This is the part where it starts to lose me. It seems a lot of support for anti-IP sentiment is rooted in the fact that someone's individual subjective conclusion is that someone who wrote that book or created that [insert any artistic item] in [whatever artistic medium] doesn't deserve to be "rich." Just because you personally don't find the value in something doesn't mean the entire market should share your sentiment, and in fact, in cases where someone is rich because of their work, it means the market in fact doesn't at all share your personal sentiment. I find the IP and patent system we currently have to be grossly abusive and anti-innovation, but patents and copyrights do have their place in a more limited setting, and copyright protection for artists is essential. I don't support the entire scrapping of the system, and I definitely don't support any argument against the system that is predicated on someone's personal opinion that popular artists don't deserve what they earn for creating things millions of people value, or that artists owe the world their work for free. For me, an artistic copyright is a legal means to enforce an artist's right to their personal property against anyone who would take it without the artist's permission. A just world is predicated on voluntary exchange, voluntary payment for what the individual creates, with their labor or mind or whatever. It's not voluntary exchange if you don't have permission to take their work, and therefore it's not just.

At least, that's how I view it from a libertarian-leaning perspective. I guess this applies more to copyrights than patents.

Yeah, I guess it was hoping too much for you to have an original thought. So in the mind of you others, soliciting money for a charity foundation equals proof she's for sale to foreign governments? Let me know if anything ever develops to support the conspiracy theory. I could always use another valid reason to hate on Clinton.

Misleading title. He was not demoted because of the 2009 award to Obama. In fact, no specific reason was stated at all, but people speculate based on all the controversial awards since his election as chairman: Obama in 2009, Liu Xiabo in 2010 which enraged China, and the EU in 2012 (amidst an apparent conflict of interest for Jagland). Note that the conclusion a biased site like zerohedge draws from the fact that Jagland's successor denied that Jagland was replaced due to pressure from China is that she did not deny that he was replaced for any other reason (probably because she wasn't asked about it), but this proves it was due to the 2009 award. This lazy logic is why conservatives are so riddled with false facts. Something bad about Obama? Must be true, no need to question it. Let's repeat it everywhere.

I bolded the conspiracy part  for you since you have trouble keeping straight the parts with merit from the parts where you speculate and confuse your speculation with facts. I'm sure Hillary's fundraising and ties to special interests is vastly more evil than the republicans who will be accepting a billion dollars for the Koch brothers. The part I think is funny is where you think that republicans doing the same thing is somehow different.

Well I suppose we can't have an anti-Hillary piece without injecting all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories into it... 

"Possibly" breaking rules? Where lies the ambiguity? Either all official correspondence has to be done with official government e-mail addresses, or it doesn't. Which is it?

I'm glad you have such an unbiased and rational viewpoint that's in no way colored by your extreme racism.

Pretty naive to run an illegal gambling site from US soil and expect no consequences. The US is constantly shutting down gambling operations that don't make their cut to the government ("licensing"). This guy got away without jail it appears, so he's pretty lucky considering executives of other foreign internet gambling sites have been arrested inside the US.

Don't hold it against republicans too hard. Buying into lies like the one posted is a subconscious defense mechanism to allow that unjustified sense of political superiority. After all, we all know deep in our hearts that no republican president has ever violated the Constitution, and that there are still meaningful differences between republicans and democrats.  

I'm a bit apprehensive clicking on anything that says "strictly 18+". Is this a grisly and/or graphic video? I didn't make the Frankenstein comment, so I'm not sure that was supposed to be directed at me. I don't think people with transplanted organs or appendages necessarily are. But a head is another thing entirely, because the replacement of appendages isn't the replacement of the self. Identity travels with the head, so attaching a head to another body would qualify as Frankenstein-level, if that is relevant to anything discussed here. And the successful attachment of an appendage, like hands, does not foretell the feasibility of something far more complex, like brain stem and spine. Having useful hands after a hand transplant doesn't translate to having useful motor functions after a head transplant.

This source doesn't do me much good. It includes a lot of medical jargon which I do not understand. I surmise that doctors reattached a severed spinal cord? If this is accurate, it's still the existing spinal cord of one individual that was previously intact. That's not nearly the same as attaching the brain stem and spinal cord of one individual into the body of another individual and having any degree of mobility. Based just on my impression of the feasibility of the procedure, I still have to side with the two other neurosurgeons they quoted in the original article as saying such a transplant is not feasible.

On your first point, I'm well aware. I studied US Cold War foreign policy in college. From the US perspective, having the Jupiter missiles in Turkey was a great success, because it gave them a bargaining chip to trade with the Soviets over the Cuba missiles. And the Jupiter missiles were largely breaking down (it's unlikely they could even have been launched, or if they could, would have been ineffective) and they were also redundant anyway, so taking them out of Turkey was no great loss to the US's overall strategy. Of course, the US still spun the withdrawal of the Soviet missiles from Cuba as an unmitigated victory, and didn't announce anything about the Jupiter missiles. Both sides still sought to control the perception of the crisis for political reasons.

2: I agree, asking the media to understand the nuance of a complex situation is futile. Asking them to report on it is impossible.

3: Fair point, and I don't disagree. But most of the "debate" I've seen hasn't attempted to find common ground. It's based in very hyperbolic language. "The US is instigated the uprising," or "The US is fighting a proxy war against Russia." These concepts are so simplistic they are automatically wrong, but the entire rest of the debate is built on top of "facts" like this. I know there are similar overly-simplistic theses on my side of the aisle upon which arguments are constructed in the same faulty manner. To the extent anyone is attempting to find objective truth, I applaud and encourage those efforts. But starting with the premise "everything you say is wrong" is so closed-minded, that nothing said after that can hope to make any impact whatsoever. And these are the quality of the statements I see most often on topic threads about Ukraine. I'm interested in objective truth, as much as it can possibly be known, and objective truth in this instance involves understanding the nuance and history that is so often ignored for the haste of making a quick judgement on who is the "bad guy."

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't have the capacity to determine for myself if the people depicted in the video are Russian or Ukrainian. It's also not important to me. The people who did this act are scum human beings. Nationality doesn't factor into at all.

To the article? Yeah. I also noted the two neurosurgeons they quoted who said this wasn't feasible.

People in the facebook thread are claiming that those people are these guys:

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

I have no way to tell if it is true, or where they are even getting that from. Someone just states it and then other people start repeating it. To me it is just as likely false as it is true.

This is sickening. What's even more sickening is they filmed it and uploaded it somewhere for attention. It shows premeditation and callous disregard for another person. These people should never see the outside of a prison.

Sewing a monky's head on another monkey body is not analogous to a human head transplant where you hope to have any quality of life afterwards. The science is what I find unfeasible, or the fact that it would ever be deemed ethically acceptable.

You don't even have to raise a hypothetical. Look at how the US reacted to the Cuban Missile Crisis (I know the Russian refer to it differently). Or how the US responded to the Zimmerman Telegram with Germany in WWI. That will tell you how the US responds to threats to it. As an American, I agree, the US historically is an aggressor. But that doesn't render your depiction of the events accurate in Ukraine.

Each side arguing for their subjective version of the truth of what is going on in Ukraine just seems so pointlessly futile. Neither side is going to convince the other that they're not buying into propaganda, so what's the point in citing news sources that the other side will just dismiss outright as lies? As much as you know that the US is orchestrating this whole thing, the West knows with the same confidence that Russia is instigating the rebellion. As much as the West knows that Russian media is full of garbage, I'm sure you know with the same level of confidence the western media reports are wrong. Each side believes their knowledge is unassailable. You can't counter that level of dogma.

I can't see it ever being feasible, let alone in two years. That's the type of time frame you slap on your proclamation so the press covers it.

Well, I think your opinion is jaded by the interaction we just had. From my perspective, calling for the deaths of people you don't like makes you a bad person. I find it hard to hold back from someone who actively calls for the "genocide" of any group of people, for any reason whatsoever. Violence is not an acceptable way to deal with people who have a different political opinion than you. I think if you were to read my posts enough, you would realize my reaction was in response to an unacceptable solution (genocide) to a political problem, and nothing more. People who advocate for violence are extremists, and extremist sentiments should be challenged always.