If you live in the California Bay Area, here's a little secret:

Half-way between Santa Cruz and Half Moon Bay is the little town of Pescadaro. Hidden in the gas station there, across the street from Duarte's Tavern, is a tiny Mexican food place. Like a counter and two tables.

Order the carne asada tacos. They're the best tacos in northern cali.

You don't think that has anything to do with the biased garbage you watch? I've seen every Democrat (politician) ever asked about the tax bill admit it benefits them, including Obama and Clinton.

Remember the last 6 months of "I pay more under this plan, it doesn't benefit me at all." ? You enjoy being completely lied to about a $1.5 Trillion a year handout to billionaires? So, Obama's problem was he wasn't rich or dishonest enough for you?

Democrats say it's financial Armageddon because handing over $1.5TRILLION per year to a hand full of hyper rich people when we already had a huge deficit is exactly that.
It's odd, (not really, it's typical Bob) I recall you and the right screaming Armageddon every time Obama passed a bill, and claiming he doubled the debt/deficit in his first term....clearly that was a racist ruse and financial responsibility is not an issue for you, because this single law costs far more than even you claimed Obama spent, a number that had you frothing at the mouth with rage, and is designed to benefit a single family...Trump's.

Bob...you admitted he's an unqualified liar who cannot get anything done, then you counter yourself with " Trump is kicking ass, making America greater this year even being dogged every day" Stop being idiotic and pretending you actually have a real opinion, you're obviously just trolling when you spout this nonsense, and it makes you look moronic.

I have no kids, and don't itemize, my tax rate goes UP under this law, so I probably pay more. This isn't the "pay your taxes on a postcard" promise kept, this adds serious complexity to the tax code, it doesn't simplify it. They admitted that, can't you?

Jesus fucking Christ, this single bill adds $15 Trillion to the debt over 10 years, so yes, let's be fair. For 2016, the deficit is expected to be approximately $590 billion, in 2020 that's now $2.09 Trillion...assuming Trump doesn't steal more for himself. Had Obama not increased the military budget by over $100 Billion (contrary to all right wing liars who falsely claim he shrunk it) in an effort to gain bipartisan support for his plans (a fool's errand) he would have actually SHRUNK the deficit. Clinton actually lowered the debt, erasing the deficit until your guy, Bush, turned us around bigly.

Only Americans who make over $150k a year will benefit financially...in the short term. When they have to pay for massive amounts of private security, private roads, water treatment, etc, and the country becomes Chinese (purchased and by force, with no allies left to help us, and China aligned with Russia, we're toast).
The "vase majority" of America might benefit, but the vast majority of Americans will pay dearly, as will the nation as a whole.

Sore looser? Compared to your (and the right's) treatment of Obama, I'm a trump supporter.
Stop trolling, you sound like a 4 year old ...lies, excuses, reversals, nonsense, misdirection, and high praise for a moron....not a good look, buddy. If Trump is kicking ass, it's for Russia and China, not us. Made us greater, by raising the debt and deficit by up to 400% with a single move and losing our international standing and allies. Dogged every day?....Not compared to Obama. Recall, instead of legislating, Republican leadership said 'my number one priority is making sure president Obama's a one-term president.', acted upon by being the most obstructionist and disrespectful congress in modern history.... during wartime, and not ending at the borders either. Better to hate Democrats than love America....morons and traitors, the lot of you.

They probably thought Kim Dung Ill threw us some missiles and the US was counter attacking. I think I would have kept going to get back to loved ones.

States like Wisconsin and Kansas have implemented conservative policies - how's that worked out for them? Here's a hint. Go ahead and point me to a counter-example, where cuts to social programs and austerity have provided a benefit to the people of a state. I'm damned sick of the false promises of so-called "conservative values" - they don't fucking work, all evidence supports the notion that they don't fucking work, and they're destroying the progress this country made during the early and mid-20th century to create a strong middle class.

It's in these people's own best interests to support progressive policies, but the politics of division and hatred, and the highly effective lies from the likes of Fox News have blinded them.

Counter-rotating propellers sparked my curiosity when I first saw them on a British Seafire Mk46 at a flight show in the early nineties.

So my amateur's answer would be that it's about the problem of turning the engine's power into thrust. With increasing power, you can either increase the propeller's RPM or its area. So you either a) spin it faster, b) increase its diameter, c) use a more favourable blade geometry, d) add more blades.

a) and b) both lead to blade tips moving faster, and once they approach the speed of sound, wave drag sets in and ruins your day. b) also runs into issues in terms of ground clearance. Thus the Kim Jong-un blades on planes like the An-70: short and fat.

c) is rather difficult to do in terms of manufacture -- that's why more pronounced blade shapes are a relatively recent development.

d) on a single propeller decreases the efficiency of each blade as it passes through the previous blade's vortex. That's why, for instance, German planes in WW2 almost exclusively relied on 3-bladed propellers with increasing blade size, whereas Supermarine went to four and even 5 blades rather quickly. You can work the issue to a certain degree by modifying the blade geometry, thus the 8 blade props on a modern A400M.

Adding more blades by adding another propeller gets around d), although the aft prop still loses efficiency compared to the front prop. On the other hand, counter-rotating props massively reduces problems with torque, which can be rather horrendous for single engine prop planes. The Bf 109, for instance, is (in)famous for being difficult during take-off as it pulls to the side quite violently.

Regrettably I watched this whole thing waiting for a single counter-argument. It's just some idiot derping and fake-laughing at entirely reasonable criticism of your president's fucking bizarre ramblings?

We had better hope they are dead wrong, and that they aren't robot proof jobs, because millennials aren't flocking to nursing, it's hard. If robots can't take over most of the work load (they can) then elder abuse will be the norm due to neglect. There will still be a need for human interaction (until the uncanny valley is bridged) but the grunt work can be automated.

Funny that they make this assumption about men's percieved ability to empathize, and ignore historical professional gender rolls that are only recently being challenged. Most of their points became culturally outdated in the 70's imo.

It's sad that the last woman, asking if nursing or men should change (implying men should) clearly still thinks "manly" men can't be empathetic and caring...should she be countered with the equally insulting "pretty" women can't be smart or strong? That thinking belongs back in the 1960's.

LOL. Do you have a counter-hypothesis?

@drradon -- It was cool to compare this with the limited stuff I can remember from taking an intro to fencing (foil) class in college.

There was a different parry for incoming attacks to each quarter of your body facing the opponent (top-left, top-right, bottom-left, bottom-right). And that's just for 2 opponents both using the same general stance and weapon. I'd guess these guys would have different counters for each combination of stance/style, weapon of their opponent, and target area. That's a lot to remember -- although a lot would be relatively consistent across different combos.

I liked the high guard styles (two named "guard of the lady" stood out), because they seemed to pair nicely with "beat attacks" -- where you attack and swing to hit the opponent's weapon rather than their body. Gets their weapon out of position and leaves you in better position to make a second attack that they can't easily parry.

I wasn't very good at fencing. Bad footwork, not good form, and pretty slow on parries. But the one thing that let me win matches was aggression and beat attacks. The instructors and more skilled people could see it coming and dodge or otherwise counter it (especially after they figured out that was the one reliable tool in my box), but it was a fun technique to use for me. Cool to see these guys do pretty much the same thing, but just as a small part of a much bigger bag of tricks than I had.

@newtboy and @scheherazade,

I think I may have come up with a shorter line of evidence for a well armed population being protection against tyranny.

Granted, a poorly armed population with strong arms control laws doesn't necessarily devolve into tyranny. We can all demonstrate this with counter examples like up here in Canada. However, can anyone name an oppressive dictatorship that had 2nd amendment level freedoms for every man and woman in their state? I can't think of a single example myself.

As I said before, that doesn't lead me to immediately declare zero restrictions on guns are thus worth any cost to forestall future tyranny. However, I have to acknowledge that the NRA style argument for protection against tyranny isn't entirely without merit.

That leads to my objections with declaring that it is objectively obvious that gun freedoms must morally be pulled back, while at the same time objectively obvious that idealogical/religious practice freedoms must not. We have ample examples of extremists gathering together to plot violence, mayhem and death on a grand scale and putting some extra lines in the sand of when that becomes unacceptable is no more obviously immoral than restricting gun ownership.

Canadian devil's advocate here.

We've got incredibly strict gun laws up here by comparison to the US. So our country has done the 'more than nothing' on gun laws. 3 days before the LA shooting we had a terror attack up here in Edmonton but the attacker used vehicles and a knife.

If we accept the rationale that current levels of freedom to own guns is leading to higher body counts and that restricting those freedoms will reduce body counts, that rationale is slippery.

Here's the parallel.

If we accept the rationale that current levels of freedom to 'practice religion' is leading to higher body counts then restricting those freedoms will reduce body counts.

Because, the Attacker in Edmonton was a Somali refugee. They had an ISIS flag in their car. The US tried to extradite him before Canada welcomed him with open arms. Canadian police even investigated him before when a co-worker reported him advocating genocidal ideas about Shiite scum.

We had a lot of potential red flags that we could have acted harder on or used for profiling and in this case having him in jail would've prevented the attacks.

The thing is, it is NOT immediately self evident that restricting those freedoms is objectively the best answer.

Personally, banning automatic weapons as my country has seems a very sane thing to do. Countering myself though, would the Catalonians in Spain be getting beaten up for holding a vote if the residents had automatic weapon in their basements or would the police show a little more respect to the citizen's than they did?

They aren't displaying Anti-American values... for that to be so, you'd have to say then that Rosa Parks was displaying anit-American values, so were the black people who refused to give up their lunch counter... all anti-american by your definition.

Again, how are blacks protesting peacefully more disrespectful of America than fucking Nazis marching in the streets shouting "hail Trump" and running over protesters?

You people are fine with football players kneeling and praying for making a touchdown, but kneeling for equality...

The fact that you, as a Christian, think that Christ would stand with a Nazi wanting more white power, over a black man wanting equality just shows how fucked up Christianity is. That there is no conviction in your heart, or the hearts of the vast majority of Christians in this nation over their treatment of blacks, gays, and whomever else they seem opposed to, just goes to show how low God is, or proves Him false and unable to match His word.

Yeah, but ignore all the benefits society gave him to make those things easy and beneficial...forget that (forced) hard work, work ethic, and obedience are hallmarks of black history, forget that God and family are far more deeply ingrained in black culture than white (yeah, I expect you'll counter with 'they don't have families', and ignore the reason why so many are missing the father....disproportionate prosecutions and sentences, and ignore that poor whites are in the same boat but with a white life preserver that often keeps them out of prison, so in society and home). Forget that embodying none of these has helped them, because historically those traits are easy to exploit, and 'white America' has historically exploited them in black Americans....but you won't see that.

Edit: put more simply, doing those things isn't white privilege, but being secure in the knowledge that they'll benefit you is.

What gives me the right to know things about southern white people? Being one...born and raised in Texas. I notice you deleted "many" from my statement then lied by saying I "placed an entire group in derogatory terms", typical Bob.

You must be either unbelievably dumb or just frantically trolling again, Bob, your choice, but I would hate to see you banned.....but you calling someone racist for a quote you altered...oh Bob. That's terribly sad even from you.

Sweet zombie Jesus, Bob. Did you even watch the video? You might note the people wearing masks, helmets and armor are all unite the right wingers, as is the one who jumps out to shoot into the crowd of non-antifa citizens (not one masked on the counter protesters side here) shouting what sounds like "just die nigger" before shooting and melting back into the right wing marchers that instantly defend him after watching him shoot into a crowd....but yeah...all this horrendous leftist violence must be stopped.
Jesus Bob.

Not that any of this is acceptable, but it's funny how your video omits the part where the armed and armored (clubs, helmets and full body pads) right wingers violently pushed into the counter protest crowd, starting the violence you now decry, and that this video edits to look one sided.

At this point, it's more than probable that nothing will get Trump reelected, but if the right is successful painting these anarchist asshats as liberals, and by extension liberals as these asshats, it could get another Trump like feculent demagogue elected.
That's why I think it's important to denounce them (antifa) at every opportunity. Fascists against fascism are still fascists, just incredibly stupid ones. They don't stand for what I think the left is about, and I certainly don't stand with them.

I agree, horrifyingly, this is apparently escalating towards gunplay. I'm not at all sure which side will shoot first. Don't fool yourself into thinking the left and the anarchists don't have guns too, though, or that totally non political citizens won't take up arms against rampaging Nazis and fascists (hopefully fascists left and right). Just something to consider when you're standing next to one hoping a gunfight breaks out.