Again you confuse Christianity with the Old Testament. The Book of Leviticus is the third book of the Hebrew Bible, and the third of five books of the Torah (or Pentateuch). It has nothing to do with Christianity. If lots of groups pull sections from the Old Testament for the goal they want, for evil ends, they are not Christians. Christians believe in Love Thy Neighbour and Do Unto Others, etc. If you have a problem with that kind of philosophy, then you have a problem. Please don't equate Christianity with Islam. It is a radical new philosophy that parts with the older philosophies. How could anybody not have respect for his teachings? He was a humble man who taught about love. He wouldn't have hurt a flee. Now I don't buy into miracles and sky daddies and all that paraphernalia, and I am not religiously trained. I am an ordinary person with no religious affiliation. But when I read what he said, I have no choice but to respect what he said. It is that simple.

btw: I am not a Christian, but I have the greatest respect for the teachings of Jesus. I also respect Mahatma Gandhi and the Deli Lama, among many others. That doesn't mean I am a Hindu or a Buddhist either.

For sure there are a lot of Bible thumping assholes out there, but that is a statement about what kind of person they are, not what kind of person Christ was.

Working hard to protect human culture from those who would prefer to see it surrounded by a most and accessed via a toll bridge controlled by them?

It's not just about having access for myself, it's also about cutting off the money supply to the industry.

Having the Library of Alexandria for myself isn't going to protect me from the ignorance of savages. Only ensuring that they too have a copy can do that.

Clearly you have never been to the UCLA campus because, if you had, you would have known this isn't true in the least. You can walk all over that place.

The problem in LA is the culture. People believe they are to be seen in their automobiles and they buy or lease expensive cars and drive them ridiculously short distances for that sole reason (if there is another reason, please do share but nothing really makes sense).

I worked for a company based out of LA for 2.5 years and we were there often. One guy lived a 10 minute walk from the office but chose to drive each and every day. He didn't buy an M3 to have it sit in his garage, after all. Nope, it sat in the company's garage instead.

SMH.

Will people latch on to this and try to disseminate it? Probably.

Will they be any more impartial than the news media?
Doubtful.

Eventually people might realize that they can't trust reporting, that they must survey things for themselves, and that they shouldn't trust people who make decisions without surveying things for themselves, because those people don't know shit. Probably not, but it could happen.

They'll be old by then, though, and another generation of naive people will be fleeced.

Did you miss the part where (per said driver's assertion) Sidecar paid a better post-deduction base rate even without the temporary promotion?

Also, it's not exactly like there are substantial costs associated with switching which service a driver chooses to work from. If rational economic decisions were being followed, one would expect a driver to want to double their money while it was possible to do so, and then switch back to a different service if that paid better the rest of the time.

Well, not exactly.

"Exercising a democratic yell on a megaphone" would be the appropriate way to describe the French way.
The small group which manage to piss off the most people is the one to obtain the attention.
Instead of having the most rich bully being at the top, you have the most annoying one.

Meanwhile, just on the other side of a border, you have countries like switzerland with a real direct democracy.
As in "it's the people who actually decide and have a final word on everything".
Want to change something ? Instead of pouring money or pissing of people, you just gather the necessary amount of signatures, and then you can submit your law propostion for voting. If it passes voting you law is passed and is enforced.
ANYONE can do it, just gather the necessary amount of signatures to be able to submit for vote.

That's what I call "Exercising the democratic voice".

Except that drivers aren't making more money with Uber or Lyft.

Saturday night I took a Sidecar home, and our driver was talking about how Sidecar is currently offering better base rates (after accounting for deductions -- Uber shows drivers the price a customer is paying before their cut is taken out), and currently offering double payouts from their marketing budget as a limited-time promotion to attract more drivers.

The premise that Uber or Lyft pays better is, presently, false.

Wow - Thanks for that link...

Sydney siege live: Loud explosions heard as police storm Lindt cafe

Updated 3 minutes ago Mon 15 Dec 2014, 10:51am

Police have stormed the Lindt cafe in Sydney after an intense period of loud explosions or gunshots and flashes of lights.

It's not really about Islam or Christianity. Both holy books contain a lot of questionable, self-justifying violence.

You can't confuse Christianity with the Old Testament, which is the book you seem to be referring to. Christianity is about the teachings of Christ, its founder. The teachings of Christ include no self-justifying violence whatsoever. Zilch - nada. To the contrary, the teachings of Christ are about Love. Just thought I might clarify that for you, as you seeme to be confused.

The Islamic State guys are ... motivated by a level of socioeconomic suffering that is far beyond the experience of most Americans.

I really respect what you are saying in general, about greed and poverty, as it appears to come from a good heart and personal experience. However, I really doubt the Islamic State guys are motivated by socioeconomic suffering. I'm not sure what their motivation is but I can speculate on many other sources for motivation.

It's the Americans who created ISIS. See this...

ISIS was Formed in US Prison Camp in Iraq...

Unless and until they make demands, and especially political demands, they aren't "terrorists".

From Google: "terrorist" - a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.

Slightly different than "making demands". Perhaps merely making a political statement would fit the definition. In the specific instances, it is not clear there were making a political statement. I'm not sure they actually said anything, so you may well be right that they weren't terrorists. Good point.

That is precisely the danger of Islam. The vile aspects of it appeal to the mentally ill and unstable and turn them into jihadis.

I would suggest that the number of jihadis who are mentally ill and unstable is no greater than what could be expected statistically within any group. I suspect the vast majority jihadis were raised up in a Madras type of upbringing, whether they were actually sent to a Madras when they were young or simply taught to hate from an early age.

I disagree with this incredibly strongly. Religion, ideology, and violence are so tightly intertwined they almost cannot be decoupled. Today, Islam clearly holds a siren's song appeal to some disaffected members of society. You give the religion/ideology a complete pass. Have you not considered that the religion/ideology places a major role in motivating these individuals to commit their heinous actions?

Let's take a poll here... Select from...

1.) I strongly agree

2.) I somewhat agree

3.) I neither agree nor disagree

4.) I strongly disagree

5.) I disagree incredibly strongly.

Sorry - couldn't resist having a little fun with your expression. As to your argument, I might suggest that these wackos would have fallen for any number wacko world views or philosophies, but in these instances happened to have found the Muslim religion close at hand. However, saying that is not to deny that "Islam clearly holds a siren's song appeal to some disaffected members of society". I am compelled to agree with you.