Maybe this should have been done.

https://videosift.com/video/Judge-Rules-White-Girl-Will-Be-Tried-As-Black-Adult

Yes I saw that and it came as no surprise.
They have done this before, backing reporting, which is in their own best interests to do so seeing as the next president most likely will be a democrat.
Amy Schumer or Madonna is my best guess .

I love how you keep saying it is my source of choice when I am saying it offers the others sides views on things.
It certainly isn't or wasn't my choice but forced on me by the silliness which is most of main stream news today.
I am, in a sense, creating my own balanced reporting but it is a path loaded with truth bending, from both sides in order to push their agendas with a few good folks sprinkled in actually telling the truth.
Like I have said more than once, yes I do watch it, but I also watch and read other more liberal or mainstream sites which I have always done.
I am actually surprised that you were surprised Fox backed CNN.

I remember realising how screwed up English tenses are when I told a Hungarian friend that I "would have had to have had" done something beforehand. She just glared at me.

Sure wish these had been around when I spent hours wiring up a new fuse block in my old VW, in 20-something degree temperatures. Could have been done in 20 minutes, rather than 3-4 hours.

Your video, My God, Bones... What Have I Done?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You really don't know the history of your own religion, do you?

"Hey, Protestants, convert or die!" says the French Catholic.
"Hey, Catholics, convert or die!" says the Austrian Protestant.
"Hey, Jews, convert or die! Uh, but lend us money first -- we need to kill those false Christians over there!" says both the French Catholic and the Austrian Protestant.

You know Christians waged wars on each other over whether the Bible should be in common vernacular or not, right?

Also, you have no fucking clue about Islam. Learn about them? I've gone to a mosque (Sunni); I've watched them pray; I've talked to an Imam. Which of any of the above three have YOU done, O Scholar of Islam?

I suppose that with a 2000 release, most of the filming would have been done in the 90's.

Answered, but ok...
Shared beliefs that the other is the source of their (and America's) problems...be that immigrants, lefty fanboys, inner city residents (blacks), other religions, etc. That's been the party and movement for at least a decade if not longer.

Goals: return to a white majority, returning to mostly white male leadership, removal of immigrants and minimizing immigration, codifying Christianity as the state religion, and freedom to discriminate against other groups (but not theirs).

I agree, racism is not only evil, but dumb.

Free market capitalism (not the entirety of the platform, btw)...as long as it works for them. If not, regulations are just fine....take solar, something the right still fights....or oil, a totally manipulated market. When free market capitalism isn't working, the right has no qualms tossing it.

Republicans, the right wing party, has grown government as much or more than the left/dems. They love to say "small government" but never work towards it (except by killing democrat enacted programs, replaced with larger, more expensive Republican programs.).

No, left wing political ideal is that the government should work for citizens, not corporations. Left wing ideals are personal/human freedom/rights (which includes safeguarding systems against abuses) before profits, not on the right. You've been watching too much Fox and Alex.

So, racism benefits from people working against it and trying to make it actionable (not addressing your incorrect description of the left's ideals.) I think it benefits more from racists and racist policy, live voter I'd laws.
I think you may be describing the ultra left, which is like describing all republicans as to the right of the clan/nazis and ignoring their condemnations of those groups and their methods.

The KKK, Nazis, and alt right all said clearly, it was Trump echoing their platform that brought them in, not the left decrying them.

You are insane if you think anything Obama or Clinton could have possibly done to attract these people, it was the derision of them as subhuman filth that they found appealing.

The suit looks awesome, nothing fat and bulky about it what soever. At first I thought it was a digital body in the trailers but then adam savage did a whole video on it.

It does not look like it is going to take on either sac or 2nd gig. The storyline that the major was forced to have this done to her is definitely origin story and forked timeline stuff, in fact it appears that she is near one of a kind with her full synthetic body in this version of the world. At the same time section 9 is formed already.

I'm with @Chairman_woo . YES, Hillary was the "lesser of two evils" option.

Maher and the rest are upset because they think that "lesser of two evils" is an overly simplistic take on the actual degree to which either of them would have actually been evil. Fair enough, sorta. Piers Morgan is essentially just arguing semantics while the big picture just sails over everyone's heads.

Trump is a buffoon. A bull in a china shop. YES, he's doing blatantly evil/stupid things. Subtlety is not his forte. When he does bad things, we're going to find out about them.

Hillary is a vastly more savvy politician. Machiavellian, one might say. I think there's a very real argument to be made that her track record of (barely) weaseling out of very questionable actions and generally getting away with stuff that has sunk lots of other politicians suggests that it might be reasonable to be quite afraid of what Hillary has done / could do that we wouldn't find out about.


I'm not pleased with either one of them being the President. But honestly, I think that it will likely be easier to overcome and repair the damage done by "big dumb animal" Trump than it would have been to track down and discover all the cunning little traps, pitfalls, and closed-door deals that a President Hillary could have got done.

I think there are aspects of this that fall into the realm of philosophy.

I personally don't think we can ever have "The Truth" in that ultimate sense. Pretend for a minute that the SUVAT equations (the equations of motion) are completely accurate. I can drop a ball from a certain height and you can time it and we'll find to some degree of accuracy that the equations were right.

The ball and the floor didn't need to calculate anything. Whilst me and you sit there with a stopwatch technical manual, assorted tape measures to find the distance, expensive cameras to figure out when i dropped the ball..... Whilst we are tying down an uncertainty, the ball and floor have already done it.

When you get right down to it, we simply cannot know an exact time. We can never know an 'exact' anything, because now we need to discuss where the "ball" ends and where the "floor" begins on a molecular level. And no matter how much we agree, the uncertainty principle gets us in the end - we don't and can't know the exact location of fundamental particles. An "exact" anything ends up being a conceptual thing that we can't ever test.

But where i'm going with this is that we're kind of talking about the nature of understanding. We know the volume of a sphere if we know its radius, but how do we create the same sphere accurately? Our brains don't have a resolution, but the tools we use in reality do - reality itself quite possibly has a resolution. We think of minecraft as a blocky, low resolution simulation of an analogue reality. Similarly, i think maths is an 'analogue' (in that it can be "exact") simulation of a limited resolution reality - reality only looks analogue when you don't look very closely.

All that is to say, we DO understand the ball dropping and hitting the floor, but "exactness" is a thing that only exists in the act itself. The only thing left for us to decide is what we consider accurate enough.

Perhaps "god" wanted to know what would happen if he set off a big bang. He sat down, calculated it all out in the language of the gods (the language of perfection; maths) and realised that due to uncertainty, the only way to know exactly what would happen was for it to actually happen. (Douglas Adams?)

Absolute hyperbole, everyday Christians have not done the things I've listed in your life time.