I searched google for about 20 minutes for news articles to back up my statements. In all honesty, I found just one. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/mar/
25/driver-blamed-string-crashes-says-he-smoked-pot-fi/ I'm not quite sure why so few articles come up. Perhaps drivers aren't tested for marijuana as much as they are alcohol? I'm open to debate here.

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^Gamble:
I'm not discussing whether or not it's toxic. I'm stating the the claim that nobody, IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND, has ever died from marijuana abuse is bullshit, and a ridiculously unbelievable claim to make.
I drink, I smoke, and a few years ago, before my employment started testing me, I smoked pot. I have no problem with anyone else doing the same. However, the claim that it can't kill you is, frankly, retarded.
Take automobile accidents alone. (Keep in mind, in the interest of being fair, that alcohol-related auto fatalities occur far more often.) In France alone, 7% of all drivers in fatal car crashes were found to be under the influence of marijuana. As with alcohol, the impairing effects stack with the more you consume.
Alcohol is statistically shown to kill more on the highways than marijuana. I disagree with drunk-driving, and sincerely hope that all those that do find their way into a ditch without harming others. Marijuana is an impairing substance as well, and I have no more patience for it on our roads than I do alcohol.
In light of all that, I'm 100% supportive of everybody getting baked out of their minds as long as they don't endanger others.
>> ^enoch:
so can i infer from your comment you disagree with joe rogans claim?
while i did find three "possible" recorded deaths over the last 20 yrs due to weed..they could not be substantiated and a coroner in england who theorized much more...there really is no evidence to back up the claim that weed kills.
http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30
but you go right ahead and plug your ears and cover your eyes and continue to believe the corporate funded propaganda campaign demonizing weed.
it is like it's the 1940's again!
yaaaaay.

>> ^Duckman33:

100% correct. No one has died from pot. Get over it.


I have never seen any evidence that anyone has ever died as a direct result of marijuana use, and you provided none to back up your claims. But I have heard and read many reputable people say that no one has ever died from it's use.
I can tell you one thing. I'd feel more comfortable getting behind the wheel after taking a bong hit or two than after drinking a six pack. If anything I'd drive slower and more cautiously. Drunk I'd speed, and more than likely be swerving all over the road. Comparing the impairment you get from weed to alcohol is ridiculous.

>> ^Gamble:

I'm not discussing whether or not it's toxic. I'm stating the the claim that nobody, IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND, has ever died from marijuana abuse is bullshit, and a ridiculously unbelievable claim to make.
I drink, I smoke, and a few years ago, before my employment started testing me, I smoked pot. I have no problem with anyone else doing the same. However, the claim that it can't kill you is, frankly, retarded.
Take automobile accidents alone. (Keep in mind, in the interest of being fair, that alcohol-related auto fatalities occur far more often.) In France alone, 7% of all drivers in fatal car crashes were found to be under the influence of marijuana. As with alcohol, the impairing effects stack with the more you consume.
Alcohol is statistically shown to kill more on the highways than marijuana. I disagree with drunk-driving, and sincerely hope that all those that do find their way into a ditch without harming others. Marijuana is an impairing substance as well, and I have no more patience for it on our roads than I do alcohol.
In light of all that, I'm 100% supportive of everybody getting baked out of their minds as long as they don't endanger others.
>> ^enoch:
so can i infer from your comment you disagree with joe rogans claim?
while i did find three "possible" recorded deaths over the last 20 yrs due to weed..they could not be substantiated and a coroner in england who theorized much more...there really is no evidence to back up the claim that weed kills.
http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30
but you go right ahead and plug your ears and cover your eyes and continue to believe the corporate funded propaganda campaign demonizing weed.
it is like it's the 1940's again!
yaaaaay.

>> ^Duckman33:

100% correct. No one has died from pot. Get over it.



I have never seen any evidence that anyone has ever died as a direct result of marijuana use, and you provided none to back up your claims. But I have heard and read many reputable people say that no one has ever died from it's use.

I can tell you one thing. I'd feel more comfortable getting behind the wheel after taking a bong hit or two than after drinking a six pack. If anything I'd drive slower and more cautiously. Drunk I'd speed, and more than likely be swerving all over the road. Comparing the impairment you get from weed to alcohol is ridiculous.

I'm not discussing whether or not it's toxic. I'm stating the the claim that nobody, IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND, has ever died from marijuana abuse is bullshit, and a ridiculously unbelievable claim to make.

I drink, I smoke, and a few years ago, before my employment started testing me, I smoked pot. I have no problem with anyone else doing the same. However, the claim that it can't kill you is, frankly, retarded.

Take automobile accidents alone. (Keep in mind, in the interest of being fair, that alcohol-related auto fatalities occur far more often.) In France alone, 7% of all drivers in fatal car crashes were found to be under the influence of marijuana. As with alcohol, the impairing effects stack with the more you consume.

Alcohol is statistically shown to kill more on the highways than marijuana. I disagree with drunk-driving, and sincerely hope that all those that do find their way into a ditch without harming others. Marijuana is an impairing substance as well, and I have no more patience for it on our roads than I do alcohol.

In light of all that, I'm 100% supportive of everybody getting baked out of their minds as long as they don't endanger others.
>> ^enoch:
so can i infer from your comment you disagree with joe rogans claim?
while i did find three "possible" recorded deaths over the last 20 yrs due to weed..they could not be substantiated and a coroner in england who theorized much more...there really is no evidence to back up the claim that weed kills.
http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30
but you go right ahead and plug your ears and cover your eyes and continue to believe the corporate funded propaganda campaign demonizing weed.
it is like it's the 1940's again!
yaaaaay.

>> ^Duckman33:

100% correct. No one has died from pot. Get over it.

>> ^Gamble:

No one has ever died from pot? Sorry, stopped watching right there.


so can i infer from your comment you disagree with joe rogans claim?
while i did find three "possible" recorded deaths over the last 20 yrs due to weed..they could not be substantiated and a coroner in england who theorized much more...there really is no evidence to back up the claim that weed kills.
http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

but you go right ahead and plug your ears and cover your eyes and continue to believe the corporate funded propaganda campaign demonizing weed.
it is like it's the 1940's again!
yaaaaay.

4 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'chaplin dictator' to 'charlie chaplin, the great dictator, speech, 1940' - edited by gwiz665

Automatically replaced video embed code with backup #1940 (supplied by member jimnms) - video declared dead by member radx.

If a solution is posted on the internet and everyone calls you an idiot, is it still a solution?

Rick figured that although a nut traveling DDWFTTW might be the simplest form of such a device, replacing the threaded rod with a wheeled vehicle would be more compelling – and possibly even less intuitive. He conceptualized replacing the device’s keel nut with gearing from a drive axle to a propeller shaft that would replicate the kinematic constraint perfectly. With the problem solved as far as he was concerned, he posed the new brainteaser on two internet forums, one for radio controlled helicopter pilots, the other for kitesurfers. Given the solution, Rick imagined people would find this clever.

Instead they considered him an idiot for ever imagining such a thing to be possible.

This is where the pointless brainteaser took on a life of its own. Science, physics and aerodynamics forums exploded. Sailing forums exploded. Flying-related forums exploded. It was silliness traveling at the speed of electrons. Turns out it’s serious business when someone is wrong on the internet, and boy did the internet ever believe Rick was wrong.

One interesting factoid emerged from the chaos. We learned that a Michigan University student posed this same non-problem – and a solution identical to Rick’s — in the 1940s. The student’s paper surfaced at Douglas Aircraft in the 1960s. Apollo M.O. Smith, the company’s chief aerodynamics engineer, and wind tunnel engineer Dr. Andrew Bauer went at it like Rick vs. the Internet. Bauer said it would work. Smith wasn’t convinced. Bauer bet Smith a dollar and went to work.

Read More http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/08/ddwfttw/all/1#ixzz0y2H81thY

I could write a wall of text providing detail on everything I've said about solar power. Is that what you want? Humans have been fiddling with batteries for centuries and with solar cells since the 1940s. Progress has been slow not because people haven't been trying or because there hasn't been money thrown at the issue. People have been trying to make solar work for decades, and have sunk billions into research. And yet - here we are - and solar power isn't good for squat except powering calculators and heating water. You can't change the laws of physics.

Until some genius discovers a brand new technology, solar power will remain unviable except for limited applications. Ma Bell made the first solar cell in 1954 and the basic design & technology is still the same. Batteries? New metals haven't changed the fact that they're localized, heavy, toxic, and expensive.

I know some folks wish otherwise. But solar just isn't a good alternative. If we're going to go to an electricity economy then it's going to need to be done with nuclear. This guy's road? A cute idea - but conspicuously absent in this video is any cost analysis or description of exactly how he's going to get the collected power from the road to your house or business. Energy doesn't just magically wait around for you to use it. It's got to be moved from point A to point B, and has to be stored somewhere until its accessed. Currently it costs around 10,000 dollars just to get enough solar paneling (ignoring the batteries, cables, fixtures & labor) to power one small house. Panelling the entire road system? Yeah, right... (b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b...)

TLDR.

PS: Both sides are crazy pants. A little bit like this thread.

>> ^bcglorf:

He merely said that people will not tolerate this woman espousing her hateful and ill conceived views, but we extend that courtesy to the Jews/Israelies who want to wipe out the Palestinians, likewise hateful and ill conceived.
He went a touch further initially and characterized all opposition to this girl as hypocrites that extend the courtesy to Israeli and Jewish acts of terrorism and excess. That by extension paints all Israelis as wanting to wipe out the Palestinians, and I do consider that a hateful view and will oppose it as long as it remains untrue. He did later clarify that as too broad though, and my last response had been to Drachen_Jager.
You've done the instinctive jump (I'm surprised you didn't start waving the holocaust flag sooner tbh) to go on the offensive as if Longde was some jew hating white supremicist when you have nothing, from what he has said, to base that on.
And yet you both failed the litmus test. When Drachen_Jager stated his willingness to extend leniency to oppressed peoples, like Hamas and Hezbollah, I pointed back to 1940's Israel and asked if the same standards applied then. Longde declared that to be revisionist history and you've made it clear you consider the Israeli war of independence a terrorist act. I never said anything about Israel's many crimes being justified because of the holocaust. I just stated that when considering the civil war between Jew and Arab in 1940's Palestine, the holocaust absolutely sways me in support of the Jewish minority. All the more so when the entirety of the Arab world decided to join in and attempt to exterminate the Jewish people for the second time in a single decade.
Would you condemn the extremists who helped establish the Jewish state?
Yes. Would you condemn the very establishment of that Jewish state because of those extremists? I certainly am not willing to, and if you are I'd ask if Hamas has then similarly disqualified the Palestinians from the right to a Palestinian state?
For the record (in case you've actually read this far), I condemn Hammas and Hezbollah for their crimes. I condemn the right wing government of Israel for it's crimes and it's Nazi-esque policies. I condemn any Jew who supports them and wants to see Palestine gone. I condemn Jews who misuse terribly the suffering of those involved in the Holocaust to silence dissent to Israels current facist actions.
And I can agree whole heartedly with this entire paragraph. We see 100% eye to eye on it. I do differ in going a touch further though and requiring the observation that Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and a great many arab populations in surrounding countries are all as nazi-esque in their racism towards Israel. Hamas and Hezbollah also go further still in being less discriminate in their hatred and use of violence. The only thing holding them back from exterminating all Israeli's is they lack the ability to do it. At least the right wing nuts in Israel like Netanyahu are held back by the will of the moderate Israeli's, because there can be no mistaking that if Netanyahu's kind wished to turn the West bank and Gaza into lifeless rubble they could likely do it inside a week.
I'm perfectly content to condemn Israel for it's crimes and extremists. I will not settle for disproportionate blame being laid on them for all the hate, violence and atrocities befalling the region around them. The Palestinians aren't the only ones who's extremists have arisen from existential threats to their people.

Here is what I wrote above: "I define her opposition as the people on the other side using extrremism and killing to achieve their ends. Perhaps I have defined it too broadly. I certainly don't think it encapsulates all Jews or Isrealis, but I do think it includes the Israeli government and military."

Again, you are putting words in my mouth, unless all Israelis and all Jews use extremism and killing.


>> ^bcglorf:

He merely said that people will not tolerate this woman espousing her hateful and ill conceived views, but we extend that courtesy to the Jews/Israelies who want to wipe out the Palestinians, likewise hateful and ill conceived.
He went a touch further initially and characterized all opposition to this girl as hypocrites that extend the courtesy to Israeli and Jewish acts of terrorism and excess. That by extension paints all Israelis as wanting to wipe out the Palestinians, and I do consider that a hateful view and will oppose it as long as it remains untrue. He did later clarify that as too broad though, and my last response had been to Drachen_Jager.
You've done the instinctive jump (I'm surprised you didn't start waving the holocaust flag sooner tbh) to go on the offensive as if Longde was some jew hating white supremicist when you have nothing, from what he has said, to base that on.
And yet you both failed the litmus test. When Drachen_Jager stated his willingness to extend leniency to oppressed peoples, like Hamas and Hezbollah, I pointed back to 1940's Israel and asked if the same standards applied then. Longde declared that to be revisionist history and you've made it clear you consider the Israeli war of independence a terrorist act. I never said anything about Israel's many crimes being justified because of the holocaust. I just stated that when considering the civil war between Jew and Arab in 1940's Palestine, the holocaust absolutely sways me in support of the Jewish minority. All the more so when the entirety of the Arab world decided to join in and attempt to exterminate the Jewish people for the second time in a single decade.
Would you condemn the extremists who helped establish the Jewish state?
Yes. Would you condemn the very establishment of that Jewish state because of those extremists? I certainly am not willing to, and if you are I'd ask if Hamas has then similarly disqualified the Palestinians from the right to a Palestinian state?
For the record (in case you've actually read this far), I condemn Hammas and Hezbollah for their crimes. I condemn the right wing government of Israel for it's crimes and it's Nazi-esque policies. I condemn any Jew who supports them and wants to see Palestine gone. I condemn Jews who misuse terribly the suffering of those involved in the Holocaust to silence dissent to Israels current facist actions.
And I can agree whole heartedly with this entire paragraph. We see 100% eye to eye on it. I do differ in going a touch further though and requiring the observation that Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and a great many arab populations in surrounding countries are all as nazi-esque in their racism towards Israel. Hamas and Hezbollah also go further still in being less discriminate in their hatred and use of violence. The only thing holding them back from exterminating all Israeli's is they lack the ability to do it. At least the right wing nuts in Israel like Netanyahu are held back by the will of the moderate Israeli's, because there can be no mistaking that if Netanyahu's kind wished to turn the West bank and Gaza into lifeless rubble they could likely do it inside a week.
I'm perfectly content to condemn Israel for it's crimes and extremists. I will not settle for disproportionate blame being laid on them for all the hate, violence and atrocities befalling the region around them. The Palestinians aren't the only ones who's extremists have arisen from existential threats to their people.

He merely said that people will not tolerate this woman espousing her hateful and ill conceived views, but we extend that courtesy to the Jews/Israelies who want to wipe out the Palestinians, likewise hateful and ill conceived.

He went a touch further initially and characterized all opposition to this girl as hypocrites that extend the courtesy to Israeli and Jewish acts of terrorism and excess. That by extension paints all Israelis as wanting to wipe out the Palestinians, and I do consider that a hateful view and will oppose it as long as it remains untrue. He did later clarify that as too broad though, and my last response had been to Drachen_Jager.

You've done the instinctive jump (I'm surprised you didn't start waving the holocaust flag sooner tbh) to go on the offensive as if Longde was some jew hating white supremicist when you have nothing, from what he has said, to base that on.

And yet you both failed the litmus test. When Drachen_Jager stated his willingness to extend leniency to oppressed peoples, like Hamas and Hezbollah, I pointed back to 1940's Israel and asked if the same standards applied then. Longde declared that to be revisionist history and you've made it clear you consider the Israeli war of independence a terrorist act. I never said anything about Israel's many crimes being justified because of the holocaust. I just stated that when considering the civil war between Jew and Arab in 1940's Palestine, the holocaust absolutely sways me in support of the Jewish minority. All the more so when the entirety of the Arab world decided to join in and attempt to exterminate the Jewish people for the second time in a single decade.

Would you condemn the extremists who helped establish the Jewish state?

Yes. Would you condemn the very establishment of that Jewish state because of those extremists? I certainly am not willing to, and if you are I'd ask if Hamas has then similarly disqualified the Palestinians from the right to a Palestinian state?

For the record (in case you've actually read this far), I condemn Hammas and Hezbollah for their crimes. I condemn the right wing government of Israel for it's crimes and it's Nazi-esque policies. I condemn any Jew who supports them and wants to see Palestine gone. I condemn Jews who misuse terribly the suffering of those involved in the Holocaust to silence dissent to Israels current facist actions.

And I can agree whole heartedly with this entire paragraph. We see 100% eye to eye on it. I do differ in going a touch further though and requiring the observation that Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and a great many arab populations in surrounding countries are all as nazi-esque in their racism towards Israel. Hamas and Hezbollah also go further still in being less discriminate in their hatred and use of violence. The only thing holding them back from exterminating all Israeli's is they lack the ability to do it. At least the right wing nuts in Israel like Netanyahu are held back by the will of the moderate Israeli's, because there can be no mistaking that if Netanyahu's kind wished to turn the West bank and Gaza into lifeless rubble they could likely do it inside a week.

I'm perfectly content to condemn Israel for it's crimes and extremists. I will not settle for disproportionate blame being laid on them for all the hate, violence and atrocities befalling the region around them. The Palestinians aren't the only ones who's extremists have arisen from existential threats to their people.

Revisionist history

>> ^bcglorf:

Honestly I find less to blame in persecuted peoples who promote hate speech in an attempt to fight their persecutors than I find with persecutors who promote hate speech in an effort to villainize an entire population to the point where it's "overlooked" by world governments when they simply "relocate" those people they don't like away from prosperous land and into tenements.
I don't think I sufficiently denounced this folly before.
Harken back to 1940's Palestine, when the Arab majority was persecuting the Jewish minority. Remember 1949, when the Jewish survivors of the holocaust finally had enough of being persecuted in Palestine as well, and rose up to fight for their independence. Do you have the same difficulty condemning Israel's violence then?
Let's go further, can you cheer with me as the Jewish survivors of the holocaust fought for independence only to be faced by the united wrath of the entire Arab League of Nations. As they were outnumbered 100-1, by forces set on finishing what Hitler nearly accomplished only a few short years earlier, can you spare a cheer for their ultimate victory and survival?
I can understand attributing some leniency when a desperate people resorts to extremes. What I fail to understand is where absolutely non of that leniency is extended to Israel in any way shape or form. Hamas and Hezbollah aren't a direct existential threat to Israel, but they ARE proxies for the multiple nations that do have that potential.

Honestly I find less to blame in persecuted peoples who promote hate speech in an attempt to fight their persecutors than I find with persecutors who promote hate speech in an effort to villainize an entire population to the point where it's "overlooked" by world governments when they simply "relocate" those people they don't like away from prosperous land and into tenements.

I don't think I sufficiently denounced this folly before.

Harken back to 1940's Palestine, when the Arab majority was persecuting the Jewish minority. Remember 1949, when the Jewish survivors of the holocaust finally had enough of being persecuted in Palestine as well, and rose up to fight for their independence. Do you have the same difficulty condemning Israel's violence then?

Let's go further, can you cheer with me as the Jewish survivors of the holocaust fought for independence only to be faced by the united wrath of the entire Arab League of Nations. As they were outnumbered 100-1, by forces set on finishing what Hitler nearly accomplished only a few short years earlier, can you spare a cheer for their ultimate victory and survival?

I can understand attributing some leniency when a desperate people resorts to extremes. What I fail to understand is where absolutely non of that leniency is extended to Israel in any way shape or form. Hamas and Hezbollah aren't a direct existential threat to Israel, but they ARE proxies for the multiple nations that do have that potential.

I believe the word you're looking for is "Daddy".

In reply to this comment by chtierna:
For this comment I salute you just as if I was a German in the 1940's and you were my... whats the word now...

In reply to this comment by therealblankman:
Thanks for correcting my Grammar, especially in a language which I do not speak- it'll come in handy for me to know I shouldn't capitalize the "D" in "der Führer", not to mention instructing me in the proper use of an umlaut. You've saved me from humiliation and embarassment by going out of your way to teach me the use of proper German grammar. There's a term used on the internet for people who do so, but frankly it escapes me at the moment... some sort of "Grammar Authorities" or "Grammar Strict Police"... damnit, what's the word I'm looking for?