Your video, Somedays you just can't get rid of a bomb!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Somedays you just can't get rid of a bomb! has been added as a related post - related requested by ant on that post.

Well...don't keep us in suspense...! Did he get rid of it?

It makes you wonder if Republican candidates like her would be principled enough to come out against any existing worker protections, like getting rid of minimum wage entirely, or age limits, or worker's compensation.

It seems always to be their position that "Government can't help you, except all of the ways it's already helping you, which I promise not to interfere with".

Uh... no... "Blood Alcohol Content" levels don't work that way...

He blew a B.A.C. of 0.28%, not 28%. Around a quarter of one percent of his blood was alcohol. Alcohol is THAT toxic to you, that less than half a percent can kill you.

28% is like, embalming fluid kinda shit...

His .28 is like, 2 dozen american beer or a Canadian six-pack.

I also figure he probably downed a flask to get rid of the evidence before being pulled over and that probably dropped him from "merely shitfaced" to "mortally endangered" by the time they tested him.

So to address the actual video/concept....

First up, brutalist architecture is fucking awful. There was a bunch of it in Christchurch and if the earthquake did one good thing, it was to get rid of most of those god-awful buildings.

Second, the web isn't about words; it's about information.
How that information is conveyed depends on the target audience and the information being presented.

Sometimes the information is simple and the target audience is actually a machine, in which case we have things like REST and SOAP.

Other times the information is complex, and best represented visually. Can anyone honestly tell me that a site like this (http://thetruesize.com) would be better brutalised?

That's not to say there aren't problems with web bloat. Of course there are. But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Truth is truth....and this is not truth, or is at least intentionally misleading.
As mentioned above, the parties totally switched positions with the Republican Southern strategy. She's either ignorant, or intentionally misleading.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

What rich earn their money with "hard" work? Few if any, they more often make it by paying hard workers less than they are due, often by contract. (At least that's certainly true for many, including Trump)
Killing babies, nope. Embryos aren't babies. Babies can live outside a womb. >99.999% of abortions don't meet that requirement, and the few that do are only allowed to save the mother's life.
Oppressing business owners, nope, just stopping them from abusing their workers, customers, and environment. That only oppresses oppressors, and I'm more than fine with that considering how they act when unrestrained.
Allowing illegal immigrants in....nope, but offering far more work visas, absolutely. "Proper vetting" is meaningless, unless you agree to use the term as intended by the intelligence community, in which case democrats are totally on board...but not with a Muslim ban until Trump can figure something out, that's never....and totally unconstitutional.
Get rid of capitalism....did you see their candidate? Even Sanders didn't want that, but he was too hostile to unfettered capitalism for democrats....just duh.

Why do you see people mentioning the switch? Because you, and this woman, are trying to pretend it didn't happen....but it clearly, unequivocally, undeniably did. Take some American history and you'll learn.

Edit: what's funny is, had there been no southern strategy and swap of ideals as she and you imply, democrats would be your party, supporting all the right wing strategies you support.

You say that like those are bad things.

Taking money from the rich? Fuck yes. In case you missed it, they've been taking money from you for decades.

Killing babies? Well, most people would call it "allowing a woman to decide what happens to her body", but either way, there are too many damn people on the planet, so anything that lowers the birth rate is good.

Oppressing business owners? How exactly? Making them pay their employees a fair wage? Not allowing them to discriminate against people? Making sure they don't fuck up the environment? Zero problems with any of that.

Allowing illegal immigrants to enter? Leaving aside the fact that that is completely untrue, immigrants commit less crime, work harder and contribute to your economy. Get rid of the immigrants and watch your country fall apart in a week.

Get rid of capitalism? The fucking DEMOCRATS? Seriously, you think the democrats are socialist? You seriously need to see the rest of the world. In most other developed countries the democrats would be the right wing party.

But capitalism is ultimately on borrowed time anyway. Not in the short to medium term, but in 30-50 years, capitalism won't be sustainable. You can't have a capitalist system if the majority of the populace is unemployable (see automation, AI, etc).

Someday nuts like my friend @newtboy will wake up. Dont forget to up-vote. Truth is truth.



Just about every hate group today are Democrats. You can't state your beliefs without nearly getting smacked in the face by a Democrat. Majority of Democrats also agree with taking hard earned money from the rich and freely giving it to non hard working people. They believe in killing babies, oppressing business owners and allowing illegal immigrants to enter the country with no proper vetting. They want to get rid of capitalism and run the country poor by turning it into a purely socialist state. So why do I see other sifter video comments on this topic saying that the parties "switched" and the republicans are now the bad one's?

Oh, I know May and her cronies would love to destroy it, because fuck sick people? or something... damned if I know why.

But my point is that even if they would like to get rid of it, they know that it's popular with the electorate, whereas in the states, the fucking ELECTORATE hate it... the mind boggles...

I'm pretty much over the rivalry now too, but I sure do remember how much I hated those dirty Avs back then.
8 of the 9 years from 95 to 2003, the Cup winner was Detroit, Colorado, or Jersey. It also seemed like whoever won the Wings / Avs series in the playoffs was going to go on to win the Cup. Man that was a crazy rivalry.
Good luck to your Team on the rebuild too. I have a buddy who is an Avs fan and some of their moves in recent years have seemed puzzling to me like getting rid of Statsny and Reilly.

Some additional notes based on growing up in a wheat / corn farming family:

My family uses GMO herbicide/pesticide-resistant corn seed (Roundup Ready). It's a tradeoff, because:

1) Roundup Ready seed is somewhat expensive, especially compared to just holding on to a small amount of your own harvested crop as next year's seed.

2) Like the video mentioned, the GM seeds we used have been modified to be sterile, so the grain they produce can't be replanted. Part of the justification for that is not wanting the GM version to intermingle with unmodified strains. But, most is pure profit motivation -- they want you to be forced to buy that GM seed. I don't really see that as nefarious, just business -- but opinions differ.

3) My family discovered that for corn, we could us the GM Roundup Ready seed roughly once every 5 years while still benefiting from drastically reduced insect / plant pests. If corn is within pollination range of another less known crop plant called milo, the plants can hybridize and produce a plant called shattercane. Shattercane is essentially worthless as a food crop, but is very hardy, and can spread and in many cases outcompete the corn or milo that you really want.

Getting rid of it was a very difficult and intensive process -- until the GM seed came along. Now if we see shattercane starting to make incursions, we can plant the GM seeds the next year and then hit the field with a herbicide that kills the shattercane. It works so well that the field remains clear of the pest plants / insects for several years after that without having to use much if any herbicides / pesticides.

4) In our situation, we found that we used way less herbicide / pesticide per year on average once we started rotating in the GM seeds once every several years. That would be close to a wash, but still likely a net savings even if we used the GM seeds every year (seed companies will try to sell it to you every year). Factor in increased crop yields because of the reduced/eliminated pests, and it is a clear win.

5) I'm sort of worried about the potential for a "superbug" effect, similar to overusing / misusing antibiotics. If farmers buy into the GM seed thing 100% and use it every year, I think it will increase the chances / rate of the pests becoming resistant to the pesticides / herbicides used. That's a long-term concern, and in my opinion doesn't even come close to outweighing the "pro" side of the GM argument (at least from the perspective of my family's farm), but it is something to think about.

*ban
How to Get Rid of Toenail Fungus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnCJqRNczb4

Soooo...you're saying we need to find another way to get rid of Trump. Gotcha.