This is the same Huffington Post that hypocritcally moderates every thread to shape the discussion in favor of their own personal political agenda?
 
Yes and it is easy to test as well. Post a few posts criticizing Obama (using polite language) in appropriate articles and then post exactly the same posts but replacing Obama with any Republican. Every single post about a Republican will get through but most of those mentioning about Obama will never get posted. Not to mention the childish inanity of the majority of posts there and it validates what Breitbart said about Huffpo: that he is glad he set it up for Arianna because it shows liberals for what they are, a bunch of naive, hateful and ignorant spoiled children.

Torture, bribery of foreign officials, child sex trafficking.
 
You and I may not like it but torture was in fact not illegal. As to bribery and providing boy prostitutes to afghan warlords, give me a break. You want CIA operatives in Afghanistan charged with fucking bribery? First of all that's the only way to get things done over there, and secondly, is bribery of foreign officials even a crime?

Exactly. Reading comments from pro-Manning people, you would think there is a huge list of horrendous crimes that he made public, but that is simply not the case. To me, the stuff he made public actually kinda proved that we are the good guys after all. Even the few incidents that are iffy (that apache video) are fucking videotaped, archived, investigated etc and eventually they tend to become public knowledge. What other country has ever done any of that? Russians in Afghanistan routinely carpet bombed towns and villages as a collective punishment and killed over a million of Afghan civilians and even Russians will still bitch about the US being bad guys for some reason. You want us to be perfect? Fine, I want that to, but at least I realize that perfection in war is not possible and I try to have some perspective.

Other than buying oil, the US has no business in the mid-east.
 
Naive isolationism has such a weird attraction to Americans. Buying oil is not like going to a supermarket and buying milk. It is the most strategic resource there is and whoever controls it controls the world. US pulling out of the middle east means a free for all, with Saudi and Iran (at least) going nuclear, and all the small oil producing countries aligning themselves with whoever replaces the US. Russia, China and others taking over the oil industry that we built. How would you like us to be a bitch to an oil cartel and whatever major powers (FAR worse than us in every way) are behind them, with power to screw with our economy any time they want? Some day we may not be dependent on the middle east oil, and may that day come soon, but it is not here yet.
 
Btw, the public perception of US military is completely opposite from the truth. It is not a weapon we swing around to intimidate and oppress countries. Our military power is an asset that we trade (with Saudis, Qataris, Emiratis, Kuwaitis, Israelis, Japanese, Koreans, Australians, Europeans, and countless other countries that we protect) just like any other asset. In exchange for it, we get less than we spend on it directly, but indirectly we get far more in terms of stability, free commerce, access to essential resources and allies in the UN and other organizations. It doesn't take much imagination to picture a world in which US pulls out, and the chaos that would result.

It is not necessarily corruption, it is a natural result of people being tasked with spending other people's money. They don't have to be actually receiving bribes, they just don't have an incentive to be super careful with it. This is why a congressman will casually vote for spending say $500 million of public money, usually without even reading the bill, whereas there is no way in hell he would spend even $5 of his own money without being convinced that he is getting a good deal for it.

I don't know better than Musk but I know enough to see that the way he presented this was pure hype. A brand new technology for which even the science is not clear enough, let alone being fully developed even on paper, let alone prototyped, tried on a smaller scale, made economically feasible in comparison to other options, millions of safety and other problems that will come up resolved etc etc. Not saying it cannot work but give a decade to each of those stages and then you can talk about LA to San Francisco.

Not worth it, even for free.

It isn't stealing. When I steal, you don't have what I took from you.
 
Boring nitpicking. Stealing is just a shorthand way of saying you are taking something for free against the wishes of the rightful owner who has put a price on it.

The copyright contract has been broken. It is specifically mandated to be for a LIMITED TIME. Since copyrights are now unlimited, there is no longer an obligation to follow copyright.
 
Copyrights are not unlimited in any major country that I know of. Can you specify contract are you talking about that makes it ok for you to break the law if, in your opinion, the duration of copyright is too long?

The people actually producing the art work don't get much compensation for their work.
 
There is nothing stopping any artist to sell their art by themselves and keep ALL the money. The reason they sign up with labels (to take music as an example) is because making 5% of the millions of dollars is better than 100% of zero dollars . The share of the profits that they get reflects the reality that it is not the quality of music that sells it but marketing that the label provides.

And your flippant dismissal of calling politicians corrupt flies in the face of extremely extensive and well-documented history.
 
Absolutely agree with that one. Assuming you are consistent in believing that such corrupt politicians should have much less power in areas other than copyright (such as taxation/welfare, industry regulation, healthcare etc etc) then we are in perfect agreement on this one.

I don't know what corporate executives personal preferences are but I know that majority of the worst behaving corporations (wall street, media, entertainment) disproportionately donate to Democratic party.

And no I'm not aware that corporations "control the government" except to the extent that excessive regulation of the industry naturally invites corruption among government officials.

There is no reason why we won't have a functioning colony on Mars within 2-3 decades from now, which is no time at all. In fact I think it is very likely to happen. Now, a self-sustaining colony that can keep the human race going should Earth be wiped out is a little bit further off but it can be done. If your time frame is a few decades, perhaps 100 years, rather than right now, it is not nuts at all.

Democrats have more of a history of abuse of power by the government than Republicans, so I don't know why you would call him a closed Republican.

The only long term solution for human race is colonizing other planets. Having all our eggs in one basket is a bad idea regardless of who is right about the severity of the impact of global warming.

The winning poem sucks but what do you expect. Instead of celebrating human achievement we are sending a poem bitching about how horrible Earth is and that at a time it is the most peaceful it has ever been (at least since human civilizations took off). Talk about a lack of imagination and perspective.

I doubt there is any cost involved. The mission is going up there anyway, not just to carry poems.

Given that humans routinely swim in close proximity with captive Orcas multiple times a day, not to mention ride on their back and stick their head in Orcas mouth for a show, while any human contact with wild Orcas is extremely rare, I agree with your point that Orcas not in captivity are statistically far more dangerous.