Holy crap. He got triple killed! The gods definitely wanted him dead and were taking no chances. Looked to me like he was hit by both cars and a building.

Want answers? Then LISTEN. Stop believing in your false Republican GODS and grant the possibility they don't know any more than the other party.

Saint Reagan once said he'd give up a dozen things to get one thing he thought was needed. Seemly that is now a sin in the eyes of the GOP. That's one major problem in our politics. No compromise or acknowledgment that any solution has to include both parties.

Can't tango if the Red only wants to sit on their asses.* Tell me I am wrong.

Your words are like sour milk. Uttered out, then left to spoil in the light of actuality.


* "It's true hard work never killed anybody, but I figure, why take the chance?" (Gridiron Dinner on April 22, 1987) Also Ronnie, so maybe that's the only message the GOP molasses asses listen to.

rather than "harassing for fun", is it possible that the Orca pod's under stress, so taking a chance with non-traditional prey?

The ACA was passed on party lines, it was going to be screwed up because of that no matter what. What pisses me off about it is that instead of trying to come up with a better solution, the Democrats rammed that fucker through. I can only assume it is because for a brief period they had control of the legislative and executive branches all at the same time. So rather than take a chance to fix it, they figured if they were going to get anything they might as well get it in place.

Obama inherited the situation in the ME. Bush fucked up royally. Obama just took a bad situation and made it worse. Admittedly, there were other fingers in the pie also, but he is still culpable.

The rules for the drone war were decided by Obama's administration. Regardless of what Bush did before, that lays 100% on Obama and his team. Some good articles to read:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/president-obamas-weak-defense-of-his-record-on-drone-strikes/511454/

https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/opinion/bergen-obama-drone/index.html

https://www.propublica.org/series/drones

I was wrong once.

1) You only need to be correct about ONE thing 100% of the time.

2) When you lose the one you love and suffer their loss, you will feel you did the wrong thing. Feeling tricked. You will feel VERY ALONE. This is not where love was supposed to take you. You will be left with one decision. Do you continue to love knowing you will be sending the people you've loved and who love you, into the same hell you are stuck in or do you take the chance that those you love can band together with all those who chose to love you and them?

3) You will only need to make one decision to get beyond the hell and grief that love delivered you into.

The bleeding hearts and artists are waiting for you.

Love is all you need. -Beatles

The blacksmith and the artist
Reflect it in their art
They forge their creativity
Closer to the heart
Yeah, it's closer to the heart -Rush

--------

Thank you for breaking my heart
Thank you for tearing me apart
Now I've a strong, strong heart
Thank you for breaking my heart -John Charles Reynolds / Sinead O'connor



As far as the guy with the poop, yeah, I think you're right.

I'm not generally into needless violence, but they both looked so damned happy and were clearly both willing to take a chance of being knocked out. The whole scene is so pressureless and so full of smiling, relaxed people, that none of this even seemed violent to me.

There's a certain type of person, often they'll be MMA practitioners, who just don't care about being knocked out, at all. Getting put to sleep is only a problem to them if you shit your pants while you're out. And from what i understand, it's seen as somehow a little unfair to mock someone for it, unless they were acting like a tough guy beforehand.

I think your expectations would not be met. You're forgetting that AT LEAST 1/4 of Americans are 'mentally challenged', expecting them as a group to drive rationally or with caution versus wrecking will lead to accidents 100% of the time.
Even doing the right thing and putting warning of work ahead before the crest wouldn't stop all the accidents, but it would put the fault 100% on the stupid drivers rather than share it with them.
Because they were unsafe, so at least partly at fault, they'll probably just pay for the cars and injuries rather than taking their chances and spending far more fighting them in court.

Actually, your anecdote is slightly off. This election wasn't a choice between your responsibilities and a vacation, it was a choice between sitting in your dead end job, or taking a chance that you actually might be good at scavenging apocalyptic wastelands.

Alfred J. Pennyworth once said, "Some men just want to see the 1% infested Federal Government burn."

At least I think that's what he said.

"As flawed as our science may be, it is far and away more reliable than any other way of 'knowing' that we have."

I'm going to be polite and assume you have narcolepsy and just happen to fall asleep during the bits that challenge your own viewpoint.

The theory about global warming may yet prove to be untrue - that i cannot deny; some other as yet unknown factor may be found. But the likelihood that thousands of scientists have p-hacked and fudged their way to a false positive in this case is more like 10 sigma.

In the past I have always told you - do not listen to 'a' scientist because one scientist could be a liar. Listen to many, many scientists.

Global warming isn't a pop-science article one small group put together, nor is this video the only argument you need to deny the theories of gravity, relativity or the spherical earth. Perhaps the tinfoil hat was rustling during the important final part of the video but if the alternative method of deduction is 'some crap bob heard on youtube' then I think i'll take my chances with the scientists.

I've a number of thoughts here...
1. There's never a perfect candidate so you're always picking the least sucky at some level.
2. I voted for Bernie in the primaries and he's been able to pull Hillary far to the left in her words. Assuming she gets elected, we'll see what her actions bring.
3. I live in a state that is safely Democrat, but with trump I don't want to take any chances and he should be overwhelmingly defeated so people like him knows those ideas are rejected and also the rest of the world knows we reject those ideas.
4. If the other candidate sucks more (IMHO) and gets elected that's tolerable, but I'm pretty fearful of what would happen if trump is elected. Or in other words, he's a special case that isn't just the other person is suckier.
5. I agree with your thought in general, but picking alternative party candidates is the equivalent of voting for the person that's least like what you prefer when you have a two dominant party system. If the U.S. had say 6 or 7 parties, I think we'd be better off.

I have an admitted bias towards Sanders, but the fact he leads by larger numbers in all polls against Trump, even Fox's poll, I think speaks volumes about where the voting public is at. They want an outsider.

If they think that Trump's, apparent fascism will turn voters to Hilary, they are mis-reading the voting public. What is more likely to happen is voter apathy, especially among independent voters if there's even a hint of real controversy coming out just in time for the general election. Democratic turn out keeps going down, so they can't count on their base to make it up. Also, Trump has already started to change his tone, to bring down his rhetoric to appeal to the general populous. If they think they'll stick a flip-flop label to him, it won't stick. Trump is on a whole other level in the public mind for some reason.

This election is too important to let the Republicans win and I don't know if they get that or don't care because Trump has donated tons in the past to them so they are willing to take a chance with him in. We'll lose what little respect in the world that we managed to gain since Bush's wars that Obama built back up. We'll lose our bids for the Olympics and World Cup, both of which are heavily in our favor at the moment, but a Trump presidency, at least at current rhetoric levels, would turn the voting committees off, and might turn them off even if he tones the no Muslims can visit, bit off. The very perception of hate in this nation will turn them off vetting us when there are other qualified bids. Then there's the Supreme Court vacancy, it would be great to throw back the fact they wouldn't vet the moderate they asked for by name, and have a liberal as a President and take back over the Senate in one election and get a far more liberal nominee passed, at the going rate we may continue to have a court leaning to the right if Trump wins.

Would Sanders get to push much of any of his agenda? No. The Republicans and even many Democrats would push back. Congress will continue to be deadlocked against the President like it is against Obama, perhaps to even higher levels. But it will move the conversation. The fact that he wins period would show where the American public actually wants to go.

I'm seriously concerned about what's going on. It's like they want to give the presidency to Trump.

Steve Irwin kept a safe distance from nature too, sometimes you get unlucky. The more times you take your chances the more opportunity to roll snake eyes and get the bad end of things.

That's just the nature of battle, there is no magic bullet weapon. Everything has some weakness. That's why there are so many variations working together. Tanks being support by infantry, infantry being supported by air, and so on. Light vehicles, heavy vehicles. Every aspect is covered. They are all made for different reasons and nothing is left to chance.
It was also a very unlikely hypothetical situation. A squadron wouldn't have to "drop everything and run in". They would be assigned as over-watch or what used to be known as top cover. Which is done in every section of the armed forces. From planes to infantry.

The F-35 is faster, and that is what matters in a beyond visual range combat. As soon as a missile is launched from up to 100KMs away, you will be "running away" because you don't want to take the chance that your ECM and Chaff might have not been effective. You will use every tool available to keep you alive, and one of the best ways is to drag out the enemy missile long enough for it to run out of energy before it can reach you. Since a snaking path is longer than a straight line, the enemy missile will have to fly further.

There really aren't any compromises except for the acceleration and maneuverability which I mentioned in my response to Newt is not really relevant. The other reason is that the F-16 is already at the physical limits of acceleration and maneuverability. Any more and the pilot would die. So the key is senors, weapons and stealth. Unless of course we start using fighter drones as instead of pilots. Then you could probably get away with some additional performance. But otherwise human piloted plane performance was already maxed in the 70s.

"life on the line", i say OH please, as if he didn't know EXACTLY how far was a safe distance. He was more than twice as far as the bullet fell to the bottom (bullet fell at 14 bars of the 30 where he was) And at the end he acts all relieved as if he had been taking a chance. BOOOOO

I feel like if this video taught you something you didn't know, you should probably just jump right to step 2, then maybe later come back to step 1 once you've matured. Even if that woman is 'the one', you should want to be her 'one' as well, and you should hope your 'one' has better standards than an insecure, naïve, unworldly, 'too scared to take a chance' boy....right?

It's a little scary to me to think that there might be a large audience over 18 years old that this could help.