Ahhh, the boot on the neck isn't quite as comfortable when its YOUR neck. I think I enjoy all this liberal whining.

I'm just waiting now for the, "Elections have consequences" speech and a fist-full of bills we can pass (hopefully even bills pertaining to a massive 1/5th of our entire economy!) while collectively ignoring the minority party. Wow that sounds... familiar. Have we payed this game before?

What I think he means with "stop talking about it" to end racism means stop talking about (and focusing on) race, not stop talking about racism....all of us, not just the victims of racism. If we ALL ignored race, clearly racism would evaporate....but racists don't do that, instead they focus on it. What the video implied IMO with the smiling Trump is that we should just stop talking about racism but continue to apply it, problem solved. Trump himself often divides and labels people based on race, unapologetically and gleefully, he certainly does not approve of the idea that he should 'stop talking about race and dividing people based on race', which is what I'm sure Morgan was saying.

I was mostly with him until he said anyone can pull themselves up by their boot straps. That's bullshit. He had immense talent (he won a state wide drama competition at 12), drive, opportunities, supportive family, education, and just as important, luck. Assuming that anyone without those abilities and support can do the same is ridiculous. Circumstance and natural ability mean most people don't have a chance to take advantage of opportunity that might present itself if they're lucky enough to have one appear. There's something wrong with him to think that anyone can do what he did, clearly almost no one can as very few have.

Yes, Mr Freeman, the bus runs every day....but you have to have the fare and be willing to abandon your family, job, home, and community for a lottery ticket elsewhere. For some, there's nothing to lose looking for greener pastures, but most who get on that bus are not successful, and many take their families down with them. I'm not suggesting people shouldn't look for better options and take them, but it's not as easy or simple as just getting on the bus.

Really? So you don't think your statement "white people don't have crime" is blatantly racist? Well, no one ever accused you of possessing good comprehension skills.

And another adhom violation to boot.
You really DO want me to make an issue of this, don't you? You know what happened to the last guy with no self control that tried that, right?
Try again, I can make it an issue if you insist.

Also, learn to spell your insults.

I adore Lindsey's performances, but I'm still trying to comprehend how anyone can think that a wispy flowing dress like that is best finished with pseudo-combat boots. It's just jarring.

Your video, The Horse Horseshoe Boots Viral Algebra Problem, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 88 Badge!

I would never down vote a video like this simply because it offends my knowledge of math and logic and irritates the hell out of me. These kind of problems have been coming my way on facebook repeatedly and they do get huge numbers of comments with wildly different solutions. Actually out of the 500,000 comments claimed for this one probably half of them give 42 as the answer. My problem comes from the assumption that an algebraic variable represented by a symbol (an image of a boot) bears some inherent relationship to a different symbol (two boots). Even if you make that leap that two boots is two separate variables, if there is no operand between them they should be multiplied, not added. In algebra a term such as 3AB equals 3 times A times B not 3+A+B. Unfortunately in this problem with two horseshoes equaling 4 it works either way but if two boots equals 2 then one should equal the square root of two and the correct solution would be 21.414.

http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2016/09/07/the-horse-horseshoe-boots-viral-brain-teaser-the-correct-answer-explained/

From everything I've read, including this link, it's really just a basic algebra problem. What appears to make it difficult is that people who don't use algebra and math all the time will not know the specific rules with equations.

As far as posting it, why do we post anything here? This piqued my interest and I thought it might be something others would enjoy. If it isn't something you care for, don't vote or down vote.

I got 22..


Horse is 10, each horseshoe is 2, so double horseshoe is 4, cowboy boot is 1, so double boot is 2


also I didn't watch the video just saw the problems on the thumbnail

If, as you wrongly assume, I had only driven by them, you could get away with that statement. Unfortunately for you, I actually went TO the farms, stayed at them (slept there) and watched the workers at their jobs. (EDIT: I also have an angora goat rancher in my family...close enough to the same thing for this discussion.)
I stand by my previous statement 100 percent, with first hand knowledge about the topic.
This video is bullshit. You dragged it out of me. 99.95% of farms would never allow anything they showed to happen, and would report the abuse to the authorities after booting the offender off the farm.

Edit: and yes, fast sheerers can do even more than 30 an hour, but they know exactly how to handle the sheep with tiny pokes that put them into a seated, leaning position that makes it simple to control them painlessly and without any trauma in the least using their legs while sheering. In the two times I watched, over 150 sheep altogether, I saw 2 get slight cuts that were taken care of properly and with care. As was mentioned above, stressed animals make subpar wool, so it's in the rancher/farmers interest to keep them happy, so they do.

Males had their horns on the farms I went to and the one's I drove past....so you're wrong about that too.

Being smart is good. Being good looking to boot is just icing on the cake.

*ban4.0
Kry Gostone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cj-WvwqGXw

http://videosift.com/video/Thrilling-moment-woman-swims-near-lava
ban1.0
Vámos Tamás(changed to Kry Gostone)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ_Z-i1fsAM

*related= http://videosift.com/video/Amazing-Sandfall
*ban2.0
Vámos Tamás(changed to Kry Gostone)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ_Z-i1fsAM

*related= http://videosift.com/video/Adorable-baby-trying-to-put-on-a-boot
*ban3.0
Kry Gostone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7PuTrx5afM&feature=youtu.be

*ban2.0
Vámos Tamás(changed to Kry Gostone)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ_Z-i1fsAM

http://videosift.com/video/Thrilling-moment-woman-swims-near-lava
ban1.0
Vámos Tamás(changed to Kry Gostone)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ_Z-i1fsAM


*related= http://videosift.com/video/Adorable-baby-trying-to-put-on-a-boot
*ban3.0
Kry Gostone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7PuTrx5afM&feature=youtu.be

http://videosift.com/video/Thrilling-moment-woman-swims-near-lava
ban1.0
Vámos Tamás(changed to Kry Gostone)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ_Z-i1fsAM

*related= http://videosift.com/video/Amazing-Sandfall
*ban2.0
Vámos Tamás(changed to Kry Gostone)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ_Z-i1fsAM

*related= http://videosift.com/video/Adorable-baby-trying-to-put-on-a-boot
*ban3.0
Kry Gostone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7PuTrx5afM&feature=youtu.be

*Warning I've only gone and done yet another wall of text again! This may or may not get read by anyone on here (good god I wouldn't blame anyone for skipping it), but at the very least it's formed the backbone to a video script so it's not a complete waste of my time! (he tells himself)*

This is as much @bareboards2 as yourself, but he already made it clear he wasn't willing to engage on the issue, so you're getting it instead MWAHAHAHHAHA! *coughs*

I don't wish this to come across as over condescending (though I'm sure it will none the less as I'm in one of those moods). But pretty much every (successful) comedy premise operates on the same underlying principle of irony. i.e. there is an expectation or understanding, which is deliberately subverted, and what results is comedy.

In this case, amongst other things we have the understood premises that:
A. rape is a bad, often horrific thing.
B. that there is an established social taboo about praising such behaviour.
C. that there is a section of society inherently opposed to making light of things of which they do not approve (or in a way in which they do not approve)
D. most words and phrases have an expected association and meaning.

What Jim Jefferies (an accomplished and well respected comedies amongst his peers) has done here, is take these commonly understood premises and subverted the audiences normal expectations in order to evoke a sense of irony, from which the audience derives humour and amusement.

A simple joke might take a single such premise and perform a single inversion of our expectation. e.g. my dog has no nose, how does he smell?....terrible!

By subverting our assumed meaning (that the missing nose refers to the dogs implied lack of olfactory senses), the joke creates basic irony by substituting this expected meaning for that of the odour of the dog itself.

This is of course a terrible joke, because it is as simple as a joke could be. It has only one layer of irony and lacks any sense of novelty which, might tip such a terrible joke into working for any other than the very young or simple minded.

We could of course attempt to boost this joke by adding more levels of irony contextually. e.g. a very serious or complex comedian Like say Stuart Lee, could perhaps deliver this joke in a routine and get a laugh by being completely incongruous with his style and past material.

And herein we see the building blocks from which any sophisticated professional comedy routine is built. By layering several different strands or ironic subversion, a good comedian can begin to make a routine more complex and often more than just the sum of its parts to boot.

In this case, Jim is taking the four main premises listed above, layering them and trying to find the sweetest spot of subverted expectation for each. (something which usually takes a great deal of skill and experience at this level)

He mentions the fact that his jokes incite outrage in a certain section of society because this helps to strengthen one of the strands of irony with which he is playing. The fact that he also does so in a boastful tone is itself a subversion, it is understood by the audience that he does not/should not be proud of being merely offensive and as such we have yet another strand of irony thrown into the mix.

You know how better music tends to have more and/or more complex musical things happening at once? It is the same with comedy. The more ironic threads a comedian can juggle around coherently, the more sophisticated and adept their routines could be considered to be.

Naturally as with music there's no accounting for taste as you say. Some people simply can't get past a style or associations of a given musician or song (or painting or whatever).

But dammit Jim is really one of the greats right now. Like him or lump him, the dude is pretty (deceptively) masterful at his craft.

There are at least 4-5 major threads of irony built into this bit and countless other smaller ones besides. He dances around and weaves between them like some sort of comedy ballerina. Every beat has been finely tuned over months of gig's (and years of previous material) to strike the strongest harmonies between these strands and probe for the strongest sense of dissonance in the audience. Not to mention, tone of voice, stance, timing etc.

I think Ahmed is basically terrible too, but it is because the jokes lack much semblance of complexity or nuance. Jeff Dunham's material in general feels extremely simple and seems like it uses shock as a mere crutch, rather than something deeper and more intelligent.

Taste is taste, but I feel one can to a reasonable extent criticise things like the films of Michael Bay, or the music of Justin Beiber for being objectively shallow by breaking down their material into its constituent parts (or lack thereof).

Likewise one could take the music of Wagner and while not enjoying the sound of it, still examine the complexity of it's composition and the clear superiority of skill Wagner had over most of this peers.

I guess what all this boils down to is, Jim seems to me to be clearly very very good at what he does (as he ought after all these years). Reducing his act to mere controversy feels a lot like accusing Black Sabbath of just making noise and using satanic imagery to get attention (or insert other less out of date example here).

The jokes were never at the expense of victims, they are at the expense of our expectations. He makes his own true feelings on the matter abundantly clear towards the end of the section.

As as he says himself his job is to say funny things, not to be a social activist.

I take no issue with you not liking it, but I do take issue with the suggestion that it is somehow two dimensional, or for that matter using controversy cheaply.

Offensive initial premises are some of the most ironically rich in comedy. It's like deliberately choosing the brightest paints when trying to create a striking painting. Why would you avoid the strongest materials because some people (not in your audience) find the contrast too striking?

Eh, much love anyway. This was more an exercise in intellectual masturbation than anything else. Not that I didn't mean all of it sincerely.

I love how that pilot sprints in like a 100m Olympian, finally gets the guy on the floor, at which point a fat cop jumps out of his car, waddles over at full speed and puts the boot in!