If that large piece at 0:40 was from the obvious blast, that thing had some insane hangtime. I'm guessing there was a smaller (or more distant and thus quieter) secondary blast though.

As great as John Oliver is, he spent more time there mocking them over petty things as opposed to really concentrating on the (admittedly real) flaws in their platforms.

OK, Stein's "music" is cringeworthy. And Johnson's "skirt" comment is creepy and ill advised, but clearly meant in a metaphorical way.

It kinda bothers me when people (not just Oliver) do it to Trump and Clinton also. Like Trump having "tiny hands", or bringing up cankles or pantsuits for Clinton.

All of those things can be funny, a few times. But bringing them up constantly makes it seem like we have nothing of actual substance to criticize them for -- which is clearly not the case.


He did bring up legitimate concerns for some of Stein and Johnson's signature platforms. In both cases, that criticism boiled down to "you can't actually do that", as in the president doesn't actually have the power to implement the policy that they want. That's fair ... BUT, pretty much every single politician ever makes campaign promises that they don't actually have the power to implement. You pretty much have to if you want to get elected.

That doesn't mean that setting those policies as goals can't have value. Obama wanted a much more thorough overhaul of healthcare and insurance, but he didn't have the power to make it happen unilaterally. So we ended up with a watered-down version of Obamacare after the Republicans in the legislature did everything they could to obstruct it. But still, even though it isn't exactly what Obama originally had in mind, there are plenty of people now with some health coverage who had none before. That's a tangible positive result.

Trump will never build his wall, even if he ends up in the White House (not likely). I offer no defense for this idiotic idea, but it is at least possible for massive public works projects to be used to create jobs, improve infrastructure, and have other tangible positive effects; like FDR's New Deal.

Hillary would face lots of obstruction if she attempts to implement her plan to let people attend public universities for free. Probably more than Obama did on Obamacare. But trying to do something to make post-secondary education more available to everyone is a good goal. Even if the cynic in me thinks she only produced this "plan" as a way to try to win support of Sanders voters.

Johnson couldn't eliminate income tax, or abolish all those departments he mentioned. But he could rein in a lot of spending that the Executive branch does have power over. That could be a good thing in many cases (I'd be happy to see the TSA eliminated and military spending drastically reduced), but there are also a lot of potential problems. See Kansas transformation to "Brownbackistan" as a result of Sam Brownback's drastic tax cuts.

And Stein couldn't forgive student loan debt for this "entire generation". But just like Clinton's proposal to make public universities free, there is potential value to be found in just trying to do something about the insane problems with our university system. Hillary is a savvy enough politician to know not to say too much about her plan, which would open it up to scrutiny and criticism. Stein stepped into that by revealing her political inexperience, but I tend to trust that she does actually want to do something as opposed to Hillary just saying what she needs to say to get more votes.

Takes me back to the first time I had to deal with a virus infection... not on my machine, thankfully, but much every Acorn machine (and every floppy disk) in my secondary school was infected with the "ICON" virus. Didn't do any harm (besides taking up space), but it was really annoying to get rid of as it would re-infect stuff almost as quickly as you were cleaning them.

The ironic thing was that it took me months to rid of that pest and then a week later I got a computer mag with a free anti-virus on the cover disk that would disinfect a computer in minutes instead of hours....

There are millions of people all over the world who do this very thing all the time. It's a myth perpetuated by TV shows like "the biggest loser".

What's the purpose of the video? Generating ad revenue for Vox. They're a business after all. But secondary to that, I think the purpose of the video is simply to educate people about the importance of nutrition in weight loss. You would be amazed at the number of people who don't understand it.

I don't think you could really call it clickbait (other than the fact that everything is clickbait, so the term becomes meaningless). In fact, it's almost the opposite of clickbait... the main point is given away in the title. It's not like it was called "you won't believe this one amazing weight loss method" or some shit.

The role is to interpret whether or not actions are in compliance with the written law - not to interpret new meanings/definitions of the law.

Changing definitions within a law alters the law, rewrites it, which makes it legislative activity. That's outside of judicial scope.

You can summarize the thought pattern as : "We know the law says this one thing, but we think this other thing should apply, so instead of waiting for a change to the law [so that it will apply], we will just say it applies already, even though it's not written."

It's sheer laziness, complacency, and acceptance that allows that sort of activity to be. It also creates a minefield of possible offenses that are not created by elected representatives, and are not documented in any way that would allow a person to avoid violation.




You are forgetting the current laws that restrict gun ownership. Not anyone can own a gun - even though the 2nd makes no exceptions. Laws that violate constitutional law are left to stand all the time, simply because people are ok with it.



The constitution also denies the government the authority to limit assembly - but that freedom has been interpreted to be secondary. It is in practice restricted by a permit process that makes any non-approved assembly subject to government disbandment.
It's supposed to allow people (i.e. the state) to communicate, organize, and form a disruptive group that is able to cause enough disruption to the government that the state can force a disobedient government to behave - without having to resort to violence.
But, because people are universally inconvenienced by folks that are protesting about things they don't care about, they would rather the government keep those folks out of their way. So freedom of assembly goes to the wayside.


Basically, the 'system' takes the law only as seriously as is convenient. When it's useful to be literal, it's treated literal. When it's useful to be twisted, it's twisted. It's just whatever is useful/convenient/populist/etc to the people executing the process.




Eminent is not a word you would use on today's parlance to say that something is obvious.

Ask most people what eminent domain is, and they will recite a legal concept. Ask them what the words themselves mean, and most will draw a blank. Few will say 'it is a domain that sticks-out'.

The point was just to illustrate how things change regarding how people express themselves. It's not strange to hear someone describe something as 'well adjusted'. But if they said 'well regulated' instead, you would think they mean something else. You wouldn't think that they are just speaking in 1700's English.

Imagine writing a law that states that only 'well adjusted' people are allowed to drive cars. Then imagine 200 years from now, 'adjustment' is a reference to genetic engineering. You'll end up with people arguing that only well genetically engineered people can drive.

-scheherazade

@newtboy,

1000 acre farms do not count as "family farms" in my eyes, even if they are owned by a single family.

Your entitled to that opinion, but you are also flat wrong. If you want to support a family of 2 or 3 children and do something as outrageous as send them off for post secondary education it isn't happening by running a subsistence farm. I'm in Manitoba, Canada and we've got about 20 thousand farms and the average size is right around 1000 acres. Those guys are in exactly the same financial class as the mom and pop corner convenience stores. They've got about the same money for raising their families and retire with about the same kind of savings. I really don't care whether you agree with me on that or not, it is a reality of farming today.

BUT....overuse of equipment either over packs the soil, making it produce far less, or over plows the soil, making it run off and blow away (see the dust bowl).
...
No, actually overproducing on a piece of land like that makes it unusable quickly and new farm land is needed to replace it while it recuperates (if it ever can). Chemical fertilizers add salts that kill beneficial bacteria, "killing" the soil, sometimes permanently. producing double or triple the amount of food on the same land is beneficial in the extreme short term, and disastrous in the barely long term.


I've got family that's been farming this same land for better then 100 years and still getting better yields per acre ever year. Your idea's about what is sustainable or good practice is disconnected from reality.

I'm not sure why this guy is such a target. The neighborhood just doesn't look that bad. It probably has to do with the fact that to the right of this house the street deadends at the parking lots for a secondary school and the local outdoor community pool. I'm guessing that all the lowlifes for a large area congregate there at night to hang out. He has made the news before:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/b-c-couple-fights-back-against-thieves-with-paintballs-1.1865097

The self righteousness of your post almost made me feel sick. Vegetarianism SHOULD be a stepping stone to veganism? It SHOULD be whatever the hell you want it to be - for example a temporary situation for when you SHOULD return to eating meat.

Now i'm not going to do what you did and reel off the standard list of reasons why veganism is bad for you, they are well documented and discussed but we all know that it is very possible to have a varied and sufficient diet regardless of what you limit yourself to.

As for your comment about milk, i did a quick bit of research - most of the sources i can find saying that milk causes calcium to be ejected out of the body sourced from the bones and/or cause osteoporosis are new age blog style websites written by a vegan who - like you - clearly has some serious agenda.

As for decent sources, here is what i found:
- Several scientific papers noting that though some observational studies have shown more alkali diets being beneficial to bone health in pre- and post- menopausal women, it has yet to be proven in any definitive clinical trial
http://osteoporosis.org.za/general/downloads/dairy.pdf
(and other sources, but not as scientific)

- The Harvard School of Public Health state that it is not clear what the best source of calcium is for bone health. However the consumption of dairy products has more beneficial effects than just bone health - protection against colon cancer for example, also other vitamins, proteins and minerals that are present.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium-full-story/#calcium-from-milk

Job losses may seem irrelevant to you, but i suggest that's because you have a very very tenuous grasp on the farming profession and don't rely on it for your income. No, you can't simply replace any and all dairy farms/farmers and workers with plant-based farming alternatives. There are a huge number of reasons for this which only a farmer would be able to tell us in detail, but for example - the equipment is different and requires a huge investment (both for acquisition and storage and transport and so on), the land and buildings are not necessarily interchangeable, the skills and knowledge are often built up since childhood and are not instantly transferable, the connections within the industry for logistics and business dealings are different. These are just a few that i thought up.

Yes, some animals are poorly treated in the farming industry and it makes me very sad to think of. However if you are careful and attentive you can ensure that you do not consume any products that were unfairly treated. This is like saying that a minority of clothes sold in shops are made in sweatshops by exploited child labour, therefore we should ban all clothes from the planet.

I could go on and on and on, and even begin my own dissertation on how "everyone going vegan" would be detrimental to overall public health and prosperity; if we grow more crops, more animals must be killed to ensure the crop is healthy and full.. we are not able to process celulose because we evolved.. there are things you can't get from plants that your body needs.. etc. But this comment is already very long, and i think i've broken the backbone of your argument already.

I will mention though that your crusade could end up being very damaging to the health of people who have auto immune diseases and/or allergies that rely on meat to have a balanced and varied diet. I recently discovered that i have coeliac disease (auto immune response to gluten) and secondary lactose intolerance, and i really wish i could explain to you just how difficult it is to avoid gluten containing grains and lactose.

For you it is a choice to not eat anything that comes from animals, for me it is a necessity that i have to avoid gluten and lactose otherwise i get debilitating pain within half an hour. If i did not have access to meat and eggs, there would be very little that i could eat. Wheat is added to almost everything, or almost everything is made in the same vicinity as wheat products resulting in cross contamination. Meat and eggs are sometimes the ONLY thing that i can be sure are safe to eat, and yet some self righteous do-gooder like yourself sits there on a high horse telling me how terrible it is that i inevitably, medically do what our ancestors have been doing for hundreds of thousands of years of human prosperity and ascendance.

If you'd had a bit more of an open mind when you wrote that comment, if i hadn't found out i have these medical conditions, if you'd said things in a debatable way, presented your sources (you provide none), offered it up for discussion rather than a commandment written on a stone tablet, then i probably wouldn't have replied like this. But when i'm forced into doing something and an interfering busybody strolls along and shrieks "oooooooooh you shouldn't be doing that!!!" it really does wind me up.

To be fair, the secondary definition of "entity" is :'being or existence, especially when considered as distinct, independent, or self-contained: '...a fetus is absolutely not distinct, independent, or self contained, and so is not an entity, living or otherwise.
Also in his next paragraph he said "no independent living being", to me strongly implying it was the independent part of the definition he was disputing, not the 'living' part.

I have often wondered how the party of 'personal responsibility' can even consider forcing one person to physically support another 'person'* against their will. EDIT: It's also like granting instant squatters rights inside another person!

*I say "person" because they claim it is one, not because I'm conceding it's a person. I think it's not a "person" until it's lungs are full of air, people don't breathe fluid, and not an "entity" until the umbilical cord is cut. I could even support non-human status for a full year after birth like the ancient Greeks allegedly did, but I know that's WAY over most people's line. ;-)

That's just plain wrong. Black people can ABSOLUTELY be racist, they can even be racist against black people.
http://videosift.com/video/Chappelle-Black-white-supremacist
Black people can even perpetrate institutional racism...just see 'blackpeoplemeet.com' who's policy is to exclude non-black people as proof they can do it.

Please note the actual definition of the word below, and that your limited definition is the secondary one, not primary. The primary definition describes the most common usage, the secondary one describes institutional racism, which is a side effect of the those in power holding to the primary.

Racism: noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

I haven't been following Krugman's column/blog for quite some time, but every once in a while, a piece of his makes its way onto my screen. And his recent takes on HRC/Sanders/Single Payer reminded me that he's a member of the establishment first and foremost.

Many point out how his views of the electability of Sanders vs HRC are eerily similar to what he wrote in '08 about Obama vs HRC. I'd say it even has a touch of Attlee vs Churchill in it. Winston was bound to win the election in '45, beyond any doubt, so Attlee decided not to pretend to be Churchill light, but went all in with socialist ideas. NHS, largescale nationalisation incl the BoE, free secondary education, massive public housing, a focus on full employment, social security, etc -- ten times more radical than anything Sanders even proposed.

48% to 36% - a landslide victory, thank you very much.

It's not exactly easy to move to Canada anyhow. Like most countries they want only people with very limited skill sets, which sadly I don't have. I can't move to New Zealand, Canada, the UK, Ireland, the Netherlands, Iceland or any of the places my ex-wife and I looked to move to ages ago. But yeah, semi-moot point about Harper now that Canada finally ousted him and his brand of crazy. They sadly didn't go far enough and still have a guy who favors things like the Keystone Pipeline (though I hear even Alberta itself no longer wants it).

I find it more amusing when Republicans voters threaten to move to Canada or the UK if a Democrat wins... everything they hate about the Democrats is there, times 10 or more. Leaving the US because of our crazy slide further and further to the right nearly makes sense (not the reason we were looking to leave, we genuinely wanted to move to New Zealand, and the others were secondary thoughts just to really change things up).

I'm saying they HAVE (quite properly) been removed in the past...and ANY video that's nothing more than a murder SHOULD be removed. Period.
This video is nothing more than a murder, and a secondary violent killing, with absolutely zero redeeming quality, education, or information. It is the definition of 'snuff' on the sift.

@dag, @lucky760 we're still waiting for a ruling on this, it seems cut and dry snuff.

I did address them, by posting the rule. Those videos you mentioned MAY have followed that rule, by having other information. If they did not, they would be removed if brought to the moderators attention. Snuff is not allowed.

And you can stop being insulting and infantile, buddy. It's not MY idea of snuff, it's the clear sift rules. Because you like this snuff video doesn't make it any less snuff. Your insistence on furthering it MAY be reason for hobbling. It's clearly not allowed, and is clearly snuff.

In the UK, rescue breaths are used for paediatric (1yrs-puberty). And drowning is a 'special circumstance' whereby Cardiac arrest is almost always secondary to hypoxia there rescue breaths increase survival over 'hands only' CPR,
It's in the resus manual...l https://lms.resus.org.uk/modules/m10-v2-cardiac-arrest/10346/resources/chapter_12.pdf

So not a good example in this video. However saying that any *decent* attempt at chest compression only is going to help someone who is not breathing so not to be discouraged.

Way too easy to sit on the sidelines and making perfectly rational decisions after the fact. Until you've had this sort of shit happen right in front of you, you don't know how you'll react.

eg. Most of the vids, people don't step away from the glass or seek cover, they just stare. They are dreadfully lucky they didn't wear a face full of glass for both secondary explosions. Rational thought goes out the door in these moments.