griefing can mean any number of things, real or imagined. The word is misused about as often as the word troll.

But in a general sense, it tends to mean anyone who deliberately makes the game unfun or unplayable for other players. Elite players going after noobs exclusively for the easy win, for example. It doesn't necessarily mean that someone is breaking rules or exploiting a bug, but since designers usually try to eliminate griefing as much as possible, it often gets associated with rule breaking or exploits.

And I'm sure bob can demonstrate how one can objectively measure "believing in America"

Let me guess, it involves....the gut?

good ole reliable truthiness.

Poor bob, no one is going to read your copy/paste

Hey bob, you're on TV! Gratz!

*promote

Poor bob, comprehension always has been a problem for you.

Feel so bad for you. Hope you can get some therapy thanks to our much improved medical care.

get that from Jon Oliver's bit last night?

welcome to the new era of television....not on television

Poor bob, clearly didn't watch the video.

Read the books!

it's all about interpretation. Interpretation has huge ramifications. When SCOTUS rule that gay marriage was legal, it was under the premise that gay marriage fell under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. SCOTUS didn't make any new laws, they just interpreted existing ones.

Same thing with the 2nd amendment. It hasn't changed at all, since it was put into effect, but legal battles over interpretation rage today and will continue to rage probably long after we're all dead.

Interpretation tends to fall along the lines of whatever your politics and personal biases are.

If everything was settled, we wouldn't need courts and majority opinions change all the time. It's a rather pesky aspect of this thing we call humanity and civilization.

Yeah, it could be huge. I've been saying for a long time that things are slowly shifting more to the left. Scary to think it might actually hit a tipping point.

Way too soon to celebrate though. Gov't isn't designed to change on a dime, and Dems aren't saints either, they're just the lesser of two evils. Reps will lash out more and more the further out of power they get and it's niave to think that some of the desperate ones with nothing left to lose won't turn to violence like the Oathkeepers and the other wannabes.

The gov't will always have varying degrees of "business" when it comes to things like this. And it will always change, because of varying interests. Private industry is largely responsible for why marijuana is illegal now. So you can't really treat gov't as this outside, independent authority, because it's going to respond according to enough voters or through lobbyists who are, effectively, us. Gov't is just caught in the middle between those various forces.

Shit changes though. Just look at cigarette smoking. Cigarettes used to be pretty harmless, until business got ahold of it and added all sorts of shit to it. Not only that, but it really wasn't that long ago that you pretty much had to smoke if you wanted to be socially accepted. Now the tables have turned. Smokers are pretty much shamed now. If you want to blame gov't for that, fine, but again, as I said before, we are the gov't. either through votes or through lobbyist influence.

You can look back at past gov't decisions and make judgements, sure, but that's hindsight. There's always going to be this dynamic of "Gov't should regulate X, but gov't shouldn't regulate Y" and every person has a funny way of evaluating such things and they don't always reflect reality, but some do.

But even when something is legalized like marijuana, there's always going to be some sort of regulation, like now, it's being regulated through taxation. Cigarette taxation is also a thing. A bartender acts like a regulator when they cut you off from drinking. Don't like it? don't drink there then.

Wiig is actually pretty fly with the short hair.

yeah, but unless you're going to go to the level of attempting to ban alcohol and cigarettes and all the other things that are demonstrably harmful when overdone, there's nothing wrong with what Bill is doing here.

The problem is, Maher is pretty much one of the more vocal spokespeople for legalized marijuana. He's only reinforcing the people who were already supportive. Obviously by the reaction of the Jeb supporter lady, she wasn't convinced or swayed.

One of the things that helped legalization gain strides was the recession. Even conservatives were considering legalizing and taxing it if only to help the budget. Now that the recession is effectively over. That steals some of the urgency away and now they can go back to being against it for ideological reasons, where pragmatism isn't needed as much.

So we need to start publicizing the financial benefits of legalization. It's my understanding that Colorado has been getting tons of new revenue because of legalization, but for some reason, that's not advertised more. Or showing things that dispel the usual myths about marijuana that people have been clinging to for decades.