You seem to have, inadvertently, illustrated my misgivings about the ad. If you honestly believe that, metaphorically, "slapping someone in the face," or calling them a "dumbass" is likely to get them to change their opinion, you know little of human nature. Personally, were I "gay" and a participant in the games, I would, like Jesse Owens, respond to the ignorance with a dignified silence, and let my abilities talk for me. Rhetoric, such as yours, and rather pointless ads, simply inflame the situation.

I know throwing the map out the window is a metaphor for not following the rules, but really it's just littering a pristine landscape and frankly, you deserve to be exploded.

@bobknight33 it seems your viewpoint rests on the fact that minimum wage should be an "entry level wage where one can better oneself [..] to ask for a higher wage."

At least in my country, a lot of the time the vast majority of jobs vacancies are in places that deal with minimum wage - fast food, supermarkets, that kind of thing - because they usually deal with the "basics" that people can't do without. Hence basic, menial and minimum wage for minimum stress at work.

The people who are in better jobs over here have seen a lot of similarly positioned people get sacked so they know they've got to keep hold of their job. Everyone's been cutting back, there's less jobs, and those jobs are tightly held by people with better experience. And then, when better jobs become available, you have lots and lots of low experienced workers applying alongside a select few who used to work - who's more likely to get the job?

Finer points aside, i'd love everyone in the thread to agree that there are a whole bunch of people spending a whole lot of money at walmart - and every other scary-large company. If that money is not cycling around between people then it's stagnating somewhere and doing nobody any good.

Take soccer here in england for example. Soccer players are paid something like £20 000 per week at every top team. A lot of them are actually between £40 000 and £120 000 per week but let's talk approximate. Now look, we should all be able to see that a person couldn't possibly hope to spend that much money. If you want to go to a match, let's call it £40, 60 000 people are giving £40 to go and watch, so that's £2 400 000 and let's say it all goes on wages. Well what's happening is this entire wad of cash is ending up sitting in a bank account somewhere, because this guy can't physically go out and redistribute this cash, spending his money in the normal way and keeping the economy moving and the money spreading.

It's not just footballers and i'm sure we can agree to some extent that this can be seen in a lot of places - a select few are in positions allowing them to amass huge fortunes they can't possibly use.

"Trickle-down" has not worked, it isn't trickling anywhere, they've got the cracks sealed up. Maybe we should be thinking about "trickle up" - if cost us less to watch a soccer match, metaphorically speaking (as in cheaper bills, higher wages, less stagnation at the top), maybe people might feel less stressed, less scared, more generous, more free, the world might be a better place so that services would be better, people would be more dedicated at their job to improve because they stand to earn more, less stress less violence, more money less crime, etc. Is there something to that perhaps?

The problem is it's hard to interject whilst it's all ongoing and say "you're taking this cut, you're taking this cut, all this money is going here, just trust us the world will be a better place." It's not fair to suddenly tell people what they do is only worth half of what it was yesterday. But between the top and the bottom what you have is a rich billionaire smoking a cigar whilst some child in the poorest neighbourhood is sat in 5th-hand-me-downs on a filthy carpet listening to his mother selling her body? That's a guess, i don't know how to best represent poverty, but take any example you like. If the rich person was stood directly next to the baby he'd probably feel outraged and help, but there's a lot of smoke and mirrors that stand between him helping every baby that is every born in the future, because warlmart suddenly can afford to double their lowest wages by halving some of their highest.

To conclude - i don't think minimum wage is as you suggest.

Unbelievable. Our world is being run by imbeciles and the corrupt.

There are people out there in the world that dedicate themselves to learning information, refining methods, trying to make things better for everyone. They should be running countries. But instead, we've got men with hardly any qualifications and hardly any life experience.

Instead of gathering in a room and listening to community representatives telling them exactly how we want our money spent, the top brass are actually sat in a cushty conference room with a buffet and champagne, copping backhanders and selling us down the river.

When did the general populace suddenly fall into this groove of 'civilisation' - this unspoken belief that The Government are all-seeing, all knowing, and always out for what's best in the long run. We, collectively, have just been taken for billions and billions of dollars or pounds or whatever you use by a collection of the world's richest people. They have not been held to account, and in fact they've somehow convinced us to pay them back what they've lost. Imagine if you lived in a wild west village and you'd paid the sheriff every week to protect a safe with everyone's money in it, and he'd been out at night gambling it away. You'd be fucking furious, an angry mob would be at his door. But for some reason we're all docile about the exact parallel of that situation happening in reality.

We really need a paradigm shift in public consciousness, because the metaphor has progressed, right now that wild west village is under martial law and being run through intimidation by a gang. We don't live in some fantasy world where some unseen force is ensuring fair-play. We are the people who have to strive to ensure fair play in everything otherwise we're just letting people rob us. Literally.

We can't progress like this. In charge of the UK's education system is a guy who has never had any experience teaching whatsoever, let alone teaching under the current system, let alone qualifications in teaching. There's a petition on to have him do a week of teaching so that he can understand just how badly he's ruining everything. This is a real person like you or me and he's in charge of running the education system. We're all standing by watching someone we know is incompetent do a complicated job. Half of us wouldn't even admit to being able to do that job if we were offered it, but this fucking bumbling posh moron takes the wheels with the manic grin of an idiot that feels no fear. Dashing the wheel left and right, we idly watch on as he plays around to see what will happen, crossings our fingers nothing bad happens.

Uhhh, yeah-the issue is black and white and yes, you are right, the metaphor is what she was trying to reference and she flubbed-it. Like most California politicians she also carries the distinction of having some personal hard-on or agenda for wanting Americans to be unarmed cattle. If the California-contingent in the senate and congress had it her way, the only people allowed guns in the nation would be police, military, and private individuals authorized by the state, your classic model of a totalitarian shit-hole.

This isn't moronic in this slightest; When she says, 'many people have been killed by an unloaded gun,' she is talking about the subject as a metaphoric unloaded gun...because she passed high school english, and she can do that. The idea that 'an unloaded gun can still kill' is actually an extremely common rule in gun safety. Many accidents happen every year because people pull the trigger of a gun that seems harmless with the clip empty, but with a bullet accidentally left in the chamber. This is the reason that you never point any gun, loaded or not, at any living thing without killing intent.

Given that the bill is for the general public of the state of california, does it seem probable that one of those millions of people might not have the sensibility required to maintain proper gun safety? Further, does it seem probable that at least 1 death will happen in the next few years because this bill has passed? How many probable deaths are warranted before something like this shouldn't be passed?

This issue is not black and white.

Thank you kevingrr, for that glaring display of passive-aggression , a perfect display of robotic reaction taking precedence over a thoughtful response-I'll be sure to fix this one and all the dead videos of mine shortly, less work for me you see....

They missed several iterations of attempting to fix the problem, only for the problem to remain, until one of them solves the problem by discussing the unrelated-sub-plot-problem-which-just-happens-to-contain-the-perfect-metaphor-for-fixing-the-main-problem.

At which point, they will rush back to the main problem and yell "do not do that thing we hand planned to do to fix the problem! It will only make the problem worse! Do this thing instead!" at the last minute. At which point the problem will be solved, and everyone has a beer.

It's a metaphorical idiom.

Fantastic. I think i see little dust devils being whipped up which is interesting just because everything is so still before the engine stirs the dust. I love how much control there was searching for a flat area. Liveleak says they stopped to survey the area.

I was just commenting the other day how in a way it's great to see things like Russia speaking out for restraint with Iran, and now China doing something very impressive on the moon. I think with fingers crossed the forward thinking people of the earth have decided against "world wars" and mass destruction (no capitals, i'm not using the word in the style of Bush Jr).

Wouldn't it be great if the "competition" came from a purely technological space race with Russia, China and US/Europe involved? Just as long as we on this side can get past the whole psychopathic-capitalism problem.

It is my opinion that those mysterious money men who seem to have influence over scary media companies are metaphorically assembling people into a human pyramid, all shitting on those below us. The ones nearer the top and clambering their way up are happy enough not to have to be hit by that much shit whilst those at the bottom are drowning in it. The pyramid is so clogged up with shit that it's forming a sea of it and the people at the bottom are happy if they can manage to tread-shit for another week, the people at the top are now so high up they can't see it happening yet but eventually we're all going to drown in shit! Here's to a Merry Christmas, folks.

That's what I meant by the fake sentiment. It's pretending to be so deep and mature but as you say, it's just someone who's attracted to a pretty girl. And, despite pretending otherwise, this jackass is definitely judging the others on their shallow choice.

Even if you take it as bad casting or the clumsy metaphor I mentioned, he's absolutely not unique at all. Any relationship beyond one with the girl in the porno video you're watching involves more than just appearances and involves personality compatibility. Guys don't talk about this at the pub because it's weird; shallowness is, to some extent, expected. It's not a heart-to-heart discussion.

Perhaps why that's weird would be a good subject for his next poetry. As it is, this is just "hey I'm not judging you cretins for being pathetically shallow, I'm just saying I'm so much better than you because I uniquely see beyond physical attributes and lack the social skills to realise that I'm not unique and I'm taking a pub conversation way too seriously and you guys are never inviting me out again are you?".

Bah. I'm actually annoyed now. Why has anyone upvoted this? I'm not judging you guys for being pathetically shallow, I'm just saying I'm so much better than you because I almost uniquely see beyond the smulch.

It's a metaphor, showing how beautiful she appears to him in a manner more suited to the format.

Or possibly it's vomit-inducing fake sentiment. I'm going with that.

I think police brutality and nailing his balls to the ground was a metaphor for how civilians are treated and how they have no way of fighting back. Goes deeper than that, but that's the general gist.

The term "made of clay" is a figurative or metaphor used loosely as a description. I doubt that God meant it literally. Clay can be shaped, it can be formed into something. Each of us has our own interpretation, God may have intended it to be that way. As for organized religion, I don't believe in it especially if its' a 501c3, paper idol worshipping.....

@A10anis
ill answer that question.
neither.

your premise implies a moral "goodness" to one side while the other is "more" evil.
so you leave a choice of choosing the lesser of two evils.
yet both are evil.

how is it that when "they" perform violent acts of aggression it is "terrorism" but when "we" do the very same thing it is for the moral good.that somehow "our" violence is more righteous and justified.
see:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism

this is a classic hegelian dialectic=problem-reaction-solution

the choice of "lesser of two evils" totally ignores the first part.
the problem.
and the simple fact is:WE are the problem.
WE created the problem.
THEY react to the problem.
and then WE offer the solution.
in the form of violence.

i am not,by my commentary,dismissing the very actual and horrific truths of violence perpetrated by terrorists.

my point is simply:if you are going to look at a situation honestly you have to look at the board with open eyes.

let me put it in metaphorical terms:
which would you rather be eaten by?
a great white shark?
or a hammerhead?
neither...because BOTH are sharks.

i do totally agree with you in regards to pakistan.
they have been playing both sides for quite some time now,and lets not forget..they have nuclear weapons.