Bolas

Total and utter bullshit. The quote you provided is factually correct. You clearly don't understand gross negligence. You have to take that paragraph, add a heaping tablespoon of assumptions to get to the "outrage" you have displayed over multiple posts. And what protections are you talking about? Reporter's privilege? That whole concept has nothing to do with unbiased reporting and everything to do with investigative journalism. Like I said, stop blaming other people and take some responsibility for your own actions. No it's not factually correct. It may have been at the beginning when little was known but now it's completely inaccurate. The gross negligence part comes from cherry picking of information to incite turmoil and riots. Pretend for a moment you knew absolutely nothing about the situation other than what is posted above. Would it be fair to say that this paints Wilson as murderering aggressor who got away with it? Now add that most people know Wilson was a white cop and this article does nothing to educate nor remove any preconceptions. Whenever something happens, people tend to rush to preconceived judgements rather than wait for all the information. Some even when given the information challenge or dispute it but it still needs to be presented, even in a quick synopsis: Brown, a teenager who assaulted Officer Wilson after a robbery was shot and killed. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

That is capitalism. Always amazes me when I see staunch republicans complain about capitalism. Again, stop blaming other people and fix your own issues. Actually, it is dishonesty. Claiming one thing, like being fair and balanced, is a fallacy. The news media has a responsibility to be unbiased. They all fail at that. Because they do, they are, by default, untrustworthy. It's not true capitalism as the press has certain protections not only from government but from civil suits as well. This isn't a matter of trust, it's a matter of gross negligence. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Would be much easier to look at actual issues if they're wasn't so much noise from the explained ones still. I'm actually giving them a pass to speculate until the full story is known, but once it is, they should be responsible and report the whole story. They're not doing it because they hate cops, they're doing it because it's controversial and incendiary which increases reaction on both sides which increases views which increases profits. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Yup like I said, a big issue between LEO and civilians. You can keep blaming the media or take some responsibility. So this is responsible and accurate journalism? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4814687#4814687 Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

This might be the solution to not only the healthcare crisis but the homeless epedemic too: Faith Based Healthcare No schoolin' needed cuz God's doin' it Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

How do you do that? Stop all government spending in aid or support to the region. Do you make it illegal to travel there? No. But to travel there one assumes all risk basically a waiver they understand the US government will not come to their aid. Pull all our aid? Yes. Make it illegal for Exxon to do business there? No. Similar to travel, Companies receive no support or assistance in their business dealings there including protection of shipping routes. Ban any immigration from there? No, but tightly controlled. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

My thinking would first be to make it clear to ALL parties we will support neither side of the struggle for control of Islamic thought. This would absolutely mean severing all trade with any of the countries involved in that struggle including, but not limited to Saudi Arabia. ALL trade; oil, guns, food (other than possible humanitarian drops if required). Massive economic sanctions for ALL parties. I firmly believe that if we could do that ISIS would have much less of a gripe against the US. Not much different than what I was proposing other than specifying the religion which implies Jewish or Christian control of thought would be tolerated. See? No right answers other than GTFO. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Again, disagree. While there has been fighting in the Middle East for centuries, the US has not helped matters one bit in several ways; kissing the ass the cheek of the "King" of Saudi Arabia for instance, or supporting the Shaw of Iran. Gulf War 1 ratchet things up and we should have never gotten involved with that at all. That said, GHWB understood no good would come from marching into Baghdad. Iraq was relatively contained in a lesser of two evils state. The 2003 invasion of Iraq and de-baathification is THE cause of ISIS. Yeah, we broke it badly. OK, let's assume for a moment that the US did cause all of the Middle East's problems. Given everything we do there is wrong, how would we even fix it? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Disagree. We broke it -- badly. It's our responsibility to at least be part of the solution. There's been fighting over religion in the Middle East since before America was even colonized so we didn't "break" it. The biggest problem is no one knows what the solution is. That's for those directly involved to work out amongst themselves without outside interference. The best thing we could do for the people of the Middle East is to continue to reduce our dependency on oil which would lessen the international importance and value of the region and possibly provide aid to basic education programs. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

He appears to be very stoned in this, I think it's worst than on Morning Joe. https://youtu.be/J3SNLPfVGt4 Not sure why he's falling on his sword about this as he gave a good answer in the interview on our inability to make positive changes there , but most likely just rattled. I'd never heard of Aleppo either. The only correct answer for any of the Middle East issues is GTFO. The countries there need to address this without outside help including those seeking asylum outside the region as they're the exact sort of people that region needs. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

FFS. Years later far after the investigation proved what happened, the media still cherry picks the information. Yes, this is a media problem. Can understand an initial report where there isn't a lot of information but to continue to do so after facts are known is borderline negligent. Either tell the whole story or tell none of it is it was only marginally related to the article. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

If you like are satisfied with one of the major party presidential candidates, then by all means, vote for them. However, if you're only voting for one of them as the lesser of two evils, then vote third-party. This is one of the most simplistic lines of reasoning there is. A choice, any choice, can be thought of in positive or negative connotations. Any choice you've ever made in our entire life can be thought of as picking the the thing you "liked" OR as picking the "lesser of (n) evils." To simply decide to then vote a "third party" because neither of the two main candidates is perfect is silly. I'd say, if you like Gary Johnson and believe he is your best choice, then vote for him, but understand that may be working against your own actual best interests. One of the "lesser of two evil" candidates may, in fact, be a better choice for your vote since that could prevent a catastrophe if the "greater of two evils" wins. Better? There are a large number of people out there in both parties and independents that are disgusted with their choices, some to the point where they might not bother voting. While low turnout is also a message, voting for a third party is a more powerful one. While the website in the link is pushing people to vote Libertarian, I'm not. In many states there are other third-party choices besides Libertarian. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Hooker Madness Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

If you like one of the major party presidential candidates, then by all means, vote for them. However, if you're only voting for one of them as the lesser of two evils, then vote third-party. "But if I do that, the other person will win as I'll have thrown away my vote." Not if you find somebody such as a family member, a friend, a neighbor, or even your significant other in the same state that feels the same way you do but reversed to cancel the advantage out. And if you don't know anybody with opposite views, this website/app can pair you up. The less votes the major parties get, the more they'll get the message. Besides, it's not like a third-party candidate can win... Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Interesting idea for those who don't want to vote third party as while they hate both major party candidates, they hate one more.

What part of "increased human trafficking inflows" don't you understand? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_United_States#Legal_status So human trafficking is higher in the counties in Nevada where prostitution is legal then the counties where it is illegal? Has human trafficking in Rhode Island gone down since 2009 or did it go up in the 80s? As we've seen as marijuana has become more legalized, most of the arguments against doing so have been proven false. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

"I saw it in this movie once where they landed at an alligator farm, so I'm gonna say alligators" (Clapping) "Good answer! Good answer!" "Show me alligators!!!" Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

...but there's no money in that, and therefore doesn't increase human trafficking inflows. In fact, if all sex was free, the traffickers would be out of business. I suppose that if you want safe, legal prostitution one could just stick with good old fashioned gold-digging. The legality and demand for pornography are also driving factors of sex-trafficking. Many of these women are transferred from one strip club to the next and are pornographed for distribution on the internet. You have to understand that strip clubs, pornography, prostitution and the sex trade are all part of the same dysfunctional family - and those that support it are part of that dysfunction even if they "mean well" in their support of legalized prostitution. We all know what they say about "good intentions." So your argument is that because legal and illegal sex workers sometimes have ties to human trafficking, prostitution should stay illegal (and mostly underground) for their protection? Would say "good intentions" could also apply to your argument, but sounds more like an excuse to back up your religious beleif you want to force on others. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Absolutely. It's already legal but regulated to give sex away for free and legal to pay for sex as long as it's recorded, so why the hang ups over non recorded sex for money? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

It's possible. They just need one state. https://alibertarianfuture.com/2016-election/gary-johnson-elected-president-home-state-new-mexico/ Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

If two women are playfully calling each other "bitch" in public a third person may try and do so playfully as well, possibly as an icebreaker thinking that's acceptable to them. In your scenario, does it matter whether that third person is male or female as far as their reaction? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Here's an easy test for any group -ism. If it's a word, if it was spoken by a heterosexual white man, would it be offensive to that group? Then it's an offensive word for all. If the group name contains references to race, sex, and/or orientation, change them to heterosexual white man as appropriate. Does the new name sound racist? Then it's racist. Ex: White Lives Matter Congressional White Caucus National Organization for Men (NOM) Black Lesbian Women Alliance - White Heterosexual Men Alliance Feminist - Masculinist? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

This thread has proven to me that there is no way for white people to have this conversation without being branded as a hate monger. When you use words that are generally considered "hateful" and "racist" when used by white people, then it's kind of hard not to see you as a "hate monger." How is that not also racist? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

It's far simpler than that. If a group member deems a word describing them to be an insult, demeaning, or a slur if they don't want people to use it they either shouldn't use it themselves or not get offended when others do. Basically if somebody chooses to self identify with a word, why should others not be able to use that word to describe them? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.