I've known some granola crunching tea toters

this thread got tldr.

here's my 2 cents. an over abundance of advertising is damaging. not just for how it portrays women, not just for impressionable girls and boys who are possibly likely to grow up with a skewed sense of identity and self worth. it's just damaging. to everyone. to cultures. to the psyche. it's too much. and it's constant.

women are intelligent and can think for themselves. i'm not falling for the "you don't look like kim kardashian?!? get your fat ass some slim fast and some loreal, dye your hair, wear this underwear, smell this way, use this roller ball crunch machine you fat fucking ugly cow" ads. and neither is my daughter (so far). because we are not at all exposed to it consistently.

know what it takes to brainwash someone? a few hours a day of content and a peer group who agrees with said content. that's it. period. so you take 10 elementary school kids who watch television 2 or 3 hours a day and have them all hang out together 8 hours a day at school. eventually you will get a generation who eat doritos and snack cakes and think that their bodies and their make up and their shaving cream represent them. thats not just damaging to women. its damaging to culture. period. my complaints are not as feminist, but as a human being. enough is enough already. can we please quit buying sooo much stupid shit already?!?!??

My thoughts exactly. I'll stick with Redmonton.
>> ^Tingles:

ah BC. Home sweet home. Lowest paying wages, highest cost of living in the country.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Hunter S. Thompson? Hubble Space Telescope? Health Sciences and Technology? High Speed Train?


If you have to ask, you can't afford it. Neither can we, that's the point- if you follow.

too much crunch, not enough splat

woah. perfect soundtrack for 2 a.m. deadline-crunching.
(also vote for most understated drums of all time.)

Can I *promote this? (I'm a noob)

I thought it was because Cap'n Crunch is actually dressed as an Admiral. Look at the shoulder boards.

@quantumushroom

I do enjoy that you took the time to step through each argument made in the video.

>>> Thanks to all who wrote similar sentiments.

Some of your interpretations seemed mildly redeeming to the statements that made
the people look so foolish. I think they probably fall in the middle of our perspectives.
I think they are morons, you think they are making well argued points.

>>>> I didn't say their points were well-argued. They were brief responses and gut reactions. You'd get the same brief 'talking points' if you asked a roomful of leftists about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (It's about oil, lies, war crimes, etc.)


Showing such obvious fear of Obama being Muslims is pretty silly. Then to say his religion is liberalism, the most intolerant religion of all. Well that is now clearly conflicting. (I agree here I think he does care about equality more than religion. Making him one of the few people who actually represent what this religion thing is supposed to be about).

>>>> There is a rational argument why Obama being an actual Muslim (unlikely) or Muslim sympathizer (a case can be made this is so) is dangerous. That argument is Muslim Sharia law and Western-style Republics are incompatible. It makes little sense to me that a liberal would adopt a "live and let live" attitude towards Islam, when Islam--per the Quran--demands conversion, enslavement or death to infidels. In "functional" countries under Sharia law such as Saudi Arabia, women are 2nd-class citizens, about as far from the left's much-vaunted equality as you can go.

These
people are so obviously looking for things to blame Obama for its sad. I respect your position a
lot more now that you tried to reason it out. Sadly the source material your working with is
such a handicap even envoking good arguments leaves you with little traction. They will hate Obama
no matter what.

>>>> Well, didn't the left hate Bush no matter what? Yet during his reign, Bush promoted and rubber-stamped all of the government programs the left loves, plus crap like Medicare 'D'.

I'm looking at the whole picture when it comes to Obama. I don't see a leader, only a collection of gaffes. Despite his own book sales, I don't see a capitalist or supporter of free markets, I see a guy who feels he has a right to manipulate others' wealth to promote his own brand of 'social justice'. Ignoring Constitutional questions about power and giving him the benefit of a doubt about his intent in establishing more FDR-like socialism, when the numbers are crunched on Obamacare, they don't add up. It is of great concern then, why he earns blind support from the left, regardless of negative results.

As much as the left dislikes FOX news, you would think it would ask itself 'Why is FOX alone in questioning Obama's authority?' Well?

I never meant to level any sort of personal attack on you, and if I did, it was never my intention. I just disagree with modern need to sensationalize. Again, if you felt my words were personal or went over the line, I apologize.

I think we agree on one thing, what happened was reprehensible. I think we can just meet in the middle at that. We just disagree, vehemently, on what a stomp is.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^hPOD:
Objective fact? She wasn't curb stomped nor was her head stomped on, at all. Saying so, and claiming that to be the case and calling it objective fact is a lie. I could agree with you if you said someone stepped on her neck, but stomped? No.
Like direpickle asked, what exactly are you seeing in this video? There's a woman with her head on the ground, a guy moves his foot rapidly down, and strikes her head.
I even hear a crunch when it makes contact, though that could easily be something else.
>> ^hPOD:
In the end, what I said makes you mad? You got mad at me because you disagree with my opinion that I consider what actually went down versus how you titled it to be sensationalized?
Uh, no. I'm mad that the main thing you felt was important to say was to essentially level a personal attack at me, saying I'm making something up to trying to make it look worse than it really is.
Have you considered that perhaps using the word stomp is accurate, and not an attempt to sensationalize?
It certainly wasn't my intention to, and I've asked a couple times for what, exactly, a non-sensational title for something innately sensational like this would be. I've given my reasons for why I think stomp is a pretty accurate and objective description of what happened, including by reminding you of what the definition of the word stomp is.
All you've done is said "What's happening in that video is NOT someone getting their head stomped on, once again, stop trying to make it something it's not" and added more and more personal attacks.
I knew this post would ruffle feathers, and I suspected it would result in personal attacks on me, but I more expected "you're evil for trying to make this look like it's only on one side", not "you're a liar for saying his foot made contact with her head".

>> ^hPOD:

Objective fact? She wasn't curb stomped nor was her head stomped on, at all. Saying so, and claiming that to be the case and calling it objective fact is a lie. I could agree with you if you said someone stepped on her neck, but stomped? No.

Like direpickle asked, what exactly are you seeing in this video? There's a woman with her head on the ground, a guy moves his foot rapidly down, and strikes her head.

I even hear a crunch when it makes contact, though that could easily be something else.

>> ^hPOD:

In the end, what I said makes you mad? You got mad at me because you disagree with my opinion that I consider what actually went down versus how you titled it to be sensationalized?

Uh, no. I'm mad that the main thing you felt was important to say was to essentially level a personal attack at me, saying I'm making something up to trying to make it look worse than it really is.

Have you considered that perhaps using the word stomp is accurate, and not an attempt to sensationalize?

It certainly wasn't my intention to, and I've asked a couple times for what, exactly, a non-sensational title for something innately sensational like this would be. I've given my reasons for why I think stomp is a pretty accurate and objective description of what happened, including by reminding you of what the definition of the word stomp is.

All you've done is said "What's happening in that video is NOT someone getting their head stomped on, once again, stop trying to make it something it's not" and added more and more personal attacks.

I knew this post would ruffle feathers, and I suspected it would result in personal attacks on me, but I more expected "you're evil for trying to make this look like it's only on one side", not "you're a liar for saying his foot made contact with her head".

Ah nature! God's lovely green Earth. All the fuzzy animals living happily..... ROOOWWRRRR RRRRIP CRUNCH CRUNCH CRUNCH BURP!

Won't make a bit of difference.

Peer pressure, disgusting how strong it is.

I'm a fucking good driver, but it's because I rolled a car when I was 16 and luckily walked away from it.

I don't think there's any other way to understand how fast it can all happen.

The sound of metal crunching at sixty miles per hour stays with you.

"My Sharona" was playing on the radio as I saw the earth do flip-flops.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Crunching the numbers- it wouldn't make a huge difference. The vast majority of our visitors are still the silent and anonymous.>> ^blankfist:

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. I think you should turn on ads for charter. Or at least some ads.

>> ^dag:

True, but on a superficial level I was comfortable with the idea of a big bang - with a clean beginning, and then an eventual slowing of that expansion, a contraction - and then another bang.


Actually, the current model says that the universe will go on expanding forever, not collapse into a Big Crunch.

I'm more comfortable with the idea that the universe is infinite myself. No uncomfortable questions like "what happened before time began" or "if space is finite, what's outside it?" or even worse "where did the universe come from if it didn't always exist?"

Incidentally, I'm not surprised this is from someone from a study done in the East. They tend to gravitate more to this type of existential theory.

I like plain old graham crackers crushed up in a bowl with milk over them - but you have to eat them quick before they get soggy. My absolute favorite Junk cerial is Captain Crunch but they are way too much money for the small-skinny box you get (about 3 bowls)!

In reply to this comment by nanrod:
@Sagemind I agree with most of your comments except Frosted Flakes. I like them and plain corn flakes too. And Golden Grahams, not only are they good , so are Graham Crackers.