No sir.
I even mentioned one group in America that never adopted petroleum...Amish...and I would counter your assertion with the fact that most people on earth don't live using oil, they're too poor, not too fortunate. 20-30 years ago, most Chinese had never been in a car or a commercial store bigger than a local vegetable stand.

Both customers and non customers are the victims.
Using (or selling) a product that clearly pollutes the air, land, and sea is immoral.

Yes, it's like our business is predicated on rebuilding wrecked cars overnight which we do by using massive amounts of meth. Sure, our products are death traps, sure, we lied about both our business practices and the safety of our product, sure, our teeth and brains are mush....but our business has been successful and allowed us to have 10 kids (8 on welfare, two adopted out), and if we quit using meth they'll starve and fight over scraps. That's proof meth is good and moral and you're mistaken to think otherwise. Duh.

Yes, we overpopulated, outpacing the planet's ability to support us by far...but instead of coming to terms with that and changing, many think we should just wring the juice out of the planet harder and have more kids. I think those people are narcissistic morons, we don't need more little yous. Sadly, we are well beyond the tipping point, even if no more people are ever born, those alive are enough to finish the biosphere's destruction. Guaranteed if they think like you seem to.

Um, really? Complete collapse of the food web isn't catastrophic?
Wars over hundreds of millions or billions of refugees aren't catastrophic? (odd because the same people who think that are incensed over thousands of Syrians, Africans, and or South and Central American refugees migrating)
Massive food shortage isn't catastrophic?
Loss of most farm land and hundreds of major cities to the sea isn't catastrophic?
Loss of corals, where >25% of ocean species live, and other miniscule organisms that are the base of the ocean food web isn't catastrophic?
Loss of well over 1/2 the producers of O2, and organisms that capture carbon, isn't catastrophic?
Eventual clouds of hydrogen sulfide from the ocean covering the land, poisoning 99%+ of all life isn't catastrophic?
Runaway greenhouse cycles making the planet uninhabitable for thousands if not hundreds of thousands or even millions of years isn't catastrophic?
Loss of access to water for billions of people isn't catastrophic?
I think you aren't paying attention to the outcomes here, and may be thinking only of the scenarios estimated for 2030-2050 which themselves are pretty scary, not the unavoidable planetary disaster that comes after the feedback loops are all fully in play. Try looking more long term....and note that every estimate of how fast the cycles collapse/reverse has been vastly under estimated....as two out of hundreds of examples, Greenland is melting faster than it was estimated to melt in 2075....far worse, frozen methane too.

You can reject the science, that doesn't make it wrong. It only makes you the ass who knowingly gambles with the planet's ability to support humans or other higher life forms based on nothing more than denial.

Edit: We are at approximately 1C rise from pre industrial records today, expected to be 1.5C in as little as 11 years. Even the IPCC (typically extremely conservative in their estimates) states that a 2C rise will trigger feedbacks that could exceed 12C. Many are already in full effect, like glacial melting, methane hydrate melting, peat burning, diatom collapse, coral collapse, forest fires, etc. It takes an average of 25 years for what we emit today to be absorbed (assuming the historical absorption cycles remain intact, which they aren't). That means we are likely well past the tipping point where natural cycles take over no matter what we do, and what we're doing is increasing emissions.

She's absolutely correct that the random collectible toy thing has been around for a long time. Baseball cards certainly count, or even the toys found in cereal boxes years ago. The difference is that physical toys can be traded with friends, or donated, or resold - they're a tangible good with actual, if minimal, value.

Loot in video games to me is comparable less to "surprise" toys, and more to... hrm. Maybe... playing bingo for non-transferable airfare tickets? There's a real, "fun" prize, that has value for the winner but only the winner, and only in a limited context, and if you don't win you leave with nothing of any value. Note that bingo along those lines would be considered gambling in most contexts (know it would be where I live, at any rate...).

In 2014 I road tested new cars before they hit the showroom floor. Got to drive the new 2015 Corvette Stingray from Florida to Las Vegas. They did a 15 min emission test and then spent a day off in Vegas and then back to Florida.

I loved the scenery in this video and it took me back to my trip out west, all expenses paid in new Corvette.

I did lose $25 gambling. I paid a hooker $25 and then she ran off with my money. I knew it was gamble to start with. Hookers don't usually push shopping carts.

I'm sure they will gain more overall customers because they are owned by Proctor & Gamble. As I mentioned originally, there will be plenty of women and white knights who jump at the chance to support a company who decided to tag along onto the #metoo movement.

To me, that is part of the reason why I dislike this commercial so much. Not just because of it's huge and sweeping generalizations (practically every scene has one), but because their ad department had to know that an edgy commercial would do the same thing for them as it did for Nike. Does anyone think that the majority of actual corporate level people at Gillette/P&G give two fucks about #metoo? I know I don't.

It's just an ad targeted at a huge group of people that are easy to take potshots at currently. I find it little different than attack ads run by fucktards that want to condemn all Muslims for the act of terrorists or fundamentalist jihadists. The most screwed up thing about that analogy is that, realistically, there are largish groups of Islamic people that actually will cheer and throw celebrations when there is a terrorist attack. Yet you would be hard put to find large swaths of men out in the streets cheering on the effects of so called Toxic Masculinity.

Yes, we as men need to speak out. We need to support the evolution of mankind away from barbarism. But we don't need to succumb to propaganda that tries to purport that a man seeing a pretty lady walk past shouldn't attempt to say hi or introduce himself to her because that is bad. This ad, with one of the sweeping generalizations I mentioned earlier, would have you think that it is HORRIBLE for a man to do that and that a 'responsible' man would body check that guy. Because men should never try to meet women, only remain passive and allow the woman to come to them. I say fuck that, it is wrong to catcall women, but there is nothing wrong with going up and saying hi. This ad (and some other internet videos) would have you think it's the equivalent of throwing the lady down in the middle of a crowded walkway and having your way with her.

The ad could have been better, there were moments like the Terry Crews scene that I agree with, but they took the easy way out and just slammed men in general.

It is about blaming things on something someone made up called 'toxic masculinity'. Please explain to me why we have so many 'issues' with it here in the USA when there are countries like Spain and others where it is considered OK to be masculine?

I feel we can narrow it down to one simple factor, a collegiate system in which we are now taught that everything white is bad, everything male is bad, and everything conservative is bad. There is no backlash on this because if you complain, YOU ARE THE TOXIC PERSON!

Let me give you an example and bear in mind that I think Trump may be the worst president we have had. Jim Carrey, who is notably liberal and PC (lately anyway) created a painting comparing people who voted for Trump to apes. A de-evolution artwork. Hardly a peep from anyone, but if you compared other groups to apes you would be branded a racist and more. It's perfectly fine to take potshots at anything liberal people consider to be bad, but god help you if you do it to something they care about.

tl;dr I think it is a stupid fucking commercial that they put out to increase sales with Proctor & Gambles female slanted brands. They might lose a few razor related sales, but there are a shitload of white knights out there that will fall in line to argue that men are just assholes and should be beaten down to accept their new role. Since I use an old fashioned safety razor from Merkur, I can't boycott them, but I would if I could.

Reminiscent of and inspired the many Zatoichi scenes that involve dice gambling.

Fees are a big deal. This video helps explain why.

https://videosift.com/video/Frontline-Retirement-Gamble-Mutual-Fund-Fees

I have to disagree. If that business owns/leases the land, they don't own/lease 90% of the space all the time and 10% during business hours. It is their property. There were signs, since I saw the one guy looking up to see who to call.

These people gambled and lost.

Her ability to respond thoughtfully at the drop of the hat in no way proves his argument right. The risk he takes when being offensive can in some circumstances lead to his death. But some people are willing to gamble with their life and others because they get off on spreading violence and hatred.

I went to the pinball museum in Vegas and they talk about the history of some of the machines; I think I remember that in the early days some of them were used for gambling and they got banned; then the games became skill games, but there were still a few that from all appearances were skill games, but if you landed in the right spot the owner would pay you out illegally

The only reason pinball machines weren't banned (or were legalized) in most U.S. jurisdictions way back in the day was because they were a game of skill. How do redemption machines like this (that are computer controlled to only pay out some percentage of the time) skate by the anti-gambling laws?

I'm from Indiana, we hate this man.

See:
-Gay Conversion Therapy
-Religious Freedom Restoration Act
-A bunch of anti-abortion bills
-The "No More Stringent Than" bill (anti environmental)
-And, personally one of my least favorite, the anti gambling shit (I like playing poker)

Tom Price inadvertently reveals that he has a serious gambling problem.

We took a gamble on Obama and his plan and it is collapsing under its own weight.

Cheep for the poor and not that affordable for for what you get. Not to mention deductibles are way higher under the current plan.

I don't know the true fix but this current plan is not working.

To be sure Obama wants a singer payer plan and the AFA is suppose to collapse so the next democrat ( Hillary) would finish the deal. But she lost .

*money

This is why I don't bother to gamble.