect timing for it to be the headlines all summer during the campaign. Good luck running a campaign from the defendants table!
Remember, he said being under investigation is a disqualifier. Expect to see that in ads all summer as he “defends” himself against 7 treason cases (expect defenses like he tried in Carrol’s case….absolutely none.). 😂
He also lost his ploy to transfer his NY criminal cases to federal court…so no escaping those 34 serious felony counts. The federal judge actually said there’s substantial evidence that Trump committed these cover up crimes in NY state trying to hide his payment for sex with porn stars while Melania was pregnant. That case also set for next year! Enjoy!
Also we found out the topics of the upcoming charges for Jan 6…1) conspiracy to commit offenses against or defraud the United States 2) witness tampering 3) deprivation of rights under color of law. All 3 serious legal violations with dozens of felonies included under each topic, each carrying serious prison penalties. Smith is no sucker, if he said these are the topics of the crimes he’s investigating, he already has more than enough evidence to convict. Enjoy another slam dunk case about massive Republican election fraud and an attempted coup in late summer 2024 that also heavily implicates every sitting Republican in congress …coming fall 2024. 😂

Oh….and don’t forget in 2024 there should be something like 7 new seats in the house, all from newly created Democratic or minority led districts from red states like Alabama and Louisiana that have already been”convicted” of having violated the voting rights act to disenfranchise their minority populations and minimize their political power by gerrymandering (and some from NY too) and 32 more redistricting cases from red states like Texas and N Carolina that blatantly violated the federal Voting Rights act by intentionally minimizing and dissolving minority districts as much as possible, but they haven’t lost in court…YET.

This is America WINNING!!

A 2012 United Nations report summarized 65 different estimated maximum sustainable population size and the most common estimate was 8 billion. Advocates of reduced population often put forward much lower numbers. Paul R. Ehrlich stated in 2018 that the optimum population is between 1.5 and 2 billion

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

Since we are at or near 8 billion and are far from sustainable, haven’t been for over 50 years, I think the 1.5 number is far more realistic, maybe even high. I think the 8 billion estimates assume international cooperation, constant advances in farming tech with constantly increasing yields (that aren’t happening), and don’t account for climate change disrupting supply chains and production at various levels….so wishful thinking.

War sucks for population control. It’s messy, expensive, destructive of both infrastructure and ecology, and just crap at killing meaningful numbers. We need to reduce by billions, the worst war killed a few million and destroyed much of Europe. A war that kills 1000 times more people….yikes. Forget global warming, hello planetary disintegration.

The only acceptable method IMO is quit having children, then you don’t kill anyone to achieve sustainability. For some idiotic reason, average people find the idea of not having excess children horrific and totally out of the question, but the idea of starving their children to death seems to garner a “shit happens”.

Agreed, we need something like an airborne infectious prion where there could be no vaccine, no sterilization, no escape…..only that would wipe out everyone so maybe not that.

Spoiler Alert - there is no escaping eternal death, no matter what your redeemer of choice might say third hand. Everything has to end. No green pastures, no eternal smell of grandma's cookies you remember as a child, no eternal torture for child molesters, no eternal bliss or eternal suffering, nothing.

I have accepted that truth into my heart and will have everlasting death.

What if you fart in it???
No escape

I disagree on nearly all points.

Can't outrun the radio. That's why they have backup. They can't outrun the helicopter in town either, and there's no escape on the freeway if the cops roadblock it.
I guess you didn't notice the one they did hit. No one pulled a gun and attacked the cop, did they?
Could have trapped them all in the underpass if they were on the ball. They should have come in with 4-5 cars at once and blocked it off front and rear, then shot anyone trying to escape.
Really, you assume they're so dumb they would all commit crimes armed (making just dirty riding a violent felony) and have a shootout with the cops (which would instantly make any group riding a SWAT priority from now on). Guaranteed, the first time that happens is the last time more than 3 motorcycles ride together without being stopped and harassed anywhere in the country.
Couple of hundred?!? I only saw around 50. Cops take control of riots that have thousands -tens of thousands of actors all the time. That's no excuse or reason.
They aren't any danger to the police or public if they're wrecked on the road.
Police follow in hopes of catching them in any way, be it trapped, fallen, wrecked, given up, went home, on camera, etc.
Lots that can be done. Since they have multiple camera views of all of them, they can stop them any time they see a bike that looks like one of them on the road and try to put them in prison for wreckless endangerment (a good reason all riders should HATE these people, innocent bikers get harassed for having similar bikes all the time). I do understand that SOME of those bikes are stolen, or unregistered, but most are not and those riders may give up their compatriots.
1%ers only make up 1%.

My point is, if police take this seriously like the attack on the public that it is and aggressively go after them with the cop cars, they will think twice and not operate on YOUR assumptions that the cops won't do a thing....which is why they continue this crap, that assumption. If every single time a group goes 'riding dirty' at least one of them ends up dead or paralyzed, it will end FAST.
You know how much damage that cop car would suffer by running them over....none! ;-)

@transmorpher

It's a little difficult to 'debate' your comment, because the points that you address to me are numbered but don't reference to specific parts of my post. That's probably my fault as i was releasing frustration haphazardly and sarcastically, and that sarcasm wasn't aimed at you. All i can do is try and sum up whether i think we agree or disagree overall.

Essentially everything is a question of 'taste', even for you. There's no escaping our nature, most of us don't drink our own piss, many of us won't swallow our own blood, almost all of us have a flavour that we can't abide because we were fed it as a child. So yes, our decisions are defined by taste. But taste is decided by the food that is available to people, within reasonable distance of their house, at a price they find affordable according to the society around them, from a range of food that is decided by society around them. Your average person does not have the luxury to walk around a high street supermarket selecting the most humane and delicious foods. People get what they can afford, what they understand, what they can prepare and what is available. Our ancestors ate chicken because of necessity of their own kind, their children are exposed to chicken through no fault of their own, fast forward a few generations, and thus chicken becomes an affordable, accessible staple. Can we reach a compromise here? It may not be necessary for chickens to die to feed the human race, but it may be necessary for some people to eat chicken today because of their particular life.

I don't like the use of the phrase 'if i can do it, i know anyone can'. I think it's a mistake to deal in certainties, especially pertaining to lifestyles that you can't possibly know about without having lived them. Are you one of the many homeless people accepting chicken soup from a stranger because it's nourishing, cheap and easy for a stranger to buy, and keeps you warm on the streets? Are you a single mother with coeliac disease, a grumpy teenager and picky toddler who has 20 minutes to get to the supermarket and get something cooking? Or one of the millions using foodbanks in the UK (to our shame) now? I don't think you're willfully turning a blind eye to those people, i'm not tugging heart strings to do you a disservice. Maybe you're just fortunate you not only have the choice, but you have such choice that you can't imagine a life without it. I won't budge an inch on this one, you can't know what people have to do, and we have to accept life is not ideal.

And within that idealism and choice problem we can include illnesses that once again in IDEAL situations could survive without dead animals, nevertheless find it necessary to eat what they can identify and feel safe with.

Yes, those damn gluten hipsters drive me round the bend but only because they make people think that a LITTLE gluten is ok, it makes people take the problem less seriously (see Tumblr feminism... JOKE).

I agree that we must look at what action we can take now - and that is why i keep reminding you that we are not in an ideal world. If the veganism argument is to succeed then you must suggest a reasonable pathway to go from how we are now to whatever situation you would prefer. My "ideal farm" description was just me demonstrating the problem - that you need to show us your blueprint for how we start again without killing animals and feeding everyone we have.

And on that subject, your suggestions need to be backed by real research, otherwise you don't have any real plan. "It's fair to say there is very little risk" is a nice bit of illustrative language but it is not backed by any fact or figure and so i'm compelled to do my Penn and Teller impression and call bullshit. As of right now, the life expectancy of humans is better than it has ever been. It is up to you to prove that changing the diet of 7 billion people will result in neutrality or improvement of health and longevity. That proof must come in the form of large statistical analyses and thorough science. I don't want to sound like i'm being a dick, but any time you state something like that as a fact or with certainty, it needs to be backed up by something. I'm not nit picking and asking for common knowledge to have a citation, but things like this do:

-- 70% of farmland claim
-- 'fair to say very little risk' claim
-- meat gives you cancer claim - i accept it may have a carcinogenic effect but i'll remind you so does breathing, joss-sticks, broccoli, apples and water
-- 'the impact to the planet would be immense' claim - in what way, and what would be the downsides in terms of economy, productivity, health, animal welfare (where are all the animals going to be sent to retire as of day 1?)
-- etc. etc.

Oh, and a cow might get its protein from plants, but it walks around a field all day eating grass, chewing the cud and having sloppy shits with 4 stomachs and enzymes that i don't have................. I'm a bit puzzled by this one... I probably can't survive on what an alligator or a goldfish eats, but i can survive on parts of an alligator or fish. I can't eat enough krill in a day to keep me going, but i can let a whale do it for me...?

The KFC double down is an event horizon. Once you cross it, there is no escape.

I haven't read everything above. I'm going to assume it's more of the same old argument that is always delivered when it comes to comic characters.

BUT here's something to think about:
When I was in art school. We drew and painted nude models. male female, old and young. none were particularly "attractive", just normal.

But the the Feminists banned together in our school and started chastising men, saying they had no right to ever paint/draw a nude female. regardless of how mundane the pose was - saying, "No man can EVER draw a nude female because men are incapable of not sexualizing them.
So many of the men buckled because these women were very threatening. I didn't paint nudes but but had over 50 messages left in my studio because I included clothed images of my female friends in my paintings.
As a result, one of the guys in a studio next to mine, started painting nude images of "Himself" because he was going out of his way to avoid them. Guess What. He came under fire for painting nude images of himself in semi-erotic poses (not pornographic) because he wasn't Gay. How dare he paint a male figure that way. ONLY the gay men should be able to paint men that way. How dare a Hetro male paint a nude figure of a male because hetro males only want to sexualize everything.

There was no escape, If you were a Hetro male, you were only allowed to paint landscapes or Men in Parkas it seemed. The point is, it doesn't matter what you paint/draw or even photograph, someone is going to find a reason to stand up against you because of their sexual hangups and preferences. They will read into your vision with all the hate they have built up for issues that have been used against them in their lives.

It sucks and that's the society we're living in. Artists have a choice. Either cave and conform or be suborn, stand up for themselves and carry on.. I, myself choose to be stuborn.

Edit: And I will not appoligize for being stuborn when it comes to my art. (no matter how badly I want people to like me.)

Common core should be abolished.

My kids are living the hell that this big government, central command no escaping piece of shit education methodology that been pushed as a carrot and stick with Federal dollars for states to take.

But that is the real problem If all education was local or state controlled then if we don't like out state we could change it or move.
I believe all but 2 states have signed up for this crap.

Thanks. There were no links or anything extra on that comment, just letters forming regular english words. No escape characters either.. Well, nothings perfect, thanks for your troubles.

I call BS!
Let's see a man vs woman on this device...because otherwise it's apples vs oranges at best.
Some women have NO pain during labor (at least it's reported that some have the child and claim they didn't even know it happened), some have MAJOR pain. The only comparison would be if they do a real comparison of pain inducement (or multiple comparisons, one man or woman is not representative of all men or women). Then we might have a better grasp of who really handles it better....if one group does.
Also, note these men did this to themselves with no 'payoff', while many women opt out of the experience with an epidural. It's a different thing when you are consciously subjecting yourself to pain than when it's simply happening with no escape. That's not taken into account at all in this 'experiment'.
I want to see it tried again my way, this answered nothing! (It was still hilarious)

Pronunciation: /ˈʃiːp(ə)l/
Noun
Derogatory

People compared to sheep in being docile, foolish, or easily led: "By the time the sheeple wake up and try to change things, it will be too late."

Origin:

1940s: blend of sheep and people

And this is, in my experience, what 90% of the world's human population is like. I would prefer it if wasn't true, because I'm lonely and I'm tired of always having to watch what I say so I don't wind up accidentally offending half the people in the room just by using a word they've never heard before (but which I think is a perfectly ordinary word). I'm tired of never being allowed to be interested in, or enthusiastic about, something that requires you to actually use your brain, and I am tired of the fact that noone I meet - not even teachers who've studied at an accredited university - seems to have even the most basic understanding of science, and for the life of them can't understand why an emotional argument holds less water than a rational one.

I'm really far from being a genius, and frankly, I am not very arrogant or pretentious. I try hard to ensure that anybody who speaks to me feels at ease, and that they feel like the things they say to me are being heard and understood. Because honestly, that's all I ever ask for - a conversation between equals. However, I am just dead fucking tired of living in a society that just seems to sink deeper and deeper into stupidity. It's as if I'm stuck in front of a great, frothing wave of stolid ignorance, and there is just no escape from it.

So, yes. Sheeple. Everywhere. There's just no getting away from them.

There is no escaping. The sift has you .

@ReverendTed

Abortion is not murder, but that's not really the point. America, and by extension, the world, doesn't really have a problem with killing as a whole. We war with ourselves and kill fellow beings in the name of religion, politics, land and other resources. We kill criminals if they commit heinous enough crimes. We kill vast amounts of wildlife for fun and sport. We kill flies and other insects merely because they bother us. We step on insects without even knowing it.

We humans kill.
We are killers.
There is no escaping this fact.
Create the right conditions and anyone will kill...anyone.

The only thing you can do is: 1. Hopefully create a world in the future where we don't have to kill as much and 2. Hope that we are killing for the right reasons. Sometimes this will be true, sometimes it won't be. But that's life. That's the human condition. A law will change nothing other than whether or not abortions are performed safely or not. I choose to live in a world where if someone I know decides to have an abortion, that they do it safely with a doctor and not in some back alley. Abortions will happen REGARDLESS of what the law says. If we're going to end an unborn child's life, let's at least make sure the mother remains safe. Outlawing abortions just increases the chance that we'll have two ended lives instead of just one.

Abortion, by definition is the LAWFUL termination of an unborn child...LAWFUL. Murder is the UNLAWFUL termination of a life. Key distinction there.

This false morality that some people are somehow above and beyond the rest of us mere mortals and hold life to be irrevocably sacred just does not understand history or the human condition. These sorts of people seem to be the same people who would casually send us to war for religious or ideological reasons and thus condone the termination of more lives. The hypocrisy is glaring.

In regards to this notion that a person would go have an abortion just because a baby would be inconvenient is sad certainly, but when it comes right down to it....tough. Cost of living in a free society. people are going to things you don't approve of. deal with it. Your rights end where mine begin and vice versa. People who go have abortions out of convenience are in the minority. Quit worrying about what the minority does..especially with their own body. You and I don't get to decide what is right for someone else.

We don't live in a post-scarcity world yet. If every viable pregnancy ever was brought to term, we would have an even bigger resource shortage problem on our hands.

We live in a world where your quality of life (and your offspring) is directly related to your job. Until the quality of life of humanity becomes more equalized, We are going to continue to have situations where if someone gets pregnant it will directly affect their quality of life (and their child's) for the worse. So I really don't have a problem with someone terminating the pregnancy so that they go on to improve their quality of life so that they can have a kid later who will benefit from that better quality of life.

I too would ideally prefer adoption to abortion. But that's not exactly saying much. Adoption agencies have tons of kids and not enough parents to go around. As fertility science continues to improve, fewer and fewer parents are going to want adoption when they can just undergo a procedure and still have their own. This recently happened to a friend of mine who was having difficulty conceiving. She and her husband initially decided to adopt, but at some point, they changed their mind and pursued some massively costly fertility treatments so that they eventually did conceive. I was immensely happy for her, but at the same time, I personally felt they should have stuck with the adoption as those orphans are already here and need help now. But here's the thing. It's not my choice, it's hers and her husbands. So we can deal with the realities of the situation or continue to play hypotheticals. If everyone gave their kid up for adoption instead of abortion, we'd just have a different kind of problem and the quality of life of a vast amount of kids would be affected for the worse.

As for your big questions, They are best left to people far more educated on this subject than you and I. Of course there is some point in a pregnancy where abortion should no longer be an option. I don't think anyone is arguing this. As you say, the question is when. I simply don't know and am unqualified to make that judgement. No matter what is decided upon, it obviously won't satisfy everyone, but a decision has to be made and you can't please everyone.

So that makes him a hipster elitist because he's not a Jerry Springer fan? Count me as one of them too because I watched that Springer element go from fringe to prime-time mainstream over the past 15 years and there's no escaping it. The in-your-face booger-eating shock value that at one time you only saw in the mentally-challenged kid in your school.

And now this instant powdered fame has become a bankable commodity, if you're a pretty girl who eats her own earwax or admits to liking the smell of farts you can become a star. Or you don't mind pranking your mother on-camera by telling her that you're pregnant with your high-school art teacher's baby, just to "push the envelope" of reality TV.

Like the guy in the movie my workplace is full of college grads who were weaned on this crap, it's all they know. They talk like they think they are some sitcom sidekick, spitting out this stream of snarky, hip, pop-culture references and this week's memes and reality show updates. With a smug grin because the studio audience in their head is cheering them on.

So you can have it. Call it a hipster pose but I am too good for this crap. I don't care if there are 32 million of them, this crap is for morons and it will only get worse.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

So you're including yourself in that group, yes?
Or are you too hipster for that? "I was counter-culture before counter-culture was a culture."
>> ^gorillaman:
I hope we all understand that you can nod your head along to the sentiments in this video and still be a part of the problem.