search results matching tag: laxative

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (48)     Sift Talk (3)     Blogs (7)     Comments (206)   

Inside America's First Private Terminal For Millionaires

SFOGuy says...

Sure, why not? I mean...have you ever seen the footage of a clearly exhausted Matt Damon coming into LAX with his wife and kids---and quietly, but tiredly, asking TMZ video and the paparazzi to please leave them alone on this pass because: kids and tired?

It's hard to be sympathetic all the celebrities--they want attention and then they don't. But everyone who was hunted by cameras all the time---well, why not ask your agent to get the studio to pay for this?

artician said:

Wait... This is a positive story?

Hail Satan?-Trailer

newtboy says...

There's no confusion or miscommunication.
They are using the lax rules designed to promote Judeo Christian religions against them to expose religion's hypocrisy and intolerance publicly, much like Pastafarians but with better organization and iconography.
Were they not clear?

bcglorf said:

Is this the wrong place to point out a pet peeve with groups like 'secular' Satanists? The origin of the idea of Satan is clearly rooted in Abrahamic religion, and as the embodiment of all things evil. When I see self identifying Satanists upset that people presume that Satanism is the worship of the Abrahamic Satan, I lack any sympathy. The name, language and definitions already have existed for a long time, namely:
Satan: The embodiment of evil in Abrahamic religion
Satanism: The worship of the above

Defining your world view as a secular atheist and then labeling that as 'Satanism' is just deliberately communicating badly. I can understand the angle where people want to use it to provoke, but at some point you've gotta step back and acknowledge that yes you were just miscommunicating things badly to draw attention to something.

A Scary Time

Mordhaus says...

The alleged victim's testimony was the extent of the prosecution's case against Perry and Counts. There was no physical evidence linking them to the crime.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/05/07/convictions-vacated-26-year-old-rape/588406002/

It was Banks’ word against hers and she was not likely to change her story. After all, Gibson sued the Long Beach Unified School District claiming the school’s lax security provided an unsafe environment that led to the fraudulent rape. She would eventually receive a settlement of 1.5 million dollars.

Brian Banks was faced with an impossible decision at the time – either fight the charges and risk spending 41 years-to-life in prison, or take a plea deal and spend a little over 5 years of actual prison confinement. Although it would mean destroying his chance to go to college and play football, a lengthy probationary period, and a lifetime of registration as a sex offender, Banks chose the lesser of two evils when he pleaded no contest to the charges.

https://californiainnocenceproject.org/read-their-stories/brian-banks/


I'd look up more, but I have to go pick up my wife from work.

ChaosEngine said:

You can totally be against both. Most reasonable people are.

What you shouldn't do is assume that they are both equally bad and equally prevalent (important note: I'm not saying @bcglorf is doing this.... but other people are definitely doing this).

Obviously, a false accusation of rape is a terrible thing. In the most extreme circumstances, it can lead to having years of your life taken away in prison. But sexual assault is a life sentence, you will carry that to your grave.

Second, as I've pointed out before, the idea that we're seeing an epidemic of false accusations is not supported by evidence. The numbers are hard to come by, but it's not even 1% of actual rapes (nevermind lesser sexual assault like groping, etc).

Finally, where is the abandoning of proof and evidence? Show me someone who has been convicted of sexual assault without any evidence. There's a big difference between accepting an allegation is worth looking into and convicting that person.

If a woman (or a man) comes forward with a claim of sexual assault, they are entitled to be taken seriously. That doesn't mean their alleged assailant is guilty though.

IMO, the real issue here is one of deflection. Trump and his cronies are basically inventing this narrative of victimhood where women are on the lookout for men to falsely accuse of rape, which is patently bullshit.

Chicago Police Leaving Bait Truck full of Nikes Near Park

BSR says...

Just park a car with laxative laden donuts in a NO PARKING zone near the police station. It's all about the bait.

newtboy (Member Profile)

siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your comment on Laxatives fed to Seagulls on the beach has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

JFK - The Speech That Killed Him

newtboy says...

Bob, I honestly believe you need to be psychology examined. You have apparently gone off the deep end into full blown delusional political paranoia....or perhaps you really are just a Russian troll.

Please acknowledge that your hero Trump has repeatedly suggested that slander and libel laws are too lax (except when applied to his baseless accusations against others) and that the press should be hobbled and stymied if they speak out against him or reveal what he's trying to hide, as in have their licenses and credentials revoked and be sued into bankruptcy or even charged with treason among other sanctions, but published lies that support him are totally acceptable, even praiseworthy.

bobknight33 said:

If only the press was free from the controlling arm of the deep state shadow government -- operation mockingbird

Liberal Redneck: NRA thinks more guns solve everything

harlequinn says...

Even though NZ's laws were relatively stricter at the time, the real issue was that Australia's laws were lax. We went from one end of the spectrum to the polar opposite (which is a not uncommon illogical human reaction to bad events).

The laws you speak of were enacted a few years before Australia changed theirs. The salient point is that they didn't restrict or legislate for some things over the following years.

The standards you have there (fit and proper person) for gaining a license are almost exactly the same as in Australia. The endorsement for getting an AR15 can be obtained by shooting in IPSC or 3 gun competitions. Basically, if you're a fit and proper person and join one of these clubs then you can get an AR15 and full capacity magazines.

ChaosEngine said:

Except NZ's gun laws were already stricter than Australias. To get an AR15 here, buyers must have a standard, current firearms licence and an approved police order form. If the clip has a higher capacity than 7 rounds, you need a special endorsement. Also, you must have proper storage for firearms which the police will inspect before granting a licence.

Oh, and you will have difficulty being deemed 'fit and proper' to possess or use firearms if you have:

a history of violence
repeated involvement with drugs
been irresponsible with alcohol
a personal or social relationship with people deemed to be unsuitable to be given access to firearms
indicated an intent to use a firearm for self-defence.

That's a direct quote from the police licence page

Sheriff Rips NRA - You’re Not Standing Up For Victims

newtboy says...

The NRA successfully lobbied to make sure states didn't have to report people to the national registry, and also successfully lobbied to make the system underfunded and not searchable, so nearly useless, so it's just a lie that the NRA supports strengthening the federal registry, they have been at the forefront insisting it remain lax, useless, and toothless for decades.

The insane are not convicted of being insane, it's a medical diagnosis not a conviction (except the convicted criminally insane), so subject to stringent privacy laws with severe consequences if a Dr tells anyone improperly, and they know it and fear being sued and sanctioned. That means most aren't reported at all.

In many states, private gun sales have zero background checks, so no list stops the insane from buying guns privately and legally.

John Oliver - Parkland School Shooting

SDGundamX says...

@MilkmanDan

One big problem is that different states are passing different laws. Connecticut, after Sandy Hook, made it illegal to sell guns or ammo clips that can accept more than 10 rounds and required owners of guns that were semi-automatic and could fire more than 10 rounds to register them. Additionally you need a permit to purchase a gun and background checks are required for all private sales.

Contrast that with other states like Missouri where literally anyone who is not a felon can buy a gun, doesn't have to register it, and doesn't even need a background check if the sale is private.

Legislation on gun control needs to be centralized. Until the federal government establishes uniform laws about licensing and registering firearms, which should include mandatory background checks, training classes, and a federal database that tracks all guns sold in the U.S., it's just going to be too easy to head to a state that has lax gun laws and stock up on all the firepower you need to carry out whatever heinous crime a person has in mind.

And I'm thoroughly pessimistic about it ever happening. The NRA and gun "enthusiasts" as well as the gun manufacturing industry are just too strong as a lobbying group. These kids are absolutely doing the right thing by protesting and they'll get their time in the spotlight, but eventually that spotlight will shift to something else and it will be business as usual in D.C. with politicians taking political donations from the NRA to fund their never-ending re-election campaigns.

John Oliver - Parkland School Shooting

MilkmanDan says...

Thanks for that link -- really good.

I do think that "the left" is perhaps a bit too focused on specific weapon or accessory types. AR-15's, bump stocks, magazine sizes, etc. It's not completely ridiculous to say that if we banned AR-15's with 20-30 shot magazines, most of these shooters would just move on to the next best thing; maybe a Ruger Mini 14 or something with a 15 shot magazine.

Would that mitigate some of the deadly potential? Sure. Slightly. But it wouldn't prevent things at all, just (slightly) mitigate them. That might be worth doing, but it isn't beneficial enough to be what we should be focusing on.


I think two things could help contribute to prevention. Registration, and Licensing.

Step 1) Anyone who owns or purchases a firearm would be legally required to get it/them registered. Serial numbers (if they exist), etc. Anyway, descriptions of the weapon(s) on file and linked to a registered owner. If a firearm is used in a crime, the registered owner could be partially liable for that crime. Crime resulting in death? Owner subject to charges of negligent manslaughter. Violent crime, but no deaths? Owner subject to charges of conspiracy to commit X. Registered owner finds one or more of their firearms stolen or missing? Report them as such, and your liability could be removed or mitigated. Failure to register a firearm would also carry criminal penalties.

Step 2) Anyone who wants to use a firearm would be legally required to get a license. Licensing requires taking a proficiency and safety test. The initial license would require practical examination (safety and proficiency) at a range. Initial licensing and renewals (every 4 years?) would require passing a written test of knowledge about ownership laws, safety, etc. Just like a driver's license. And just like a driver's license, there could be things that might reasonably preclude your ability to get a license. Felony record? No license for you. Mental health issues? No license for you.


The NRA loves to tout themselves as responsible gun owners. Well, responsible people take responsibility. Remember that one kid in your class back in third grade that talked back to the teacher, so she made you all stay in and read during recess? Yeah, he ruined it for the rest of you. Guess what -- that's happening again. These nutjobs that shoot up schools or into a crowd of civilians are ruining things for the rest of you. We've tried unfettered access and an extremely lax interpretation of the second amendment. It didn't work out well. For evidence, compare the US to any other developed country on Earth.

Guns are a part of American culture, to an extent that taking them away completely would be ... problematic. But there are many, many things between the nothing that we're doing now and that.

ChaosEngine said:

Fuck you, I like guns

FISA Memo | Everything You Need To Know

newtboy says...

Everything you need to know....
There's not a single crime even alluded to in the memo, much less proven. Only accusations of bias against Trump by the agency that handed him the presidency.
The steel dossier was certainly not the only evidence presented to FISA, a fact Republicans are desperate to hide.

Republicans wrote the lax FISA rules, and renewed them just last month over Democratic objection, to make it easy to spy on Muslims in America and fight terrorism.
Those lax rules were used to legally get a warrant, and renew it.

Republicans eventually (after blocking voting on it for a week+) voted to release the Democratic memo, after it had been already submitted to the FBI and DOJ first and had a 10 day viewing period. The Republican memo was not subject to review. They also knew Trump would veto it's release, and he has so far. The democrats all voted to release the Republican memo...at the same time and with the same restrictions as the rebuttal, Republicans all voted against that.

Bias does not automatically make one not credible, or incapable of properly investigating crimes. Honest people are biased against liars. Most law enforcement is biased against criminal perpetrators. Intelligence agents are biased against traitors.

If bias was a disqualifier for investigation, what has the Republican party been doing looking at Clinton? They clearly should have recused themselves, but in that case bias against her was a prerequisite to be part of the investigation team. A little consistency would be nice, guys.

In short, this is utter bullshit distraction, fake misleading opinion based on factual omission made by those who've made a career of making unsupported, often debunked charges against political enemies, not credible evidence of crimes or improper action by anyone. Sorry @bobknight33

Whitehouse Admits Tax Plan Saves Trump,Tens Of Millions Year

newtboy says...

Research better...$7.5 Trillion+- not $10, and mostly due to lost revenue and excess spending from the Republican caused depression. (Caused by lax and removed bank regulations, then bail outs by Bush with federal funds). Also, let's not forget the Iraq war, kept off the books by Bush, then added to Obama's deficit numbers.

Where was I? Here, stating it's ridiculous to raise the military budget by $100 Billion/year (what Republicans call a huge cut to the military) when our economy is tanked.

By percentage, republicans have consistently raised the deficit/debt more than Democrats, who actually lowered it under Clinton. Reagan was by far the worst.

bobknight33 said:

"and every American citizen because it bankrupts the nation" ? Where were you the last POTUS / house /senate added 10 Trillion of actual debt added.

The Future of Airliners? - Aurora D8

SFOGuy says...

? I can't drive across the Pacific to Hawaii...or the Atlantic to Europe...Although, for low budget buses between city pairs (East Coast NYC-Boston, Washington-Bos, Orlando-Miami? West Coast SFO-LAX-San Diego...) ---maybe?

transmorpher said:

I'm predicting that once self-driving cars are mainstream in the next 20 years the airlines will be in a lot of trouble. With a majority of self driving cars on the road, I think the safety numbers will shift to cars being the safer form of travel, and likely very few traffic jams. We may not even need traffic lights eventually as traffic learns to flow smoothly.

Light of Prayer Rosary Beads

John Wick: Chapter 2

rancor says...

Excellent! I implemented that policy for myself after The Matrix trailers spoiled all of the movie's VFX back in 1999. I've been slightly more lax in recent years (for movies I don't care about or am not sure of) but it's definitely a good policy. Also highly recommended.

I watched this one, though.

Sarzy said:

Oh man, I've had a no trailers policy for at least a year now (which is awesome, by the way -- I highly recommend it), and this is the first time I've been seriously tempted to break it. The first John Wick was SO GOOD.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon