You would think, wouldn't you, that they would be diametrically opposed.

Well it turns out that esjews and islamists both, for example, despise sex and sexuality, differing only in whose sexuality they denigrate the most. They do both believe that women's bodies in particular are disgusting and ought to be covered at all times - certainly this is the impression you receive from esjew film and videogame critiques. They both believe that women are inferior to men and need to be protected from normal social experience - for the islamist this takes the form of, you know, chaining them in a cupboard and shouting verses from the Qur'an at them; for the esjew the creation of safe spaces and online bubbles where they can be protected from white patriarchal oppression, consequences, and new ideas.

They're equally fond of the lie that any opposition to their fanaticism is evidence of bigotry.

And of course they both believe that any dissent from their worthless ideologies should be forcibly silenced.

Turns out regressive belief systems have a lot in common.


I say this all, by the way, as the leftest of lefties. Liberals don't censor. Liberals don't attack men for being men, or white people for being white, or cis het whatever for whatever, and they don't team up with fascists just because they're brown-skinned fascists.

Esjews aren't lefties; they're a shit the left took on the carpet and haven't cleaned up yet.

Ha Ha! I played this with my friends in Junior High for 2 semesters. All times on campus were fair play, and this was the reason we called all teachers the Gestapo throughout High School as well, so we would avoid getting caught. Most of our classmates not in-the-know thought we held some animosity toward "the Man".

Alas, no one was as clever enough to employ mercury switches in our games.

Impressive ...most impressive.

(my favorite quote of all time)

This is one of my all-time favourite books, but I have to disagree with @AeroMechanical.

There's very little in the way of exposition in this book. It treats you like an adult and expects that you have at least an inkling of various world religions/mythologies.

For example, the always terrifying Peter Stromare (the guy with the hammer) plays Czernobog. Don't know who that is? Go look it up, 'cos Gaiman isn't bothered telling you.

So far, this looks amazing. My only (very minor) criticism is the bizarre decision to have Ian McShane clean shaven (especially since Ian McShane can rock a beard like nobodies business!) when Mr Wednesday is described as having a beard.

I am really, really excited for this.

*quality

You're right but the advantage Corbyn has is that we don't have a Trump character. Not only has Farage quit, Boris sunk his own career in a party of backstabbers, but we had our personality politics moment and I think people are past it.

The papers won't tell you that; our 8 billionaires will pull out every stop to convince the great unwashed that he's dangerous. The papers will tell you every day right up until a general election that he will lead Labour into electoral oblivion, even as thousands pack out halls in unprecedented showings of support in northern "racist" (according to MSM) towns. They'll tell you they won't win from UKIP and be out of power for 20 years.

I'm not saying he WILL win a GE because the playing field is not level, the game is not fair. Boundary changes will play right into Tory hands and the character assassinations will only increase, but if ANYONE has a chance of winning for Labour it's Corbyn. Owen Smith hasn't a hope in hell of getting MORE votes than Corbyn would, at an election.

The only way to win is by going with Corbyn but I fear that there are influential ex and current MPs who are sabotaging the campaign because this wave of populism and people power would not be beneficial to their future prosperity.

We are living in a post-truth world right now, with journalistic integrity at an all time low. A window was broken in the stairwell of a building where a Corbyn-Labour rival has an office, and it was splashed all over the news that it was a violent, thuggish Corbyn supporter just like they all are. There was no evidence and they even lied about the facts, which has been reported on twitter and by smaller news sources, but the damage is already done, throw enough shit and some of it will stick.

As Lyndon Johnson says - I know it didn't happen, but let's make the bastard deny it. Oh and apologies for shameless derailment.

On topic:
Is Schieffer making the usual mistake here? "It's not the left she needs to worry about, it's the middle." Taking the left for granted is what happened to Labour in the last 10-15 years and seen their support die pre-Corbyn. Dunno how it is in USA but over here the left have had to hold their noses and vote for a candidate who doesn't represent them at all and they're getting sick of it. So thanks to the internet when they finally see the cracks forming they recoil in horror at how they've been undermined from the inside from day one; why should they ever vote for that again?

I disagree completely that a militia that follows basic regulations is somehow an agent of and under the direction of the government that makes those regulations, that's nutty and paranoid thinking. "Regulation" does not mean 'operates at the discretion of' or 'under the sole direction of' or even 'operates only in ways the government supports'. It means there are basic rules to follow to be in compliance with the law. Your characterization is silly on it's face, and totally wrong IMO.

In order for the 2nd amendment to not be moot, some people in regulated (self regulation is not any regulation, BTW) militias (it's members thereafter known as "the people") would have to be allowed to keep and bear arms, but not necessarily let individuals keep them at home, one 'regulation' could easily be that the arms must remain in the firm custody of the militia at all times, not be taken home by members, and not used outside militia activities. Again, I find your characterization silly.

HILARIOUS. You are now saying only NON regulated militias have a right to keep and bear arms, contrary to the exact words of the document?! Now who wants to re-write the law?!? ;-)

"Well regulated" is one of those terms that's left to the Judicial to define since they didn't define it in the document. Sorry. That makes your argument moot.

The word "People" denies the individual. If the rights are only secured for "people", they are not secured for a single "person". Two different words.

Again, I disagree 100% with your entire premise.

"So, we've established that for the 2nd to not be moot, only "non-government-regulated militias" can be in the set of 'well regulated militia'."

No, only in your silly argument have you established that to yourself. I do not concede at all, and disagree with every point of your premise.

I grow weary of this. I get your point. I strongly disagree. Enough said.

Well, they aren't loud enough about it to be heard outside their insulated circle. Usually something like that would make national news and/or have commercials deriding it and protests against it sprout up any place it's an issue. That I haven't heard about it makes me believe it's as I described and not JUST about financial insolvency, but is about true mental incapacity. EDIT: If you have an instance where pure financial issues caused someone to have their firearms removed that you can point me to, I'll certainly read it.

Proper training would certainly eliminate people shooting themselves with an 'unloaded' gun, because proper training teaches you to consider ANY gun loaded at all times.

I eliminated the possibility of my kids getting hold of my guns by not having any. Problem solved! As long as my doors are locked (which they nearly always are), my firearms are under lock and key. ;-)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/opinion/campaign-stops/a-week-for-all-time.html?emc=edit_th_20160617&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=40977923

Golden quote:
"In this week of trial and tragedy, Trump showed us how he would govern — by fear, by intimidation, by lies, by turning American against American, by exhibiting all the empathy of a sociopath. Seal this week. Put it in a time capsule. Teach it. History will remember. But come November, will we?"

By the way, I've stayed out of this extremely boring back and forth. There was nothing to be gained by weighing in. It finally has come to a blessed end, just as this op-ed was published in the New York Times.

So I'll say it again, since this video is my contribution to the Sift and I am claiming final word. I may not be accorded it, but I am claiming it.

It is a stone hard fact that eligible does not equal fit. A brain-damaged accident victim with the right birth certificate, with the right age, is eligible to be president. That person is not fit to be president. This is logic. It just is. You can ignore the crystalline beauty of the fact of this analogy and have a fine time talking around it. Doesn't change the fact that Ken Burns is right, Timothy Egan is right, Mitt Romney, both Bushes, Meg Whitman, and the Republican strategist who is quoted in this op-ed are all right.

Trump is unfit for the Presidency.

They should certainly be required to park before using their phones for ANY reason. They can't drive drunk, so why could they commit another illegal act that's just as dangerous? That's INSANE.

What a complete liar and douchebag. Name and address of the officer please. I think he needs to be honked at at all times of day and night.

They have the evidence now, they don't need a complaint. He needs to be reprimanded, ticketed, have his license removed for dangerous driving (parking in the street to scream at someone) and road rage, and then be harassed and ridiculed until he quits. This is why cops get shot by random people now...and why it will happen again, some of them deserve it.

It seems really strange from an outside perspective. It isn't all that long ago - at least in my memory - when certain types of American were almost celebrating that they were willing to torture and maim people if they 'got their answers'. Even if some of those people were innocent, it was an acceptable price to pay.

When Ed Snowden came out and told us that our governments were spying on us, trawling through our data and tracking our entire history online and in reality through surveillance cameras. The majority of America was against Snowden (in all the polls I've seen) - in any other day he would have been given the Nobel peace prize and celebrated as an all-time hero that stood up to impossible odds just to give the human race full disclosure on their 'freedom'. That's the stuff of legend, the stuff that people should be talking about in 1000 years time like we talk about Genghis Khan or something. Instead he was treated like a traitor and forced to live in exile in Russia because it was the only country that wouldn't hand him over to the torturing, controlling, law-breaking bastards he'd just made to look very stupid..... Gee, I wonder why he didn't want to face "criminal proceedings"? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear - except if you cross the wrong people?

Not too long ago freedom WAS an acceptable sacrifice for security.

When a lunatic got hold of an automatic rifle, killed 50 people and injured another 50, the prevailing argument seems to be "Hey, hey, let's not over react here, we can't sacrifice our freedom because of one terrorist act."

The only difference in this situation is that it isn't about "other people's" freedom and "my security" any more. It is about "my" freedom and "other people's" security.

You probably weren't one of those people, but I think it's fair to preface my comment with that contradiction.

I accept you have a decent point in this case; people shouldn't lose their freedom because the FBI made a mistake. But that's not the question being asked, let's talk about the general case rather than this specific one. The question is does legislation exist that will make mass shootings less common in the US? And I think the answer is yes, but I also think that culture is the biggest factor, not just access to guns.

As an example of what I mean - what if there were legislation that limited his ability to get hold of the weapon, registered that he had expressed an interest with the FBI who could then investigate based on his history? And maybe some other legislation could make it harder in general for him to just go and borrow one of his friends', or steal one from a local lax firing range, or whatever other illegal means exist to get hold of one.... perhaps because there were less in circulation, or those that were in circulation were more stringently secured?

At the end of the day it might not stop him getting hold of one, but it might make it harder and he might have second thoughts or make a mistake and be caught if it were harder. Hell, at least then the families of the dead would be able to say that a CRIME was committed when this fucking lunatic who had been under investigation was allowed to get access to a weapon that could so easily kill or maim a hundred people.

'Allo 'Allo is one of my all time favourite comedies.

*promote the greatest of all time

No, I actually try hard to not read ANY biased stuff on either side, since it's all time wasting propaganda with an agenda...but I understand why you might think that. That does mean I have not read much from Clinton's camp either, so it's no surprise I missed it.

Yes, I agree that many charges thrown don't hold water, but some do, some might, and many more appear to because of her dismissive way of addressing concerns. I do push back when I hear claims against her that are pure fantasy, I'm not a Sanders fan AND a lie fan, I'm a Sanders fan because I hate lies, even when they help my cause.
BUT
Because most people don't give her that much, it doesn't matter what reality is, she's thoroughly painted as a dishonest self serving windsock, and nothing is going to change that perception for the masses, and it's the perception that matters come election day. You can be sure the worst smear campaign ever is coming at her, and she can't stand up to it by being dismissive. She's already tied for most disliked candidate EVER!

No, I think they should go to a contested convention and calmly debate who is the better candidate to win, and nominate that candidate, like they normally would. I just think that candidate is obvious, and it's not the one the DNC is going to let win.
(EDIT: There's a reason that the person who's 1 delegate ahead doesn't just 'win', because that person might be unelectable even if they're the favorite. That's why the threshold for victory is way more than 1/2 +1)

I'm doing my best, by contradicting anyone who says it's over. It's not an easy road, but there is a road to his victory, and an easier road to that debate on who's better to both win, and to serve the voters. I contend that both answers are Sanders.

Yes, I think the world is in horrendous shape on nearly every front, and I want it to be different....I want it, and us, to be better. I think everyone should. If you don't continuously try to be better, you undoubtedly are getting worse.
I think of myself as a realist idealist. I want people to try to do the right thing, but I understand that not only can all people not agree what that right thing is, but that it's actually not the same for everyone, and sometimes one person's 'right thing' denies another person's 'right thing'.
I don't look for purity, but when it's presented, I don't turn away either. Purity is a rare commodity, one that should be cherished if found. I see it in Sanders.

Your video, Rapping, deconstructed: The best rhymers of all time, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Calling it now, this will be a flashy, expensive and utterly nonsensical clusterfuck.

Considering the actual game's storyline makes so little sense, the chances of a video game movie adaptation (probably the most reliably terrible movie genre of all time) improving upon that are next to none.