No joke. First, Christan politicians of various denominations from various churches holding office in a secular country with a godless constitution is vastly different than when the church controlled king and country all over the western world. Our founding fathers saw to that. The church's power has been in decline for centuries thanks to luminaries like Paine, Franklin and Jefferson. The church has never regained anything like the power it held for the centuries before "the Age of Enlightenment". Source: any world history book. Second, we don't have any idea how many of today's politicians are atheist/agnostic or simple deists because in most places saying so is a sure fire way not to get elected. They wouldn't dare say if they were, but seeing as how most politicians receive a higher education and how higher education leads to a higher rate of atheism, I'd wager the rate of atheist politicians is higher than in the general population. Third, I never said there wasn't a Christian majority in the US. To begin with, I was speaking about the decline of the church's power globally. I shouldn't have to tell you the world has more countries than the United States. With the global economy this distinction (you are too inept to make) is more important now than ever.

The only one of us who should be ashamed is the one with absolutely no sense of perspective. The one who will dismiss the horrors of Islamic fundamentalism because "Christians do bad stuff too!!! WAAAA!" To be clear, the one who should be ashamed will be you, NewtBOY.

I want to see *one* major US sport take a real hardline approach and make all the others look bad.

What if, for example, the NHL started a new and more rigorous doping testing program. Frequent random tests, and if you ever test positive (with verified results), you forfeit the rest your contract, all of your records / statistics are invalidated, and you are never allowed to play for the league again. Teams would still be charged with the salary cap hit from any of their players who test positive, so they would be encouraged to enforce the system also.

Just think about how that could be marketed for any sport that had the guts to initiate it. Put up images of Barry Bonds and insult MLB for allowing his (and other dopers) records and statistics to stand. Then fade out and pop up with "But here in the {NHL / NFL / NBA / whatever}, cheaters NEVER WIN."

I think that would generate a lot of interest / revenue for whatever sport got the ball rolling.

I'm confused, in one paragraph you say the primary is over, but you go on to say it's not really over, it's just really over. If it's not over, it's not over, and FSM damit it's not over yet.
It was pretty improbable that he would win Alaska 82%-18%, but he did. IF he did that well in California, he could get no other vote on the 7th and still win. Improbable, maybe, highly improbable, no, certainly not this election, nothing is.
Even the exit polls have been wrong by well over 35% this year, and they are always more reliable than pre-voting polls. Bernie has HUGE support in California, I've not seen a SINGLE Hillary bumper sticker here in N Cali., despite what the (100% Clinton supporting) media has told you. Sanders winning 53% of California is not even improbable, it's within the margin of error for the polls you mention.

Hammer that message (that Sanders is a FAR better candidate for numerous reasons) into their skulls until the 7th and maybe he'll get enough of California to win...he's absolutely got my vote. Anyone who choses Hillary is rolling the dice on a Trump presidency, THEY are the ones putting us all in danger, not the Sanders supporters. What you absolutely should not be doing is claiming 'it's over so don't even bother trying'. That's simply a lie. Wait until after a nominee is named before saying anything of the sort. That the Clinton campaign has been saying it for months just shows their level of honesty....zero%.

Again, if a Trump presidency is something you fear, you should be shouting for Bernie with all your might right now....it's not over, not by far, and he is CLEARLY far and away the best choice, both for his platform and to defeat Trump.

It makes sense that we would process plants somewhat better than meat, as meat in a survival situation is hard to come by compared to vegetation. However, it cannot be denied that we evolved as omnivores and still are such barring a personal choice.

A plant based diet may be more healthy for you, I don't care to argue the science of it. I would note that science, at least in regards to our diets, continually changes. I went through multiple phases of science saying that a certain substance (alcohol, chocolate, eggs, butter, etc) was bad, only to reverse the decision as time went on and further studies were done. I don't say that as an excuse or to deny which diet is best, simply that we have a long way to go in determining what is best for one of us versus another.

My complaint about vegans is that they usually slam anyone who doesn't choose to be vegan over their choices. I've had many vegetarian/vegan/pescatarian friends tell me that the food I choose to eat is sentient. Where do we draw the line on sentience, I usually ask them? For a vegan that seems to mean on any non-plant product, even honey. A vegetarian might choose to drink milk or eat cheese, since nothing is being killed. A pescatarian obviously thinks fish are the cutoff for sentience. But if we are going to cut to the nitty gritty, insects that most any scientist would agree have no idea of what is going on other than an instinct to perform a set series of actions are consumed in mass quantities for their protein. Worms, insects, crabs and lobsters don't even have the pain transmitting chemicals that allow a creature to feel pain. Of course, they do react to stimuli, but so do plants.

Basically we all individually make a determination as to what we consider to be truly sentient and able to understand the far reaching concepts of death and pain. Some people draw the line at plants, others at lower level life forms, but in the end it all comes down to what you believe.

Bronze is sufficient actually. You just need to declare it *dead, and wait 2 days until it goes from dead to deadpool, then you can put in the fix from the deadpool.

Of course, in this case, @eric3579 has already fixed it... that's the other way to fix it if the toaster won't listen to you - put in a comment and wait for one of us to pounce on it

That conveniently leaves out the fact that income tax rates have plummeted since the 1940s. That's been the big consistent change, not the government increasing spending as a percentage of GDP, which wildly fluctuates.

The reason why there's a fight to get this funded is because there's a portion of this country that thinks you must pay for every new expenditure by cutting spending elsewhere because the national debt will kill us if it doesn't come down, and taxes can never ever ever ever ever be raised ever ever ever ever. They will absolutely never consider that raising taxes is worth funding anything, and are completely okay with cutting funding for things that are even needed and are worth the money (see cutting funding for PBS).

I say "principled" because they sure don't ask for reduced spending to pay for when they need help. See Katrina and other disasters, Mitch McConnell's fund to help nuclear power workers, etc.

But the fundamental problem here is the flat refusal to accept the reality that:
1. The national debt and annual deficits can, will, and should fluctuate depending upon circumstances. The "sky is falling" reaction to added debt is beyond ridiculous. This country has flourished economically under almost non-stop deficit spending. This isn't to say raising the national debt and running annual deficits is always good, but it sure as hell isn't always bad.
2. The same reaction to tax raises is also ridiculous. Tax rates can be increased or decreased, depending on circumstances, and raising or lowering them isn't inherently good or bad.

A sane reaction to this whole thing isn't - "well, they spend money on things that don't matter, so that's why this can't be funded."

It's "I don't care if it costs every single one of us an extra dollar in taxes in a year, or we need to cut funding on (insert wasteful program here), we need to get this done."

What confuses me is that most Americans *love* their armed forces with utmost (almost too much) pride, yet so many think that socialism is a dirty word.

The American armed forces are paid for by the taxpayer. We can't defend ourselves on an individual level as well as we can, through tax contributions, employ a permanent army to do it for us.

To me it feels like the essence of a country is socialist - our 'tribe' decided at some point to work together. Instead of us all individually walking every day to get fresh drinking water or water for washing, we chip in and buy essential infrastructure like water treatment plants and pipes, the electrical grid or sewage system. Instead of having to defend our properties and possessions all the time from intruders, we chip in and pay the police to keep order for us. Instead of individually teaching our children, we all chip in and employ experts to do the best job possible.

Whilst some of those things are available to be purchased privately if you so wish, you can't have your country without socialism.

For me, the worst sin is being against free universal health care. However well prepared or covered you think you are, all it takes is a twist of fate and you'd be in the same situation as so many others - incapable of making the money you need to buy the cure. Or caring full time for a dependent person, unable to work to pay the medical costs. That's why everyone should chip in - because any one of us, through no fault of our own, in an instant, could need access to more than we could get by ourselves.

I think he's alleging that you are Thomas Foster, or associated with him, so if you're not please say so and one of us will return the vid.

@newtboy
@Lawdeedaw

you two are adorable.like an old couple that should have divorced decades ago but were unwilling to share the pet dog.

the arguments i see playing out here are one of distinctions,but what are we basing those distinction on?
well,Lawdeedaw has addressed that point and i happen to agree with him.

if you find an abuse of power cop video,where someone is shot or beaten to death acceptable.then you must also find this video acceptable,because they are both using the exact same metric.

that being said,i feel newtboy brings up a good point:context,meaning and ultimately the REASON for posting a video where someone dies.

i think i understand lawdeedaws intent on posting.to reveal the cultural hypocrisy we have in regards to homeless people.how they are invisible,disregarded and disenfranchised.that even though we cringe at having to see homeless people,nevermind interact with them.they are still human and can have just as much courage and moral integrity as any one of us,even though they are discarded and invisible.even though there is much hand-wringing and empty-worded rhetoric,disguised as compassion,making us have the feel-goods while we do nothing.

they are human and this mans humanity and sacrifice can be beautiful to behold.

but where is the context?
take away lawdeedaws poetic understanding...what is happening here,besides a man getting shot and the gunman riddled with bullets?

so newtboy brings up a good point.
so allow me to add some much needed context:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/homeless-man-saving-hostage-victim_55f06cdbe4b093be51bd1940

Okay, you got me.

I'll admit I was just being a contrarian. I really am blown away to learn that Jesus is not only real but has returned to earth.

Praise the lord god almighty!!!



What if god was one of us... just a stranger on the bus trying to help you find your keys...

I don't know what dirt Blatter has on what politician, but how did he not get arrested?

The business around the Qatar world cup demonstrates perfectly how this horrible world works. Football is loved around the world, for the most part by peace loving individuals who believe in fair play and good sportsmanship.

Yet somehow, the money that we pay to watch football (and the money that the advertisers pay for the privilege selling us things while we watch) was used to set up a football competition in a country at a time when football is not playable. To ensure this impossible spectacle takes place, tens of thousands of low paid (and many unpaid for years at a time) migrants were moved into desolate infested squats in order to provide the slave labour to build the beautifully designed and wonderfully engineered, air conditioned stadia that we will all sit in or otherwise experience, in comfort, at the expense of all of those poor people.

And yet almost every one of us would be outraged and moved to action at the possibility of a person being exploited in our name.

They investigated themselves, they found themselves to be acting in an exemplary fashion. If anyone is punished for corruption, they will eventually return to their normal life of luxury after a brief stint out in the cold, and possibly be rehired under an umbrella company or to a lower-profile position of equal importance.

The same happened with the banks, the same happens with our politicians and their spiderweb of connections in big business and finance. Fuck capitalism. We need something new.

Reminds me of "Dick Like Me" from the first season of 3rd rock from the sun which explored culture and ethnicity as an important part of identity.


"you may see color, but I see people."

"Aren't we fortunate to have someone so enlightened? - O pious one, show us the way."

"This verges on sarcasm."

"You know, my heritage happens to be very important to me."

"As it should be."

"I'm Irish, and I'm very proud of that. And you're what?"

" Me? Uh, I-I-I'm, uh one of those, uh you know, one of the really good ones. You're this big anthropologist. You tell me. What am I?"

" Certifiable."

" Yes, that's what I am-- certifiable.
Certifiable and damn proud of it, as my father was before me and his father before him and his father before him.
Certifiable.
Of course, we no longer practice."

"WE" is the nation as a whole. Because you wish to separate yourself from the rest of us does not mean 'there is no we', it only means you aren't one of us (or don't want to be).
I live in the real world, where most people are poor planners, and most people don't have the means to plan anyway (more every day, thanks to un-livable wages being the norm). It's not defeatist, it's realist. It would be wonderful if we all had the gift of forethought, perfect knowledge of financial planning, prognostication to be able to know what your needs WILL be, and the income to be able to follow through with financial plans. I live well on 1/2 of a <$30K income and take NO help from anywhere, but most people don't have my advantages or the willingness to live with less, or the time and space to do things like grow their own food, or the property and money/credit to get a solar/wind generation system, even though it saves them tons in the long term, they simply don't have the financial ability to plan long term.
I don't see what your next paragraph has to do with the topic. (It reminds me of the saying 'god only gives you the burden you can carry' which ignores the thousands that commit suicide because their burden was more than they could stand.) One can only rise to the opportunities one is presented with, those that have limited opportunities often have no way to 'rise to the occasion' or 'over come adversity', they can't even overcome their food bills, no matter how hard they work at Wendy's.

I'm for getting rid of 'government cheese' for anyone that does not need it, but removing all programs leaves us back in the 30's with roving gangs of the destitute clogging the streets, expensive abusive state run institutions for the elderly poor, and the economy tanking. I could support a 'means test' or the like for 'welfare' and social security, but it would benefit us all if everyone had access to healthcare, and in the long run would even save those who do pay for it, because as I've said repeatedly, we already pay their bills after the fact (by paying higher bills to cover for those that don't/won't/can't pay their bill). Giving us all access to healthcare outside the emergency room saves us ALL money...and removing the insurance industry middleman saves another 10%-25% that we get NO benefit from.

It's about addressing the real world, not insisting all people should act intelligently and fore-thoughtfully at all times, and designing a system that only works if they do and leads to disaster if they don't. I do not believe people, as a group, are good at planning for their future, and we all do better when at least the minimum of financial planning is taken care of by intelligent educated people rather than left to those who plan poorly. Sometimes that means paying to not have people camped on your lawn waiting to rob you...and it's cheaper to put them in an apartment than in jail. The systems could certainly be better (I'm not holding my breath that they will be improved though), but having no 'safety net' at all has already proven to be far worse for everyone, and the country as a whole in many ways.

Good post. My father bought a house in the back woods of Woodstock in 69 and when we visited him every single pink house we drove by we thought might be this house. We weren't even close. One of us kids would always insist "that must be the house, I saw Bob Dylan standing out front!".

Super combative terminal jokey from the winning team is on camera saying he can't close IE On a system that is supposed to be secure ... I'm guessing CTF at DEF CON would wipe the floor with these folks.

Claiming to have "won" against the NSA at the end, more like failed less than the others.

These exercises are fine in themselves, but anybody who knows what they are doing and has been tasked to comply with NIST security controls ( the ones the US Gov requires) will notice that many of the requirement unambiguously reduce the security of the system, and the folks who audit these projects don't care how bad it is as long as it's checked on the list.

The problem for the military is that regimentation, "sailor proof" instructions and other necessities of running a massive organization that has to assume the lowest common denominator just don't work in computer security. If people don't know what they are doing no amount of check-listing is going to solve the problem.

Anybody who really knows what they are doing -- as some of these students may one day -- will realize that you have to choose one or the other optimal security or regulation compliance.

disclaimer: my rant may be excessive, I just wasted 18mo building a server cluster that needed to pass gov audit - so I'm bitter