Afterwards in the hall Romney called Santos a “sick puppy”….reminding us all of his fraudulent charity that stole donations from a homeless veteran’s sick dog who then died because he couldn’t afford the treatment the donations were raised for.
…and…
Inadvertently reminded us of what a sick puppy Romney is himself because he took a family vacation 600 miles to frigid Canada with the family dog strapped to the roof, and when the terrified dog had diarrhea that blew everywhere he simply hosed off the traumatized sick puppy and put the poor wet scared hypothermic dog back on the roof for the rest of the freezing 12 hour freeway drive.

He’s their best, most moral and ethical representative today, a horrific animal abuser with magic underwear.

There's this book by a Wall Street Journal reporter, called "Wrong About Japan"--and in one sequence, he asks the creator of Godzilla (a monster created by a nuclear accident/testing, who rolls around destroying...Japanese cities, even if inadvertently)---about it's relationship to WW-II and being the target of nuclear weapons...and the Japanese creator flat out denies it. Says the West doesn't understand that Godzilla is actually about bureaucracy.

What a special and odd place.

The irony could not be more delicious.
In 2018, in an effort to put Clinton in prison and invalidate her as a candidate in the future, Trump and Republicans signed into law new, much harsher penalties for taking and keeping classified documents inappropriately. These new penalties were a (mandatory ?) 5 year sentence and making it a “hard” felony that cannot be lowered to a misdemeanor by pleading guilty. My read is that’s one charge for every page.
Also, it seems some of the stolen documents are top secret defense documents concerning our nuclear weapons…the most ultra classified information our government has…kept in an unlocked basement in an often empty, unguarded home.
Seems Trump inadvertently just made himself totally ineligible to run for office and likely an inmate for life. D’oh!

So, @bobknight33, Trump’s FBI head and a Trump judge followed a Trump enacted law to investigate Trump for definitely doing exactly what the right was apoplectic at the mere suggestion Clinton might have done but could find no evidence of.

BTW -Trump won’t release the warrant or receipt of what they took because it would include details about the meeting and subpoena he was served with in June after refusing to turn over the documents voluntarily since January when they were first discovered and requested by the DOJ…a subpoena he ignored forcing the raid…and would also list much of the ultra top secret defense documents concerning our nuclear arsenal he was keeping while hosting Russians, Chinese, Saudis, Israelis, maybe even N Koreans at his home where these secrets were being kept unsecured. There are serious questions as to whether he sold any to enemies of the state. There’s no question at all that he would if the price was right.

Edit: ESPIONAGE, OBSTRUCTION, REMOVING GOVERNMENT RECORDS
because they charge espionage, it doesn’t matter if he thinks and claims, like a king, saying the documents were declassified makes them declassified because it doesn’t hinge on the documents being classified, only if it’s harmful to our security if they’re unsecured. Bye Felicia!

okay, jack...

my father use to say, "Get it from the horse's mouth, and if lies, he's a damn thin horse."

These people are so thick, and darkly biased, that they have become transparent. Easier to see through than the Fanta Flusher frequent fibs.

So useless as factual information providers, they inadvertently provide what is NOT to be taken seriously: thus becoming useful by sin then theory. Like a windsock that points in the opposite direction of the wind.

Geezus. Head so far up their butts you'd think they'd see daylight soon.

There’s a difference between “racist” and “biased”. IMO, that’s what Bill is saying.

(To be clear, the difference I’m standing on here is racist implies it intentionally targets one race, biased in this context means while it may inadvertently impact one group, that is not the intent.)

Standardized testing is biased towards those with better educational opportunities….not any particular race. It just so happens one “race” is far more likely to have fewer educational opportunities on average….but that’s not the test’s fault or design, nor the student’s, and is not MEANT to target anyone by race. It just measures what you know….what you’ve been taught.

When it comes to SATs, they don’t take into account the educational opportunities people may not have had, and so aren’t a great measure of a student’s ability to learn, but are a measure of what they’ve learned. As such, they are a good metric for colleges to use in admissions, but are also sorely lacking when it comes to identifying ability. That means they should not be the ONLY measure used in admissions, but are still a useful tool for colleges.

I’m all for color blind admissions, if they measure ability as well as wrote knowledge, finding a way to measure how well they made use of the opportunities to learn they were presented….no matter what their skin color or economic status. So far, I don’t believe any such measure exists.

Really, I’m all for free jr college for anyone. It’s cheap, $150 a semester the last time I went, probably double that now, still a bargain. Most people drop out before year 3, so that’s a great way to allow everyone the opportunity for higher education without the expense…and frees up 4 year colleges to eliminate year 1&2 and teach more people who might graduate.

Moma bear saw the drone fly in closer - tried to scare off, but inadvertently scared the cub to drift back down the treacherous slope.
Drone operator should feel bad. Should feed drone operator to momma bear and cub.

If they are legally allowed to do it, I think they should. The job is tough enough but it's also tougher on the public when police make wrong decisions either inadvertently or deliberately. In both cases it helps to record the event when possible. News crews do have limits on how close they can get to scene before overstepping their bounds.

Bob is a "I'm rubber, you're glue" kinda guy. But he does seem to summon the truth inadvertently.

Sadly, he (hopefully not willfully) has missed the point of "Whataboutism" entirely. The issue is not saying "what about..." this other thing about the thing we are talking about, but rather, when you say "what about..." this thing about something entirely unrelated. As an example, from his video, If someone were to say "Jeeze, Bush really wasn't that bad", you would be fully within your rights to say "What about all the people he inadvertently killed?".

It's when you, for example, say "Trump is a lunatic" and the response is "Yeah, but what about how Hillary sold children for sex in a pizza shop" that people have a problem with. The current Republican way of handling anything tricky is to throw out some non-sequitur and hope it sticks, while never actually discussing the original topic.

Again, saying: "Hillary was the best Sec. State ever" and having some one say "Yeah, but what about Benghazi?" is perfectly acceptable and not at all what John Oliver et al. are complaining about.

On another note, the clips he showed relating to how democrats would love to have Bush back, are being interpreted without the understanding that they are being spoken in jest (ie. sarcasm). They don't really want him back they are just attempting levity in that they want to show how much they think Trump is unfit for office by saying that they would even take the buffoon back if they could get rid of him. This is not an approval of Bush, but a lesser of two definite evils thing.

@enoch
I did my best :-) I honestly feel threatened by this attitude of feeding the bear crumbs and pretending he is a friend. Also cant help liking Abby, so very disappointed.

@newtboy
For russia Assad is a (replaceable) puppet, bolstering Assad is just using that puppet for their own needs. ISIS is a threat because it directly supports terrorist groups within Russia. Sending in their air force and that coal powered smoking joke of an aircraft carrier was a military excercise with minimal losses and huge political and home security gains. Expensive though.

One cant just send in a task force to take out a dictator simply because one believes it would be the right thing to do. Countries generally have a limitless supply of local mafioso would-be dictators or religious leaders which the local population prefers to foreign rule. Religion and politics are just a thin veil for local tribal wars. In spite of Syria being a fairly civilised country before the current events I doubt there was ever a "democratic" alternative to Assad. Sometimes you just get lucky and the dictator decides he wants democracy (South Korea, Chile, Gorbatchev inadvertently).

F**k the whole middle east actually IMHO, twice. The Kurds never get any love from anyone and they´ve survived in the middle of this crazy shitstorm for millenia. Yet they will never have a country of their own. Even "Palestinians" created only in the last few decades appear to be closer to that goal. Not fair at all.

Tom Price inadvertently reveals that he has a serious gambling problem.

And how did Breitbart respond?

By attacking the messenger

So there are so many things wrong with those fucking nazi assholes stupid argument, I don't know where to start.

Let's see:
sexism? check! She's just a pretty girl....
Ad hominem? check!
Being completely wrong about climate change? check!

oh and my favourite part... they attempted to coin a new logical fallacy... in their words "argumentum ad puellam pulchram. (aka the Argument from a Pretty Girl)".

Except the fucking morons can't even get the latin right.

"Argumentum ad" is arguing TO not FROM, i.e. they are attacking a "pretty girl", not being attacked by.

They inadvertently exposed their own fallacy while trying to make up a new one.

Morons....

Ahh, so you were lying. You did have time.

From your response it's clear you don't know much about medicine.

"If you don't provide all the services required of a hospital, you don't get to call yourself a fucking hospital. "

No. You do get to call yourself a hospital. Most hospitals don't offer all medical services. Even major hospitals. You don't get to choose what is and isn't a hospital.

"There's a big bloody difference between "not equipped" and "unwilling"."

Sort of. It's a chicken and egg situation that has an order to it.

Most private hospitals are unwilling to provide non-profit services and are therefore not equipped to provide them. You won't find hospitals with the skills (i.e. doctors and nurses able to perform the procedure) and equipment (which is almost always purpose specific in medicine) and not the willingness to do the procedure. Catholic hospitals won't have either of those necessary requirements for most of the disputed procedures.

"And it's a bit fucking rich to bring up false equivalencies when you just compared unavailability of potential life-saving medical treatment to someone whinging over not getting a big mac at kfc."

No, mine was an appropriate analogy in regards to asking for a service or product that a company does not provide. In this case a Big Mac at KFC.

'"Really? They "articulate the truth"... as I said before, this is self-evidently complete and utter fucking bullshit.'

I can't say it's bullshit, but it is irrelevant.

'Yes, "inconvenient" is exactly the right word for a woman who is probably in the middle of the worst day of her life.
I mean, she might end up "inconveniently" dead, but hey, we wouldn't want to stop catholics telling other people how to live, would we?'

You're wrong. It is only an inconvenience. It sucks to be transferred to a different hospital but in general it has no adverse medical outcome on the patient. If the patient is critical the hospital will do what they can (which will be limited because they don't have the skills or equipment for that service) before transferring the patient. Just like one thousand and one other non-life-threatening and life-threatening procedures that most hospitals don't treat. Leaving the patient in place at that hospital carries a higher adverse risk than transferring them to an appropriate facility.

'And here we come to strawman of all strawmen. The problem is NOT that a woman needs a "direct abortion", it's that she may a surgical procedure that kills the child inadvertently. And this isn't theoretical, women have died from this.'

Not a strawman. You've given one example in a tabloid paper of a single woman who died from septacaemia, a week after a procedure. Unless you can show a conclusive coroner's report showing that the delay in removing the foetus (i.e. waiting until it was dead) was the cause, and not the 1000% more likely cause of infection during or after the surgery, then you don't even have that one example. And this sort of sepsis is just as likely from doing the same procedure with a live foetus. The procedure is pretty much the same. And even with one example, that's not statistically relevant. Do you have a study published in a reputable medical journal?

"The fundamental point is that religion has no place in medicine. If a patient wishes to refuse certain treatments because of their beliefs, well, they're an idiot, but it's their choice to be an idiot."

These hospitals have a mission statement based on their beliefs but they are practicing state of the art medicine. Based on their beliefs they don't offer all services , but this is no different than any other small hospital who limits their services. There are no statistically relevant adverse medical outcomes for anyone from this situation.

"But a hospital doesn't get to refuse treatment based on some bronze-age belief. If the treatment is legal in its jurisdiction and they have the capability to provide it, they must provide it. Businesses should not be allowed to refuse service on religious grounds ("I am religiously opposed to treating gay people or blacks!!")"

You're confusing you're belief of "shouldn't" with "doesn't". They can and should limit their services to what they want to offer as a hospital. The same as every public hospital does. And no, if the procedure is legal they do not have to provide it. This is true for public and private hospitals.

You seem to be sorely missing this basic vital understanding that all hospitals are limited in capacity and don't offer all services. If you go to the largest hospital near me (one of two major hospitals near me) and need emergency obstetrics, you will be shipped off to the other major hospital. That's how it works. If you go to one of many dozens of smaller private hospitals and ask for a,b, or c and they only offer x, y or z, then you're going to end up going to a different hospital.

The catholic hospital is practicing conscientious objection and passively practicing this (yes, passively, they're happy for you to go elsewhere). You want to force (that's the best word) all medical personal to bend to your will and don't accept worldviews that don't coincide with yours. Bigotry at it's finest.

'("I am religiously opposed to treating gay people or blacks!!")'
FFS: Evidence of hospitals doing this please. Not an individual doctor. Hospitals.

'As you said yourself "If you don't like it, go work somewhere else".'

You're saying "if you don't like my personal rules, then go find a different industry". Democracies a bitch when you don't get what you want. You're going to have to live with the fact that your way is just your opinion and nothing else.

You're getting pretty boring pretty quickly. I doubt I'll bother anymore with you, it's readily apparent that you're not going to learn any time soon.