My concern is that both will die because neither can win. This is a problem. I used to support OpenOffice, until Sun was bought by Oracle. Then I recommended LibreOffice for about as long as it took Oracle to give the package to Apache Foundation. Now? Who gives a shit, use either. But then again, that is the problem in the first place.

Not having a clear winner, nor a clear advantage in operations (moral/functional) makes it the "use either" that will assure neither succeeds.

Just tried that, and my wife slapped me and called me a perv. Thanks asshole!

You're correct, except for one point. Cable TV expects life to revolve around the 7-10PM slot, when I happen to be busy with "life". And, I often don't have time to watch for several weeks in a row. And DVRs are stupid with On Demand Viewing like Netflix available. All said and done, unless you HAVE to be that annoying person who "spoiler alerts" every freaking conversation, then please spare me the "second run content". That is so 20th Century.

The problem isn't the name calling. It is that the name calling actually works on people too lazy to think for themselves. They get their marching orders from whatever talking point memo is out (both Left and Right wing) and march in formation.

And while I don't agree with many people politically, I at least have respect and can converse with people I don't agree with, if they at least have a reason for their political beliefs (wrong or right). I often have common ground with people I normally wouldn't agree with, because my viewpoints are reasoned, and sometimes we have the same reasons for the same views.

Above all, the drones are massive and collectively drown out the reasoned voices. And this is to our own shame!

Or, in other words .... "what could possibly go wrong???"

Which, means, they should be merged and brought back together.

This is the unfortunate case of Open Source failure, and a pretty big one IMHO. The fact that they remain split is huge problem, because now I cannot recommend either, even though they are both decent. I have no idea which one will actually survive and prosper, or which one will die a slow painful death. Merging them is really the only REAL solution for my concerns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Actually, try changing the things that are "explanations" and you'll start to find that they are also "excuses". Offer up solutions to end the "explanations" and you'll likely get a slew of reasons why it isn't possible, mainly from the very people who profit by keeping the status quo, but have "compassion" for the plight.

If the US ARMY is doing anything against US citizens, it is proof of tyranny, as they are forbidden by current law (posse comitatus) from engaging US Citizens.

And just so you know, I oppose the militarization of law enforcement (giving police tanks and such).
 

I guess, if I say I am not a moron you'd still argue, so I won't.

But what I will say is that well armed citizenry can be more than just a bug to be squashed. And yes, I do think that citizens with Paramilitary grade weapons do stand a chance against militarized government agencies. All you have to do is remember what two well armed guys in Hollywood pulled off during a bank heist. Not to mention the Taliban and Iraqi militia people picking off our troops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

And you've actually helped make my point, the whole point of gun control is for government to control guns. And this is the very thing I am protesting. The whole "there is no need" argument fails right here, because government will always create a "need" to have bigger better guns than citizens. And that is exactly how tyrants control their citizens.

From the sounds of it, you actually support government with big guns and likewise do not believe Tyranny can happen here. Those that do not know history, are doomed to repeat it. Sadly, those of us who do know history are too few to do anything about it.

The problem with the gun control people, is that they fail to realize that they are in fact, not against guns, per se. They are against the people (common citizens) of having guns. They are all for the government having guns.

Lets call it what it is, they don't think the common people need or deserve protection from tyrannical governments, because they mistakenly believe that their government cannot possibly be a tyranny. I would love to round up all these people and force them into "first amendment zones" where we can control their speech, like the government tried to do in Nevada.

The most racist thing I've ever heard, were the liberals whining about black people's "plight", making excuses for the bad behavior being "cultural". It is clearly the most bigoted viewpoint, and it isn't coming from "Tea Baggers", it is coming from the left. And some of the worst, is coming the black/african left. These people are poverty pimps and race baiters who DO NOT WANT a successful Black (see Ben Carson character assassination).

When success is rewarded with hateful words like "Uncle Tom", and "Race Traitor" you can squarely call it "racism". There is no greater racist than those that DO NOT believe black people can be smart, intelligent and successful.

But, instead of taking a close look at the policies that are designed to hold black people captive (slavery??) inside the invisible cages and to be ruled by their plantation masters (voting 80% DNC), we have people calling the wrong side "racist".

The real Racism are those that insist that black people cannot be successful, without a handout.

There is no difference. People are also searching for "proof" of God, and theories and experiments to prove HIS nature. The fact is, dark matter is theoretical and unprovable, and may not exist at all, because our limited viewpoint cannot allow for us to discover this truth.

"They only reason physicists came up with it in the first place is because... they did experiments and observed space, and noticed that there was too much gravity compared to observable objects"

This is 100% true, but flawed logic. They assume that which is not in evidence. They created a "force" (god) to account for things they observed (miracles), that they couldn't explain otherwise. The only thing they have done is cloaked it in "sciency" language to mask the fact that they have done the very thing that they make fun of religious people of doing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Assuming "Time" is a single dimension. We assume it, because that is what we can observe from our limited viewpoint. Time may not be single dimension.

"We know that the universe itself is a finite age"

We don't "know" this. We assume it based on the facts we have as we understand them. There are a couple conditions (assumptions), 1) Time is a single dimension, 2) Dark Matter exists (we have no proof). There are good reasons to believe that time is not single dimension, which interestingly enough would negate the need for Dark Matter, while also explaining redshift light in a non-expanding universe that has always existed.

As humans, we assume things not in evidence, based on what we know. But if what we "know" is wrong, then our assumptions are likely to also be wrong.