The difference between smoking and say, drinking alcohol or eating unhealthy food, is that I can drink alcohol or eat cheeseburgers all day and I'm really harming no-one but myself.

"Ah, but people drive drunk and get in fights and do stupid things and cause all sorts of trouble"
Agreed, and we have laws against all those things. If you get drunk and kill someone, off to jail with you.

"Yes, but fat people are an enormous cost on the health system"
This is hard to discuss without going into the whole healthcare mess in the US, but as a broad point, it's nigh impossible to legislate against unhealthy behaviours to ones self. Where do you stop? Eating meat? Salt? Not exercising enough? What about people with disabilities?

But smoking? That directly and provably harms OTHER people in the same environment as you and they really have no recourse. If I walked into a public square swinging a sword around, it's not reasonable to say other people should just get out of my way.

So ultimately, as much as I dislike government legislating what you do to yourself (read my post history, I'm very pro-drug), I am ok with legislating that you cannot do something that harms other people in a public place.

Hell, I'd go further. I'm ok with government legislating that you can't smoke in your own home if, for example, you have kids. They didn't ask to live there, and it was your decision to have them, so sorry, no smoking for you.

And yeah, I'd say the same about alcohol. If your drinking is harming your children, then maybe you shouldn't have kids anymore.

@newtboy

"There is no publicly available PROOF that Trump himself colluded to steal the election....yet."

and when i see actual proof i shall adjust my opinion accordingly.

seymour hersh was the journalist who debunked and exposed the fabricated narrative of the assad regime using sarin gas against the syrian people.

that was in 2013.

and i think you need to differentiate between an institution and an individual.
there have been individual analysts who have come out and openly spoken against the current narratives being put forth by their respective intelligence institutions.

not trying to be a dick here,but i think you are painting with too broad a brush.

we actually agree FAR more than disagree.
the difference is i am demanding evidence not politically motivated speculation by agencies who have proven themselves to be extremely deceitful when it serves their interests.

and i refuse to recognize a corporate media outlet which puts profit above all else as a credible "news" source simply because it appeals to my dislike and disgust at our current sitting president.

james o'keefe is a slimeball,and breitbart a rag that appeals to the most base,and biased of us,but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

and to even attempt to give either any validity or credence is akin to accepting a big giant bowl of feces simply because it smells a tad less worse than the other.

still two bowls of shit to chose from....and i refuse both.

so when you say you disagree with me,you really don't.
you are just accepting that "less" smelly bowl of shit.

and hey,you may have chosen correctly,and it may all be true.
i will be the first to congratulate you on being right.

and then they will impeach trump,and then we all get to enjoy president mike pence.

now think on THAT little nugget for awhile.
good luck sleeping.....

Yeah... i just really, really wish it didn't have Gosling in it. It's not that i dislike the man, it's just that i can only ever see him as ryan gosling rather than the character he's playing. I think he's a terrible choice for such a seminal film title, but i'll be pleased if this is the exception to the rule.

I think he had one single expression on his face for the entire trailer, including the behind the scenes interview...

Thanks. It briefly made me forget how much I dislike the original they're covering

There's a pretty big gap between dumb as a sack of hammers nonsense like Big Bang and 2.5 men (both created by the same guy, I think) and something like It's Always Sunny or Breaking Bad.

I'm not saying you're wrong to dislike Breading Bad or It's Always Sunny (I thought BB was great, but It's Always Sunny never really grabbed me), just that they're not really in the same category.

It's just kinda like saying "I don't really like pop music. I don't like Lady Gaga; she's like Katy Perry or Pink Floyd. And I tried to get into Led Zeppelin, but the first album sucked".

According to your definition being against something is a phobia.

I hate hot dogs . Do I have a phobia of hot dogs or can I just not lit them?

GOD says gay is wrong. It is a sin. I am not afraid of gays. I don't dislike gays. Knowing right from wrong is not a phobia.

A preacher standing on truth is good. HE is a bit overboard on his delivery but still he is correct.

Cheating on your spouse is a sin. Wrong is Wrong. Same thing.
Same cheese different box.

If he was their boss, it would still be a douchebag, insecure, abusive move to just shove them aside....
.....but he's NOT their boss.....
..making this a pure dick move by a little cry baby that has to be front and center at all times or he throws a tantrum, a dick move meant to disrespect other diplomats and by extension expose his total lack of respect for any non American country.
This is not how you get others to work with you....which is his job.
Fostering dislike and disrespect between yourself and those you must negotiate with is just plain dumb.
Trump is dumb, and not a good negotiator (before you cry "but he's rich", prove it, because he's completely refused to prove he has 2 nickels to rub together....and before you cry "but he's a great businessman" most of his negotiations are actually done by others, to the extent that he doesn't have a clue what's in many/most of the contracts he signs, according to his own sworn testimony, making him the dumbest kind of negotiator and businessman possible).

Boss Trump....yep, like a boss....like this boss.

I really dislike marinades. I want the steak. Pure. Simple.

I like Ribeye, but there ends up being so much thick fat cut to the side, that I feel I got ripped off, and my 12 oz steak is basically an 8 oz worth of edible meat, while the New York Strip gives more meat for the buck, and if done properly is normally good enough.

how did this thread steer into climate change waters?
heh...god i love this site,and i love all you fuckers as well!

i don't really understand the rehashing of the election,trump is president.it is a done deal.

which is probably why i am struggling with the hillary diehards.politics is not a binary equation,so stop acting like it IS,and for the love of god stop with the condescension directed at people who did not vote YOUR way.ya'all are acting like we are your wayward dog who just took a giant dump on your carpet.

just LOOK at what you have done! LOOK at it! bad dog..baaaad dog.

@Stormsinger and @MilkmanDan were kind enough to share who they voted for,but they should not be put in a position to defend their vote.their vote,their choice and their right.

you may disagree,and that is fine,but to place all the blame on them,and their "like-minded compatriots" is arrogant,presumptuous and condescending.the reason hillary lost is not simply due to a few small holdouts.there are a myriad of reasons,and in my opinion,hillary should take most of the blame.

and what is this purity test @bareboards2 ?
do you mean a person standing by their principles?
remaining steadfast in their moral values?
showing us all that they would rather lose,than give up one ounce of integrity?

are you seriously criticizing people for holding to their own standards of morality and decency?

politics is not binary,there a many mitigating factors and political affilliation is only one aspect.

i have seen friends who voted for trump,and were extremely vocal about their support in the run up to election day,only to become eerily silent the further we got into trumps presidency.many of these people had voted for obama..TWICE..they wanted change.were desperate for change,and now they are finding out,that change may not be what they were expecting.

because the trump presidency is going to one helluva horror show,but there are also positives to consider.it is not a total loss.

i have the seen the very same people who have ridiculed and berated fundamentalist christians for being ideologically rigid,and philosophically immovable.turn around and express the exact same rigidity,and binary thought processes when it comes to their girl hillary clinton.

i was talking the other day with a man i highly respect and admire,who flippantly and casually called me a racist.
my crime?
i had the audacity to criticize obama.
which he doubled down and accused me of being sexist for not supporting hillary,and being critical of her as well.

how is this NOT ideological rigidity?
that to critically examine two prominent public figures automatically equates to:racism and sexism.

this is the metric that i see so many hillary supporters use when dealing with someone that they may disagree.this is a cheap,ill thought and ultimately WEAK counter to valid criticisms.

at what point do hillary supporters stop labeling other people the most vile of terms,simply because they did not step into line with THEIR thinking,and begin to examine the very REAL problems that both the hillary campaign,and the DNC,created for themselves?

or is everybody simply a racist and sexist?
that's it..no discussion.

this is akin to the fundamentalist christian labeling anybody who disagrees with their religion,or has brought up solid criticisms,as being an agent of satan.

" i do not like what you are saying about hillary,so therefore you must be a sexist".

the easiest,and most human,thing we do when faced with information and/or criticism that is in direct opposition to our long held beliefs.is to demonize the person making those claims,and therefore silence any further disruption to our own subjective belief system.

so when i talk about "insulated bubbles",and "echo chambers".that right there is what i am referring to,and it is dangerous.

i refuse to judge anybody on how they voted.they had their reasons,and i may even disagree with those reasons,but they have a right to their vote and who am i to judge them?

rehashing the election,or assigning blame based on ideological differences,accomplishes nothing.the REAL work starts now.trump is in office,and he is gearing up to be an unmitigated disaster.

so get involved.head to your next town hall meeting and speak your piece.start to connect with the political movements in your area and start to put pressure on your local representative.

i think we can all agree that trump is awful on so many levels,but to witness the american people become so politically engaged,so politically active,more active than they have been in decades.it really is inspiring,and all this is due to trump.

if hillary had won,would we see the same kind of newly energized,and politically active public?

i don't think so.

so let us stop with the rehashing.
stop with the blaming.
and get off our asses,step outside our own little,insulated echo chamber and start to engage.

don't know how to step outside your own bubble?
there is an app for that:
https://videosift.com/video/it-is-time-to-pop-your-social-media-echo-chamber-bubble

*oh,and even though i may have alluded to who i voted for.let me state clearly that i voted for hillary.i stick by my dislike of the "lesser of two evils" but come on...trump in the white house?

yeeesh....

I appreciate your argument, but I don't share your alarm.

Displaced by sea level rise (which would be a gradual thing, but I agree very serious), combined with droughts/floods might potentially fall under "decimation". But only, I think, to the historical definition of 10% dead. Include wars resulting from territory and resource squabbles (should that count as fallout of climate change?), and it could be (much) worse. But still not on a 4-year timescale.

Second, if we're already "way past the tipping point", it logically follows that blame for that can't really be laid on Trump. His policies can certainly make things worse, but I think that 4 years of terrible climate policy in ONE country on Earth (granted, a country with a lot of influence) simply aren't going to be catastrophically, drastically worse than 4 years of magically ideal climate policy (even in a hypothetical scenario where Nader or Stein or Clinton or whatever ideal person was president and could dictate perfect climate policy without being filtered by congress).


So to answer your question, basically no, I don't think that "raising our emission levels exponentially while advocating closed borders will have an irreversible negative effect on the planet and humanity."

One, "exponentially" is an exaggeration. US emissions under Trump won't be an order of magnitude higher than they were under Obama, or would have been under Clinton. In the range of 10% to 50% higher seems well possible, but 100% higher (double) would be next to impossible. Worse, yes. Exponentially worse, no.

Two, "irreversible" is a word I would hesitate to use because it carries an implication that there is some magic bullet to immediately fix things. If a plague wiped humanity off the face of the Earth tomorrow, it would take some time for climate to adjust to pre-industrial levels. Like you said, it might take 25-50 years before things even could start getting better. But eventually, it could be mostly like we were never here. Some things about climate would never be the same, but in broad terms, things could get back to "normal" eventually.

On the other hand, if the plague wipes us all out on the last day of Trump's 4 years in office, it might take longer for that adjustment to happen. But not by a comparatively massive margin. So that's why I dislike "irreversible"; depending on what timescale you are referencing things are either already irreversible, or pretty close to a statistical wash (what's another 4 years in a recovery timeline of 250 years, or 100 in 10000?), or not worth worrying about at all (on a geological timescale that doesn't care 2 cents about things like species extinctions). Does that make sense?

Finally, "negative effect on the planet and humanity" is something that I totally agree with. And that negative effect will be real and significant. But I don't think that the walking disaster that is Trump will make things inescapably, horrifically worse. Not enough worse that it makes a persuasive argument to me that I should have voted for Clinton (again, I didn't vote for Trump, but I didn't vote for Clinton either).

I dunno. Maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist.

Actually, I dislike emojis completely and never ever use them.

But for you, if there were a Facebook button with a pretty heart, I would indeed heart the hell out of you!

In this Ghost in the shell movie, cybernetics are just exploding. The guy on the right is pitching his major cybernetics company and he was showing the forign president on the left that their cyberbrain enhancements allowed a 4 year old to learn how to speak french AS she was singing a french lullaby. Normally this would be nothing in the GitS universe, but in the movie this is cutting edge tech. I actually disliked the lit up wire node going to his brain because cyberbrains were never a "visual" thing, but this movie may be before cyberbrains became so advanced. Infact the black president may not even have a cyberbrain, and this is simply an audio/visual transmitter implant.

The only thing I don't like is this is "too" origin. GitS was awesome because it started you in the future utopia, and then used half of its season of episodes to explain indirectly new technologies and how sociologies have changed. Cyberbrains were very commonplace and full cybernetic bodies were available to anyone who had the money, like rich people and the military. Saddly that means alot of things the tv series would have will not be in the movies because the technologies has not come yet.

however as redsky mentioned, they do seem to be latching on to the source material a lot (and aside from the revised thermocamoflauge suit.. oh and Batou's eye implants are just normal eyes and apparently his iconic lenses are just for show) so I am still hopeful. Oh, ok, one other nitpick. Somehow Kusanagi managed to spend like 10 seconds outside the windows shooting in through multiple windows before crashing through. She has no gear or technique to "stop" from her free fall, the only thing she can do is dive through the window.

Sassy Trump dislikes Aliens has been added as a related post - related requested by Lendl on that post.

Your video, Sassy Trump dislikes Aliens, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

No, the teabaggers invaded the republicans and took them mostly far right but really deep into insanity, where they aren't right or left, just angry and lashing out while accepting no responsibility for their parts in problems. They are anti tax, but pro spending, anti big government unless it's a government project they support, then big government is what's needed every time, anti regulation unless it's a regulation against something they dislike (like abortion, relaxing drug policies, marriage, equal protection under the law, etc).

Every teabagger I've met (and there are many) has been at least as if not more racist, homophobic, and bible thumping than the media makes the 'party' out to be, including (sadly) many of my own family members. They are not the fringe, they are the base, you're either lying or don't know your own group. They are also just as dumb and/or stupid as they are portrayed, my favorite slogan is "keep your government hands off my medicare", clearly the woman carrying it was so dumb she didn't understand that medicare is a government program, just like 1/2 of you don't know that the ACA is Obamacare, but HATED Obamacare with a passion while insisting the ACA is great. Not racist? Then what? Just brain dead? It's this disconnect from reality and sanity that made me run from them as soon as it was clear where the party was going....it didn't start out like it ended up, it started out more like OWS.

Haven't you been the one saying all left wingers are in perfect alignment with SJWs recently....repeatedly and smugly? Yes...that was you.

*facepalm