which is a good reason to spay/neuter or provide birth protection although that seems odd

They likely had a litter from their lone house cat. That's happened to me on several occasions. Enjoy them as cute little menaces to society and then sell/give them away. Better to spay and neuter cats, but sometimes you get a cat that's already pregnant or it happens before you had a chance to.

From personal experience, a household with ~10 cats is manageable but that is where it gets hard (and I don't recommend it). Invest in a couple decent automated litter boxes, feeding set up so the cats don't crowd over one or two bowls. 4 is not bad. Makes for a fun little animal family. Hilarity always ensues. 1 is lonely, 2 is a rivalry, 3 is a crowd, but 4 is a silly family of prankster cats.

But then there is the mother who is off camera, so that's 5 cats. That's fun. Sibling cats who grow up around their mother become very caring and mature better. I had a scenario where my male and female kittens had kittens. It was so cool studying their family structure. Seeing the attachments the kittens have to the mother and father, and allowing it to grow to fruition is a joy to see, even if it's not always possible to keep the fam together every time.

Animal family units are awesome and I almost feel like every human family should have a protectorate animal family that is their duty to protect and nurture. If you can raise an entire animal family, you can do anything. Human families are narcissistic barbie playsets for most people, so this is less disturbing to me than a family with 4 children.

and remember folks, help control the pet population - have your pets spayed or neutered!

Dude...can you read? Please try again. I did not say it was racist. I said things do not have to be racist to be disgusting. Just wow. Talk about low reading comprehension.

If you only believe the cop testimony, perhaps. Since the DA threw the grand jury case, we'll never know, because it will never see a court room. That's not the series of events reports say the other 38 witnesses testified to seeing.

Songs laughing about killing unarmed people, and comparing them to road kill is only entertainment for disgusting people. Odd that all the cops found it entertaining...or perhaps it's not.
They should be upset because making fun of killing other people is disgusting, especially in the current climate where cops are trying to look human and humane, this shows their true colors when they think no one is watching, they laugh at killing unarmed people and take pleasure in it while dehumanizing the dead victims and their families. That's why any thinking person with a conscience would be upset. Duh.

I brought up the NY mayor because you brought up the NYPD cops. The way the cops are treating the mayor, who is not anti cop, but is simply not 100% behind every cop action, is infantile and disgusting. It shows how they can't accept any criticism without completely over-reacting in the worst ways, like big babies with guns.

Oh Bob. You might want to back off on the attempted insults and stick to the topic. (It just so happens that I'm fixed, not neutered, please learn the difference. Neutered males do not 'grow a pair' back, fixed males still have their testicles.) Your attempt at insult failed miserably on all fronts, but I'll still give you 'credit' for trying to be smarmy and clever.
It seems you're going the way of Chingalera here...and we all know what happened when he put the Newt in his mouthy parts. (it's the same thing that happens to anything that tries to bite a Newt, we just come crawling back out of your dead mouth unharmed!) He thought he was a big man too, with his smarmy insulting nastiness...didn't work out too well for him.

Considering how you see 'reality', I sure hope I look to be on the wrong side to you. I would hate to think I'm somehow in step with you or @Trancecoach. Many thinking people here do not have the highest opinions of your ilk.

EDIT: If Bill Burr told this story, he would not have talked about Michael Brown in those disgusting, degrading, dehumanizing ways. Bill is not an asshole. He might have found a way to make it funny, but not degrading or dehumanizing. This guy is no Bill Burr.

Your not Newtboy you neutered boy. Time for you to grow up and grow a pair.

No it is not Racist not one bit racist. Bad taste maybe but not racist.

Michael Brown was a thug that struggled with a cop for his gun and it went off. The gentle giant then ran 30 ft got shot then charged back towards then cop and received some corrective measures for failing to stop charging the cop that lead to to his justified death.


The song, depending which side of the fence you are on can be disgusting or funny entertainment.

Like Ding Dong the witch is dead. is not appealing to witches but fun for all others to sing.
If Bill Burr told this story like the song you would be laughing you ass off.

Bill Burr - Helicopter Rides
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eViS29rF63Y

AS for the room fool of cops not dissenting. How dumb can you be. Why on earth should they be upset?


Why bring up the NY mayor? He is an anti cop fool, elected by fools.

Man up Neutered Boy. Your on the loosing side of reality.

there are a few inaccuracies in this video but over-all..makes a pretty strong point.
our fore-fathers did not exactly agree on the size,powers and authority the federal government should have,quite the opposite see:the federalist papers.

so the statement that the original intent was for a small centralized government is inaccurate.

but the argument over the bill of rights is fairly accurate.
hence the terms "inalienable and god-given".

i think the term indoctrination is used appropriately here.
2nd graders should not be introduced to such ideologies and most certainly not in this fashion.get em while they are young!..reprehensible.

this is ideology vs reality.
this is power vs powerlessness.
this is power abusing young minds to create a submissive and unquestioning attitude towards authority.

while the ideology may be comforting and even noble..it is a delusion when compared to the reality.

a citizen must KNOW their rights in order to fight for them.because power will ALWAYS attempt to curb or outright take those rights away and if they are able to do that (and they HAVE in many cases) then those rights are..in fact..privileges.

the "free speech zones" example is perfect.that was from st louis RNC in 2004 (i think..im recalling from memory).see? they didnt "take" away your right to free speech,they just made you do it -------> over there.

which affectively neutralized any dissent,but hey..you still had your right to free speech,just neutered and ineffectual.

to even call this educational is an insult to teachers.
its indoctrination..pure and simple.

Yo damn right.

But seriously folks,
I care plenty about the 3-4 separate issues that GamerGate supposedly are, but I haven't been wanting to engage in it, because it just seems like a big pile of crap that all gets lumped together

Issues I've seen in it so far:
1) Girl developer sleeps with game journalist - ex boyfriend angry
2) Journalistic Ethics about being a "good ol boys club" but with hippie feminists instead.
3) Women being portrayed as weak in games; male dominated development world/market/gamer culture
4) Abuse against outspoken feminists within the gaming community - death, rape, violence threats etc for various reasons

1 lead into 2, but it doesn't seem to be any meat on that bone, it was just the ramblings of the ex boyfriend, so while we should be vigilant about any journalistic improprieties, it seems like what was revealed was all just personal; and the boyfriend seems to be a bit of a cunt on top of it, so that doesn't help.
3 is probably true, but I wouldn't say it's a general direction. There are certainly games with women being weak, but it's the same with movies. There's room for that kind of games too - they don't all have to be empowering or vice versa - the market can decide.
4 is obviously not alright and the people participating in this should be neutered asap.

I thought maybe it was a language translation thing. 47 hours does seem awfully long. The whole process seemed a bit off. With that much tar, I would think that shaving the dog and then cleaning the tar residue off the bare skin would be a better way to go. The dog wouldn't look good for a long while after that, but it would get that nasty stuff off him (her) faster.

I have a friend who's volunteered time in an animal rescue organization in Thailand that takes in all sorts of animals including dogs, cats, elephants, monkeys, and rabbits, and probably more. She was part of the dog Team and from what I understand, they snip them to stop reproduction, nurse them back to health, don't release them, and don't have much success in finding foster families. The animals get their health back and have a place to stay and people who care about them, but I think it would be better if they could find permanent homes. I think part of the reason that they sometimes can't is that a lot of the dogs become too 'wild' and wouldn't do well out of a pack setting. Can't say that the group in this video follows any of the same routines, but I'm guessing they probably get neutered even if they can't provide ongoing care. That seems pretty common and a good practice with rescue organizations.

Delaware is considered a northern state. Maybe not by you but by others.
And when I lived in Maryland, everyone there seemed to consider it a northern state too. But ok, you don't consider it a northern state. Cool.
(Ask anyone in Boston if he is a "Yankee" and see how that goes!)

But what's your point now? You agree that the Civil War was a "War to preserve the Union, not a Lincoln crusade to end slavery". That's why he did not invade or interfere with the border states. They did not secede. So how is this relevant to the original point about Jon Stewart thinking otherwise and going off on Andrew Napolitano about it? And are you now trying to claim that the north was acting in "self-defense" because of southern attacks on federal forts?


"In 1862, the General Assembly replied to Lincoln's compensated emancipation offer with a resolution stating that, "when the people of Delaware desire to abolish slavery within her borders, they will do so in their own way, having due regard to strict equity." And they furthermore notified the administration that they regarded "any interference from without" as "improper," and a thing to be "harshly repelled.""

The proposal was never put to a vote. It was not tried in other states. And it was not addressed directly to the slave owners but to politicians in the Assembly. No effort was put into it.

Among the tactics employed by the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Danes, and others were slave rebellions, abolitionist campaigns to gain public support for emancipation, election of anti-slavery politicians, encouragement and assistance of runaway slaves, raising private funds to purchase the freedom of slaves, and the use of tax dollars to buy the freedom of slaves.

The most charitable thing I could say is that Lincoln tried but failed to come up with and implement any other way to end slavery but to engage in 'bloodshed and violence' (putting aside that he claimed to not care to end slavery except as a way to get one over on the South).

Still, that only says something about his competency, his "political genius" as some say (or lack of it), but not about whether there were other options available that could have worked without the 620,000 dead and 800,000+ more maimed-or-disfigured-for-life.

Of course, there is no empirical way to 'prove' or 'disprove' that any more than there is any empirical way to 'prove' or 'disprove' that, without two nukes, Japan would have lost the war, or that without the Korean war, the Communists would have taken over the world, or that without the Iraq invasion, Saddam would not have built "weapons of mass destruction" to unleash on the world.

What if 'peaceful secession' would have neutered the federal enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act (which Lincoln strongly supported), creating a flood of runaway slaves that could not have been stopped and would have broken the back of the slave system'?

The Soviet Union collapsed on its own without the US and its allies going into a bloody war against it. Maybe if the US had started a third world war with the USSR, it would have collapsed sooner. But it certainly would not have been worth the 'blood and violence'. And it is far from certain that the 5 years of Civil War accelerated the end of slavery, while it has certainly served to bolster and continue the decades of segregation, discrimination, and abuse that followed.

The first Republican president seems to have set a precedent for later Republican neocons. When faced with a problem ---> go to war.

1st. The state is us, the citizens.
2nd. The government is the state government, an employee of the state, established by the state and for the state. The state government owns no property and has no authority, it only manages our public assets, and acts in our authority.

Those things you mention were changed by protest.
People exercising their 1st amendment right to assemble and petition the government, assembled, and were a royal PITA to a lot of other people.
In time, that forced the hand of those who had been elected to placate those that protested, to get rid of the nuisance.

Since then, the right to assemble has been 'interpreted' as a secondary right, and the right to petition the government is the primary.
This empowered the government to require permits for protests, and subsequently just remove protesters.
Now you can only write a letter asking for change. The right to petition has basically been neutered, by removing the one effective method of coercion that the state [common man] had over the government.

Elections are not democracy.
How you come up with your representative is irrelevant.
Elected, appointed, born, whatever. It's absolutely irrelevant.

Democracy = People's rule.
Representative democracy = People's rule by a representative 3rd party.

The representative is not a leader.
He is an agent obligated to represent (i.e. listen to and obey) his constituents.

So long as a representative is actively representing, then he is executing his office, then the state has democracy.

If the representative goes off and does what he wants, and ignores what the state wants, then the state has no democracy.

We in the U.S. have no "leaders".
We the people are the leaders.
The people we elect are employed by us to represent us, in a government of our creation.

Whether or not the people in government care to do their jobs or not, is a separate issue.

Right now, someone will get elected. Even if they only voted for themselves.
There is no requirement to have a positive rating from the people, in order to get elected.
Regardless who gets elected, they all get paid by the same lobbyists, and pander to the same financial interests.
The only way you get change for the common man, is when it incidentally aligns with what's good for the entrenched interests.

eg. If Obamacare works out in the end. Great. If not, oh well, another 'meh' program that in the end just provides state unemployment labor. Whatever.
Either way, it didn't happen for a love of the common man and his health. It happened because insurance companies were lobbying for it.





I would like to add that "the other" is generally a really poor propaganda based impression.
Every country on earth, it's not as great their media says it is, and it's not as bad as other's media says it is.

Here a cop will shoot a little old lady half a dozen times for picking a fight with a random other person (this just happened locally).
In a crap ton of ex-soviet countries that people love to grimace about 'how bad it is', you can argue with the cops till they let you go. And you don't have to assume they will beat you to a pulp for it.

People's impression of "police state" is what they imagine from movies. A 1984 caricature. But that's not what a police state look like in reality.
It's a place that's generally normal, unimposing, and only time to time when you step on the wrong person's toes, you end up 'going away for a while'.

Here in the U.S., 1 in 18 men is in jail or on parole.
Good luck finding another country that even comes close.
The policing is out of control. Way too much 'getting tough' on irrelevant things that shouldn't even be a bother, let alone be considered crimes.

-scheherazade

Always remember to spay and neuter your youtube personalities, folks!

DUDE!? NEWSFLASH: Most mammals know what to and not to put in their mouths-It's called instinct, and it's served most of us well, including but notwithstanding those of us with bigger brains-Is fishing abuse as well? How about spaying and neutering? Is that eugenics??

(fuck, where's my fucking Ermine, i need the warmth only hide can provide..)

who cares. this planet is full enough. We don't want more unwanted children. Seriously take responsibility. Get your animals spaded and neutered.

Ahh ya big fucking sook, have a cup of concrete and harden the fuck up. You haven't even provided a single link to this mountain of supporting evidence and you're already exhausted? /eyeroll

1. "There are many organisations which have conflicting views, (my Tamaskan is 5 years old, male, un-neutered, and non violent) you happen to support the one that supports your extremely slim argument." <-- Having my "extremely slim" argument supported by the biggest animal protection agency in the US tends to lend it some credibility... Your dismissal of my argument is a dismissal of the ASPCA's similar argument. If you're too pig ignorant to understand that, not much I can do about that.. =)
2. I take it you don't have kids? Or are you one of those sad cunts who never let your kids actually do anything? Life is a risk. Going to the beach is a risk. Going to the park is a risk. Living is a risk.

3. Forced as in "made to give up the bone against her will"... Already explained it, you train them on the "leave it" command on something they are more willing to drop without aggression then migrate them progressively to things that are more likely to get a reaction. Reward good behaviour, punish bad. And before your asshole starts weeping tears of blood about punishment, it's a thwack on the bum with a thong (I guess what yanks call a flip flop). Don't overstress the dog and once you've asserted that you can get them off the bone, let them have it undisturbed.

4. So you're going to pick a position and be too fucking bone idle to bother supporting it with your own research?

5. Many bans are knee jerk reactions to situations rather than considered actions.

6. Yes, you did. Commentary on my parenting (which you know almost nothing about), assuming "force" meant something rather than clarifying. Your entire tone is bombastic and condescending and it's not just to me. Everyone else in the thread that has disagreed with you has been dished up a serve of your sneering lip.

7. Expert evidence that is so freely available you can't even cite one example. So yeah, you're done. Dismissed. ; )

There are many organisations which have conflicting views, (my Tamaskan is 5 years old, male, un-neutered, and non violent) you happen to support the one that supports your extremely slim argument. I support the testimonies of people who deal, on a daily basis, with the terrible effects these breeds can have. Why do you think so many countries ban fighting dogs? Don't you think they have studied all the literature? Your 3 year old is very advanced for his age knowing how to control a fighting breed, how did you get the dog to respect a 3 year olds authority? I suspect, as you did for yourself, with force. You are certainly not a responsible person taking such a risk with your child in allowing the child to take a bone off such an animal. You cannot be 100% sure it will not react, yet you are incomprehensibly willing to take that risk. Regardless of the breed, no one in their right mind would risk their child in such a cavalier fashion. I could point you in the direction of myriad reports and videos on the dangers of fighting breeds but, obviously, it would be a waste of time. I wish you good luck with your child, and sincerely hope you do not live to regret your words.