search results matching tag: 23

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (906)     Sift Talk (58)     Blogs (238)     Comments (1000)   

Let's talk about altering the Supreme Court....

newtboy says...

Democrats are denied even a hearing for even their centrist picks (Garland) outrageously unconstitutionally, then Republicans pick FAR RIGHT politicos to replace moderate leftist judges. That was new, never before seen in our history.
Sotomayor and Karen are centrists, dumb shit. Kavenaugh and Barrett are extremist far right wingers….Barrett is barely even a judge, rushed in by a lame duck traitorous seditionist and his lackeys, directly contradicting their own excuse for not hearing Obama’s nomination. They actually admitted they rammed her through as fast as possible with the barest minimum of examination in order to pack the court in anticipation of them contesting the election results….admitted it before the election.
Kavenaugh and Barrett are both extremist Far right wingers, political activist judges, who lied in their confirmation, one is a multiple rapist, never investigated, the other a religious extremist with zero experience who said she would recuse herself on any issue of faith, but hasn’t recused herself from any.
Throw down the gauntlet?! Opposition to his nomination centered on his perceived willingness to roll back the civil rights rulings of the Warren and Burger courts, and his role in the Saturday Night Massacre during the Watergate scandal. On October 23, 1987, the Senate rejected Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court by a roll call vote of 42—58. Bork's margin of rejection by the Senate remains, by percentage, the third-largest on record and broke a 142-year record for largest defeat of a Supreme Court nomination. A historic immediate bipartisan rejection because he was totally unsuited, and had undeniably tried to help Nixon cover up Watergate as acting AG by firing the special prosecutor at Nixon’s direction (the AG and deputy AG had quit when Nixon insisted)….*.
Absolutely nothing similar to Obama being denied a hearing for his picks for a year until his term ended….*. Holy shit! What stupidity.

There are far fewer “conservatives” today, the Republican Party is 26% of the population, not a majority.

Yes, they are throwing cases to the packed court as fast as possible before their stolen majority evaporates. I support a 15 justice Supreme Court with a constitutional amendment halting any further additions without a 2/3 majority….add 6 hyper liberals…no judicial experience necessary or even preferred…AOC would be great.

Why bring a case you might lose? Because cases are supposed to be heard on their merits, not based on political affiliation you ignorant cow. You think the Supreme Court should be a political wing of the right, choosing and deciding cases based on political affiliation, not the law, science, common sense, ethics, or precedent….but only when it serves you.

So, gun rights should be up to states? That’s the next step if you win that fight…the constitution dies and states decide everything….as civil war erupts. Great plan, so patriotic. Remember, California is big enough that when they require fingerprint scanners on all guns sold in the state, manufacturers will add them to all guns….when semi auto guns are banned, manufacturers will move to single shot guns….just like auto manufacturers changed their cars to meet our requirements. Is that your plan? Had you even considered what individual states being in control means? It means California becomes the leader of America, controlling the other states by means of our size, wealth, and international clout. Enjoy.

Not like this, it hasn’t. Never in American history has the court been politicized and weaponized against the will of the majority to ignore precedent (contrary to their oaths and confirmation statements) in order to overturn established law and constitutional rights as a political act. Never.

bobknight33 said:

To say that Republicans are politicizing the supreme court is nonsense. Democrats pick left leaning and Republicans pick right leaning. This is not new. Where were your complaints of politicizing when Sotomayor or Kagen were appointed?

But if you want to go there it started with Senator Ted Kennedy within minutes of Bork being picked by POTUS Reagen to be appointed took to the floor of the senate and thrown down the gauntlet.


They may be lean more conservative today however Its been leaning left last 50 years.

The fact that cases are now before the court is because some conservatives feel there is a chance to have their cases win.

Why bring these case before the supreme court if you know you would have a high likely to loose. All the cost time and effort.


WRT to the abortion issue .If overturned it just means that the decision goes back to the states.


Overturning a previous opinions has occurred and will occur in the future .

Congress requires new tech to detect and stop drunk drivers

newtboy says...

I hope they make it detect people on their phones too. That’s apparently more dangerous than drunk driving…..
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), driving a vehicle while texting is six times more dangerous than intoxicated driving. The Transport Research Laboratory found that writing a text message slows driver reactions by 35 percent, while drinking alcohol up to the legal limit slows reactions by 12 percent. Another study stated that texting drivers react 23 percent slower than intoxicated drivers do.

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Week 1 Summary

lucky760 (Member Profile)

siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your video, Chewbacca Talking English, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 23 Badge!

Removal of Asian giant hornet 'murder hornet' nest

StukaFox says...

Right after Jackass came out, a couple of friends-of-a-friend decided to stage their own version of the movie -- with a hornet's nest. They found the thing hanging from a tree at the edge of a field and it was not remotely on the small size. Also, this was in late August and the queen had already flown away, leaving the drones to slowly starve to death. Thus, the enormous number of stripey-stripey sting-stings were already good 'n' pissed-off.

They were about to get moreso.

So chowderhead A and chowderhead B have a brilliant plan: they're going to shoot this enormous ball full of astoundingly-irate murderous insects with a shotgun while they're filming it. If you're hearing banjos playing and luke-warm cheap beers being cracked open, you're about in the right frame of mind.

Places, everybody!

The stage is set: on one end, at what's decided to be "minimum safe distance", are our erstwhile David Attenborough/Jonny Knoxville knock-offs. At a decidedly NOT minimum safe distance away is the arthropod version of the T'sar Bomba. All we're missing now is a Mossberg, enough idiocy to think this can end any way but badly, and a camera. With far too much alacrity for what's about to happen, all three are provided.

Aaaaaand, ACTION!

* BOOOM! *

At first, surprisingly, nothing happens. This period of stasis lasts roughly a picosecond. Then, unsurprisingly, things start to happen and they happen far more quickly than the Chuckle Brothers planned on. This plays out in three acts:

Act 1: "Hey, uh, why is the nest still there?"
Act 2: "Uh-oh..."
Act 3: "FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK!!!"

Hubris takes many forms, and schadenfreude takes twice as many, but both combined were statistically zero compared to the number of hornets involved in this fiasco. Had the two Mensa escapees who irked said hornets thought this thing through -- stop laughing -- perhaps they would have arrived at the conclusion that 1. a shotgun slug is not the preferred load-out when dealing with a ball made out of wasp puke and 2. being the only two things visible within a 20 mile radius of the ball made out of wasp puke pretty much negates the mystery of who the hornets are going to sting the ever-loving fuck out of.

With their plans in ruins and the nest not, our heroes decide to quit the field. This is the first smart thing they've done since looking at that big ball of wasps and deciding it was redolent with untapped hilarity. The hornets are having none of this white flag nonsense, however, and they decide to quit screwing around and really inflict some pain. It's a quarter mile back to the car and the hornets are going to make them pay for every inch of it.

The final score:
Hornet losses: meh, they were all going to die in a few weeks anyway.
The chucklenuts: 23 stings, a dropped shotgun, and three minutes of footage that they took in the pre-YouTube era and thus is lost to time.

Moral:
Hornets are not toys.

Brian Stelter Gets HUMILIATED by His Own Guest

robdot says...

In two previous episodes of his podcast, March 16 and April 23, Kirk stated that he believed that the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions should self-quarantine. Outside of that, however, he has questioned the vast majority of public health proposals to limit community spread. On the Sunday edition of his podcast, Kirk said: “Do not force me to wear a mask, it’s that simple. I’m not gonna do it, I’m not.” ,then of course. His friend died. These idiots have killed thousands.

Land of Mine Trailer

newtboy says...

Big assumption. Many Hitler youth made the choice to fight for Germany, and joined on their own before children were being drafted.

As for those that were conscripted, is it your position that draftees are somehow immune from responsibility for murdering their neighbors, women, children, rapes, burning towns, or planting millions of landmines on foreign soil, etc? How convenient for them. I don't believe that's a popular or legal position.

I take responsibility for my actions. If their fate was mine, I would be eternally grateful I was treated so much better than I would have treated them if the tables were turned. I would be part of an invading Nazi army, trying to undo just a tiny bit of the damage we had caused, doing so at the direction of my superiors just like when I caused the situation. I would deserve execution, not release. This assumes I wouldn't have the spine to refuse to be a Nazi and be imprisoned or executed.

If the majority of Germans weren't complicit, the Nazis would have never come to power. You give them far too much credit. From the holocaust encyclopedia- "Opposition to the Nazi regime also arose among a very small number of German youth, some of whom resented mandatory membership in the Hitler Youth." Same with adults, the opposition was a minority by far, not the majority of Germans. Who told you that?

"Survived the fighting"? "Here"? "They"? Please finish your thoughts so they have meaning. You seem to be equating Nazi soldiers with the Jews they tried to eradicate. What?!?

The Geneva convention we know today was ratified in 1949. The accords of 1929 were found to be totally insufficient to protect POWs, civilians, infrastructure, etc. Yes, Germany did appear violate it's vague provisions....so did the allies. That's why it was strengthened in 49.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

What provision of the 1929 version do you claim this violates?

Articles 20, 21, 22, and 23 states that officers and persons of equivalent status who are prisoners of war shall be treated with the regard due their rank and age and provide more details on what that treatment should be.
Or
Articles 27 to 34 covers labour by prisoners of war. Work must fit the rank and health of the prisoners. The work must not be war-related and must be safe work. ("Safe" and "war related" being intentionally vague and unenforceable).
Please explain the specific violation that makes mine removal a "war crime". It's not war related, the war was over, and it's "safe" if done properly.
Since this was done at the direction of German officers, the convention as written then doesn't apply.

Death camp!!! LOL. Now I know you aren't serious.
"The removal was part of a controversial agreement between the German Commander General Georg Lindemann, the Danish Government and the British Armed Forces, under which German soldiers with experience in defusing mines would be in charge of clearing the mine fields.
This makes it a case of German soldiers under German officers and NCOs clearing mines under the agreement of the German commander in Denmark who remained at his post for a month after the surrender - this means Germany accepted that they had responsibility to remove the mines - they just had far too few experienced mine clearance experts and far too many “drafted” mine clearers with no real experience in doing so." So, if it's a war crime, it's one the Germans committed against themselves.

I'm happy to say that anything done to a Nazi soldier is ethical, age notwithstanding. Many Nazi youth were more zealous and violent than their adult counterparts. Removing their DNA from the gene pool would have been ethical, but illegal. Taking their country to create Israel would have been ethical, but didn't happen.

At the time, there were few mechanical means of mine removal, they didn't work on wet ground, they required a tank and that the area be pre-cleared of anti tank mines, they often get stuck on beaches, and had just over a 50% clearance rate, cost $300-$1000 per mine removed, and they were in extremely short supply after the war. The Germans volunteered in this instance. Now, the Mine Ban Treaty gives each state the primary responsibility to clear its own mines, just like this agreement did.

So you know, the film is fiction, not history. Maybe read up on the real history before attacking countries over a fictional story. History isn't nearly as cut and dry as it's presented, neither are war crimes.

psycop said:

These boys neither chose the age of conscription nor to go to war. Given their age and the time in the war, they would have been forcably made to fight. If you had the misfortune to be born then and there, thier fate could be yours.

Being in the German army did not imply being a Nazi, the majority of the German population were victims as well, pointlessly lead to slaughter by monsters.

Those of them that would have survived the fighting ended up here. They didn't feed them. They worked until they died. They expected them to die. They wanted them to die.

The Geneva Conventions were signed in 1929 making this an official war crime if that's important to you. I'd say the law does not define ethics, and I'd be happy to say this is wrong regardless of the treaty.

As for alternatives for mine clearance. I'm not a military expert, but I believe there are techniques, equipment, tools or vehicles that can be used to reduce the risk to operators. Frankly it's besides the point. Just because someone cannot think of a solution they prefer over running a death camp, does not mean they are not free to do so.

If you have the time, I'd recommend watching the film. It's excellent. And as with most things, particularly in times of war, it's complicated.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

How To Tie Shoelaces

Community's movie references, a side by side comparison.

eric3579 says...

Timestamps and films

0:00 28 Days Later
0:35 The Matrix
0:50 The Terminator
1:04 T2
1:09 Predator
1:12 Die Hard
1:25 Face Off
1:30 Predator
1:45 Die Hard
1:55 Rambo (not sure which one)
2:08 Die Hard
2:18 The Professional
2:35 Captain America: The Winter Soldier
3:22 Star Wars The Phantom Menace
3:28 Star Wars A New Hope
3:37 Star Wars The Empire Strikes Back
3:43 Die Hard
3:44 Platoon
3:46 Invasion of the Body Snatchers
3:56 Aliens
4:10 Highlander
4:44 The Right Stuff
5:14 Minority Report
5:19 Disclosure
5:38 2001 A Space Odyssey
5:56 Blade Runner
6:15 Patton
6:29 A Few Good Men
6:43 The Breakfast Club
7:06 Rain Man
7:20 Ghost
7:42 An Officer and a Gentleman
7:55 My Dinner with Andre
8:14 Sixteen Candles
8:18 Lost in Translation
8:23 Star Wars The Empire Strikes Back
8:35 Good Will Hunting
8:58 An American Tale
9:08 The Shinning
9:20 LOTR: The Two Towers
9:43 MTV- The Real World: Seattle
10:04 House Party
10:09 The Color of Money
10:14 Pulp Fiction
10:22 The Breakfast Club
10:26 Zardoz
10:29 Blazzing Saddles
10:32 MIB
10:34 Hook
10:36 The Beastmaster
10:41 Wallstreet
10:44 The Shawshank Redemption
10:51 The Fugitive
10:55 Pulp Fiction
11:10 The Ring
11:12 Vertigo
11:14 National Lampoon’s Vacation
11:35 Animal House
12:31 Good Will Hunting
12:44 Dead Poets Society

Marjorie Taylor Greene Condemned for Comment on Mask Mandate

luxintenebris jokingly says...

what is the double-ironic is bk33's statement is factually wrong twice.*

*sigh* small point (and pedantic af) but 'drinking the Kool-Aid' was a grim reference to the poisoning of Jim Jones' cult members. cyanide (et al) was mixed w/FLAVOR AID and they drank it (not all, willingly).

https://www.vox.com/2015/5/23/8647095/kool-aid-jonestown-flavor-aid

sure, might be a tiny detail but still...33 is likely unaware (again) and mistaken (again).

point made.


* even to further the error(s), masks do cut transmissions. triple times the wrong, tho' that's piling on a bit.

StukaFox said:

Dear Webster's:

Please replace the current definition for "irony" with the following...

C-note (Member Profile)

siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your dedication to finding diamonds in the rough and pushing videos of other members to success has earned you your "Assister" Level 23 Badge!

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

bobknight33 says...

Nothing more dangerous to the black than Democratic government policies and "enlightened" white Liberals.
99% black on Black murders 1% cop on black murders. Fix the big issue and the 1% will fade away


2018 breakdown of the 995 people shot and killed by the police.

403 were white,
210 were black,
148 were Hispanic, 3
8 were classified as other, and
199 were classified as unknown.

Out of that 995, 47 were unarmed — 23 were white, 17 were black, 5 were Hispanic, and 2 were unknown.
948 victims were armed

newtboy said:

He should have just cooperated with the police, then he wouldn't be dead. That is what you've been saying for years. What, doesn't that apply to white people?

You are so delusional you don't understand this is precisely what you advocate against non whites.....repeatedly.

🤦‍♂️

Covid Deaths Trump Vs Biden

newtboy says...

I'm regurgitating the numbers Dr Birx used, and comparing our outbreak to other nations that took it seriously like S Korea and New Zealand. If we had used the same serious action S Korea had, our death rate per 100000 would be an astonishing 1/60th of what our death rates were in the first 6 months or so. Just universal mask wearing would have cut our deaths by an estimated >1/4, 130000 fewer deaths, and slowed the rate of new cases significantly, but Trump fought against them.

Here's the link on that data...., granted slightly dated.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/23/how-many-coronavirus-deaths-are-truly-attributable-trump/

Remember, the Whitehouse said 100000-240000 possible deaths, around the same time Trump said deaths would never rise over 20000, using the lower of those numbers and blaming Trump's policies for the excess we are >80% his fault now, using Trump's promised numbers over 96% are blood on his hands.

There's also the fact that after knowing about the uncontrolled epidemic in WuHan Trump let over 40000 people (just not Chinese nationals) back in the country from that region with no tests available and no quarantine except for those obviously extremely sick. An immediate and actual travel lockdown could have made our deaths zero, and definitely would have made them exponentially lower.

Then there's the dismantling of the Global Health Security and Biodefense unit he closed that likely could have identified the outbreak in China much earlier and again, made our numbers zero. It's exactly what they were created to avoid.

I honestly feel 80- 90% was being generous, in fact there's a real possibility that a thoughtful adult president would have made any number of intelligent decisions, any one of which could have avoided the pandemic altogether or minimized infections enormously, even minimizing the Chinese epidemic.

I do agree, Biden is doing much better at taking it seriously and acting like rapid vaccination is important, but still isn't doing enough. I would prefer an enforced national mask mandate, mandatory social distancing, school closings until vaccination saturation, etc until we have herd immunity....not half assed measures like 50% capacity at bars and restaurants, with few business shutdowns and zero enforcement, pretending it's over every time infection rates dip.

Mordhaus said:

I don't disagree that Trump could have handled many aspects of the pandemic better, but I think your numbers are a bit off.

One, because with the lack of a vaccine, experts are unsure of how many of the deaths can be laid specifically at Trump's feet. In other words, they are unable to put a solid number to how many would have died had he done anything different. It certainly would not be 80-90%, that is a nearly unproveable claim in the face of no vaccine being available. The closest estimate is from the Lancet Commision, which suggests that 40% could be Trump's fault, along with four decades of "long-standing flaws in US economic, health, and social policy" that compounded inefficiencies in the country's public-health systems before the pandemic. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32545-9/fulltext

If you look at statistics, Biden's administration was running at similar death numbers than Trump's for a couple of months after he took office. They only began to decline rapidly since the vaccine became more available. Vaccine availability is more of a factor of how fast the companies were able to make the vaccine, versus anything Biden could have done. His contribution, if you will, is primarily not stockpiling a reserve and sending it out as fast as possible. The current death rate is running about the same as from May 2020 to November 2020. The winter surge was about as bad as everyone expected.

Here is a link that shows the deaths on a timeline. Select "deaths' instead of "cases". https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/01/coronavirus-covid-live-updates-us/

Viral How Much Did Your Divorce Cost

newtboy says...

What a ridiculously narcissistic misogynistic viewpoint.

I feel so sorry for your wife, who I imagine you must jab at constantly for making you such a constant and complete loser. She must feel so loved and appreciated, knowing how you feel, that she's nothing but a leech on your life, only taking never giving....in fact giving you nothing while taking from you...everything.- Leonidas

My marriage is nearing 23 years. It was a definite win win for me, and my wife seems to feel the same. We've both carried the other in hard times, and as importantly enjoyed the good times together as a team.

The fact that you've only attracted women with nothing to lose and nothing to offer says a lot more about you than it does about women.

bobknight33 said:

Marriage is a win win for the woman.

Lose Lose for the man.

Woman have nothing to lose. Men lose everything.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon