Valsuelm

That's up for debate. What did he contribute? Does it really rank higher than slavery and genocide? And I ask that in complete honesty. Slavery has been around since before recorded history, it's still around today. Columbus isn't guilty of genocide. You apparently aren't as well versed with what you think is propaganda as you think (though I'd say you're too well versed in it if you think Columbus is guilty of genocide), or you weren't paying enough attention in first grade when they filled you in on what Columbus did if you really have to ask what he contributed. And yes, what Columbus did does rank higher than slavery, especially in the context of the times and the effect his efforts had on the world over to this day. Few points and people in history loom as large as Columbus and what he did does.

They're coming up with excuses for their stupid policy; not denying whole events. Big Difference. The point is that they're concealing information American citizens have the right to know. If they're concealing this, you can't be confident in anything they say. Right? 'Oh she's just lying about how many times ****ed the other guy last week, oh and maybe for how long it's been going on or exactly how many other guys there are, but she's not covering it up completely that she's ****ing around on me. Oh, and she's not saying she's going to stop lying either, or even asking my forgiveness. Think I should forgive her? I do. I don't think she'll lie to me again. Why would she when I'm so loyal? Not my honey bunches of government agency with all her cute little experts. No no no! :)' Some of you guys are willing dupes.

The Fault in Our Stars was probably the best film I saw in theaters this year. With The Edge of Tomorrow and The Rover also being pretty good. Though, it's been a bad bad bad year in film. So much crud. As for Gone Girl.

I'm going to kick myself when I find out who this is. I know that face. In other news:

I'm going to temporarily turn this into a post apoc music thread, because, as it turns out, there's some really great end of the world songs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=068AFYvd58E

Hadn't seen that video in a looooong time. Duran Duran is in my regular music rotation though. Great band. Here's another great post apoc song:

I had to look up 'obola'. What fantasy land are you living in where the President can close off the USA from all travellers? Is it the same one where the US doesn't intervene of get involved in other countries. *ding ding ding* Hello in there. This is the World. As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. Just two examples: http://www.eturbonews.com/48315/us-travel-ban-israel-extended http://aids.about.com/od/healthytraveling/qt/travel_ban.htm Try doing a little research before you type/speak. You might post a lot less as a result, but you might actually become smarter in the process.

Restricting travel from nations with Ebola outbreaks is the no-brainer thing to do. Arguing otherwise is retarded, because as WoD points out: had it been done we wouldn't have any cases in the U.S. yet. Travel bans in the U.S. to and from other nations isn't anything new, and it's done for all sorts of lesser reasons (ie: infamously Cuba). It remains to be seen just how big a catastrophe or not it's going to be that we're not doing to obvious in this case.

Ha! I almost posted that one, but Ashley looking so nice in the Smoke vid enticed me to post the one I did instead. Here's another video of some hot Ashley, worth a watch even if you don't dig Bolton: And if you don't dig Bolton, here's this to make up for it:

Nobody? Okay, let me give you folks a picture of the same musician slightly older, hopefully that will help: First picture I couldn't place him, but the second...

December.

Convenient? When people are shooting at you, you tend to do what is necessary, all other things be damned. That said, most information coming out of Afghanistan these days is dodgy.

Hm, thats news to me, what makes you think that they're drugged up? Would explain a lot though. That was certainly the case with many of the Taliban fighters. The Taliban actually implemented policies that brought Afganistan's Opium output to lows not seen in decades if not centuries. Not long after the U.S./U.K. overthrew them and occupied the nation, Opium output reached record levels. Note that at the time (and possibly today too (I haven't looked it up)) the U.S. and U.K. were the #1 and #2 importers respectively of both 'legal' and 'illegal' opiates in the world.

I guess it depends on what is meant by 'intellectual' really. When I think intellectual, I mean some one who is educated. Most journalists are fairly educated; so I feel it's fair to call them intellectuals. Doesn't mean they're intelligent or have critical thinking skills though. You use the term 'educated' much more loosely than I do, as well as the term 'intellectual'. One of course can in modern times refer to anyone engaged in what's perceived to be a profession that uses one's brain more than one's hands as an 'intellectual'. Nevermind if that person is actually a critically thinking individual or even competent at their job. With this definition you could call an extremely incompetent teacher only half well versed in spreading the brainwash they've been given an 'intellectual', or the most incompetent lawyer you can find an 'intellectual', or everyone in congress an 'intellectual', and so on. The better and more historical definition of the word refers to someone who actually engages in critical thinking, original thought, real logic, reason, etc. I certainly would not call most journalists educated other than the sense that many of them actually went to school, like most of the rest of us. Just going to school doesn't mean you're educated in my book, or in the traditional/historical sense of the word. Have you read many newspapers, magazines, or watched many journalist talking media lately? It's common to find journalistic media that is ridden with grammatical and factual errors, and it seems things are worse than they've ever been with the internet, and the fact that 'Broadcast Journalism'/'Communications' is a very popular major at colleges throughout the U.S., despite the fact that most of those even at the most prestigious universities for said major never actually get hired to work the field they studied. Why is it popular? Well, one reason certainly is that it's a damn easy major relative to many others out there, much like another very popular major: Psychology.

You make the mistake of assuming academics are educated, and that someone who is educated is an academic. They are two different things, except to those who have bought the idea that you need academics to become educated. A trillion dollar industry has been built upon that belief, and it is a false belief.

Yea.. they said the same thing for the U.S. too. And they said it about the Swine Flu, Bird Flu, SARS, et al. Experts, on this topic and others, are generally full of sh*t. Not to say we might not one day (and perhaps sooner than later given how increasingly unhealthy so many in this world are, as well as how chomping at the bit the technocrat eugenicist elites are that run half or more of this world are to see a large chunk of humanity die) see a real pandemic, for anyone paying attention, the 'experts' became the boy who cried wolf some time ago.

RANT TIME!!! It's not surprising considering that the republican party abandoned it's successful capitalist foundation to court stupid, agrarian, unprincipled, and somewhat pro-treason bunch of Judeau-Christian zealots more interested in religious indoctrination than ideological consistency. How can anyone be shocked that intellectuals fled the republicans when they ceased to be the party of reason to become the party of stupid. They're the kind of morons who throw the word socialist at Obama like an insult; only to ignore that the previous republican president actively tried to preserve social security by making it solvent. Doin' a real good job of fighting socialism when during the 'Obama-Care' debate you complain money'll be taken away from medicare. Don't worry though folks because the country is going the same way as the journalist for unsurprising reasons. Nixon's version of the republican party is the Thief 4 of political parties. Like Thief 4 it suffers from a lack of an identity and being a mish-mash of incompatible ideas. Are they capitalists? Hell no. The drug war, gay marriage, social security, and various other positions they take show they haven't the slightest respect for property. Are they the party of small government? If you only listen to their speeches sure, but the illusion of a small-government appeal fails the moment you give even a slight glance at their policy. 1: Hilariously huge military when we're running massive deficits. Any attempts to reign in the financially irresponsible military spending is completely opposed by party leadership. See, their plan to keep America safe is to bankrupt the country while at the same time draw all the heat from the worlds villains by getting involved in everything. 2: Build an extremely expensive wall at the Mexican border. Good to know that the "party of small government" want to waste billions of dollars building and maintaining a wall that won't work, and if it did work would be an economic disaster. Not to mention would give the government a great degree of control over who can leave and when. One of the little details people forget is that the wall could do more than keep Mexicans OUT; it could keep Americans IN. I could go on, but then this post would be waaay too long. The republicans lose with journalist because few smart people would want to be associated with the republicans, and the few who do; do so grudgingly. It seems you bought a whole lot of discount propaganda when it was on sale. The Republican party is no more a party of "..... Judeau-Christian zealots more interested in religious indoctrination" than the Democrat party is a party of intellectuals. You correctly point out that the Republican platform can be shallowly described as essentially a bunch of hypocrites, but so can the Democrats. At most fundamental levels the only difference between the two parties is BS rhetoric they spit out, and there's not even that much of a difference in that anymore. At the end of the day there is very little difference between the two parties. Which, if you educate yourself on why we even have two parties and who funds each of them, would be as surprising as the sun rising in the morning. The idea that your average journalist is an intellectual is amusing. Apparently you don't know many of them, and well... you did buy a whole lot of discount propaganda so you must think those peddling it are intellectuals? The majority are not. They aren't even competent. You should try and keep in mind though, that both parties are made up of a bunch of people, and that while most of the members of each party are whackoloons to put it nicely there are a few sincere, or at least mostly sincere voices in each. So, for example, when the idea of 'small government' is espoused by some and the rest of the party catches on it's only because that idea is a fairly popular one with the people. Most politicians at the national level in each party are criminal psychopathic liars who will say and do anything to remain in power or gain it. As for socialists... the sad reality is that many many Americans are such, both Democrat and Republican, and other. It's a complex subject as to how it happened, but to really really simplify it: Lots of people want small government but don't cut their program or welfare check! Over the last few generations people have become indoctrinated with socialist ideals, disgustingly many to the point they actually think they're more 'civilized' or 'intellectual' for thinking that way (it's a very effective way to brainwash people: fill their heads with BS and at the same time fluff their egos about that BS to the point they think they are better than others for having those ideas. It's also an effective way to divide and conquer.). At the same time they've been told they are evil on the other side of the world. But if you call it a different name in the media over and over and over, 'Socialism' in the west, 'Communism' in the east, people actually buy the idea they are different things. They're no more different than blue and cerulean. [A different subject, but on the same hand: when police or military break out the gear and beat people down in the streets in some parts of the world, great foul is cried! But when it happens in our backyard or in a nation we're officially 'friendly' with it's either ignored or justified.] Cognitive dissonance rules the minds of most in the west.

One source: http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/05/07/Journalist-Surveyed-Democrats-Outnumber-Republicans-4-to-1 A lot of folks say what you say Hurl, yet for many those 'many news sources' are the likes of Bill Mahar, Steve Colbert, John Stewart, etc. And a lot of folks who call themselves independents are just jumping on the bandwagon of being independent, as these days it's increasingly becoming as uncool to be Democrat as it has been to be Republican for the last few decades. They still vote democrat or republican at the end of the day, they still tout most of the BS that is spit out by both parties (such as ISIS), and they don't actually think independently. Sadly.

If you were African and living in one of those countries you might not be so blind to imperialism that they've been subjected to again and again, and think instead it's somehow lofty goodly well intentioned people doing pure goodness out of the kindness of their hearts. While you might get some volunteers that indeed are legitimately wanting to save some people, nations don't operate that way, they just say they do to get folks like yourself to hop on the imperialist bandwagon that's painted with 'humanitarian' colors. The CDC in the U.S. is a pretty dirty organization, and the few thousand boots on the ground aren't there to save lives, they're there for the same reason they've been there in the past: to rape the area of it's resources, oil and other. Yes, there indeed are people in those nations who doubt the intentions of the U.S. and lots of them. They would like the foreigners to gtfo, including those who say they are there to help. You can even see evidence of that in many interviews done with the well intentioned volunteers there (if you watched them). Not everyone is ignorant of history, especially the history of their own back yard, or one that includes the deaths and murders of friends and family.

No. That's something else. It might be depraved indifference, abject stupidity, or something else all together depending on the circumstances. There's usually a world of difference between pulling the trigger and standing by and watching it happen.

Aye. I know many many vets, and some who have seen and done some serious sh*t. The majority of them, of all ages, do not generally want to talk about it, let alone boast about it. That said, I've personally known two 'special forces' snipers. One was a first generation Seal, who never opened his mouth unless he had way too much to drink. Sadly he was an alcoholic (from talking to him I think to try and forget about this **** he'd seen and done), so on a couple of rare occasions he told a story or two. They were ugly, and he was anything but proud of them. Each time he told a story of what he did it ended the same: In his pained words 'I killed people', and then a long swig on the bottle, repeat words repeat swig, repeat, repeat.... he'd walk out the door not wanting to talk to anyone with those words being the last he said with tears in his eyes. One of the toughest guys I've ever met, and not someone I'll ever forget. The second sniper I know was Army special forces who served in Iraq and Afganistan this last decade. Fun guy, and he definitely had some kills, but he was beyond full of ****, telling stories akin to Kyle's. Not a guy who was grounded well in reality, nor does it look like Kyle is from all I've seen and read of him. So there might be something to the 'culture' or atmosphere around special forces snipers these days where you end up with people who are talented yet uber full of themselves and in Lalala land. Or perhaps it's just coincidence. As for why he felt the need to boast? It's a bit complex I think, but the short of it is that in much of the western media folks like him are glorified and turned into heroes (hey, there's a movie coming out!). So he's very proud of being what he is as it's glorified. Must be a good thing right? Nearly everyone is telling him it is. But the reality is he's done some really really ugly sh*t. Stuff that most vets (and all of the grounded ones I've known) are not or would not be proud of. So on one hand you're proud of what you are (a successful sniper) and on the other you are not. The latter is internal and totally doesn't jive with the former. So you end up with some serious cognitive dissonance, the kind that leads to less and less a handle on reality and the kind that tears a lot of people apart. This is part of the story of many a vet to a degree. War is fugly.