Let's party like it's 1938, wohoo!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/23/german-neo-nazi-protesters-clash-with-police-at-new-migrant-shelter

Police in Saxony is pretty much in cahoots with those Nazis, we learned that much from the investigation surrounding the NSU terror cell.

OK
#1. Your study quote which said no mechanism had been discovered.
#2. "but the drivers, magnitude, timing and location of methane consumption rates in High Arctic ecosystems are unclear."...LOCATION UNCLEAR MEANS NOT FOUND.
#3...this does not make sense, "this feedback will be moderate: of a magnitude similar to other climate–terrestrial ecosystem feedbacks" is self contradictory, since many terrestrial ecosystem feedbacks are NOT moderate...depending on the definition of "moderate". If less than 10 deg C is moderate, then they're right.
#4. You can tell them 98%+ of scientists in the field of climatology say side effects of industry/technology will cause "X" at a minimum in 100 years, and it has already caused "Y" (warming, weather changes, ocean acidification, environmental pollution, rising cancer rates, water shortages, other indisputable factors), send him back with proof of those effects, and I think same result..."no thanks".

I misunderstood I guess. If you did that, he would just be in a rubber room for claiming to be a time traveler, not seen as a visionary. ;-) If he could offer proof of the time travel, the state of the planet, and the environmental trends showing every issue is seemingly getting worse leading to cluster f*ck, it would not be a hard sell in the least, IMO. At least not to people with an IQ over 90. You don't have to abandon all those things (coal, yes), you would just have to design them better. Electric cars were often the norm before Ford in towns. Planes might be electric dirigibles, and satellites might be put in orbit by rail guns.
If you don't think 1/3 of the planet's population (a reasonable guess if water shortages continue the current trend) being migrant doesn't warrant 'panic' (which I never suggested, I will say it warrants concern even by those in the '1st' world) then I don't know what to tell you.
Citations:
#1. It may be unfishable in 15-20 years (I was off by 5 years) at current acidification rates.
http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/05/climate-change-threatens-crucial-marine-algae/
"By 2040, most of the Arctic Ocean will be too acidic for shell- forming species including most plankton. Significant areas of the Antarctic Ocean will be similarly affected, oceanographer Carol Turley from Plymouth Marine Laboratory in the UK previously told IPS."

#2. by 2025 it's estimated that 2/3 of people worldwide will live in a water shortage.
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/interesting-water-facts/
"Unless we change our ways, two-thirds of the world’s population will face water scarcity by 2025"

#3. Northern India/Southern China is nearly 100% dependent on glacial melt water, glaciers that have lost 50% in the last decade
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/interesting-water-facts/
"Rapid melting will reduce the Tibetan glaciers by 50 percent every decade, according to the Chinese Academy of Sciences
More than two-thirds of Chinese cities face water shortages"

I don't know what dirt Blatter has on what politician, but how did he not get arrested?

The business around the Qatar world cup demonstrates perfectly how this horrible world works. Football is loved around the world, for the most part by peace loving individuals who believe in fair play and good sportsmanship.

Yet somehow, the money that we pay to watch football (and the money that the advertisers pay for the privilege selling us things while we watch) was used to set up a football competition in a country at a time when football is not playable. To ensure this impossible spectacle takes place, tens of thousands of low paid (and many unpaid for years at a time) migrants were moved into desolate infested squats in order to provide the slave labour to build the beautifully designed and wonderfully engineered, air conditioned stadia that we will all sit in or otherwise experience, in comfort, at the expense of all of those poor people.

And yet almost every one of us would be outraged and moved to action at the possibility of a person being exploited in our name.

They investigated themselves, they found themselves to be acting in an exemplary fashion. If anyone is punished for corruption, they will eventually return to their normal life of luxury after a brief stint out in the cold, and possibly be rehired under an umbrella company or to a lower-profile position of equal importance.

The same happened with the banks, the same happens with our politicians and their spiderweb of connections in big business and finance. Fuck capitalism. We need something new.

Straight from the Guardian's current article on the most recent shipwreck in the Med:

The deaths are likely to renew calls from campaigners for Europe to reinstate full-scale search-and-rescue operations in the Mediterranean. Last October, the EU opted not to replace the Italian-run Operation Mare Nostrum, which saved about 100,000 lives last year, amid fears that it was encouraging smugglers and migrants to organise more trips to Europe.

What they forgot to mention: Italy would have continued Mare Nostrum if the rest of this bloody EU had bothered to pitch in with a few bucks. The total bill was €114 million per year. Petty cash, by any measure.

The replacement, Frontex's Operation Triton, doesn't even have a mandate to save shipwrecked folks, just to keep them away from EU soil.

European values worthy of yet another Nobel Peace Price, I'd say...

That is quoted once in the whole clip. The number has hovered between $0.70-$0.85 for the last few decades that the issue has been talked about openly.

Where do you get the impression that Oliver is arguing about equal pay for dissimilar jobs at any point in the entire segment? I do not see that at any point. If that were true, obviously that would be ridiculous. The goal here is equality, not up-ending the whole system of employment.

Lastly, as it's said plainly in the first few minutes of the clip: "Equal pay for equal work". There are two points I would like to make here:
1) that's clearly not an argument for inequality in favor of work compensation for women over men, and
2) If we *really* wanted to pay people equally for their work, mexican migrants who pick our vegetables every season, movers, factory-workers, carpenters and any other manual-labor jobs would be living the highlife in their gated communities with million-dollar homes, and most CEO's, wallstreet bankers, and office joe's would be scraping by in the 'burbs.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by longde.

Your video, isreals new racism-the persecution of african migrants, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

So *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/isreals-new-racism-the-persecution-of-african-migrants, right?

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Norsuelefantti. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

whoops
http://videosift.com/video/isreals-new-racism-the-persecution-of-african-migrants
and i even voted lol.
teach me to vote first,watch after

90% migrant workers in Qatar sounds an awful lot like a caste system comparable to the helots in old Sparta.

I found the article on migrants and their eating patterns, it wasn't on the BBC News site, it was New York Times, and I saw it syndicated here:

http://www.theage.com.au/world/us-habits-leave-migrants-with-a-lot-on-their-plate-20130519-2junz.html

@hpqp The point is that there is no such thing as "plain old religious fanaticism" - it's always tied up in whatever economic and political circumstances are shaping the region and family and the person committing the act. Sure - religious people would like to think that their religion is separate from their worldly circumstances, but if you don't give credence to any supernatural dimension of religion, it also becomes impossible to separate religion from the other socio-cultural-economic-historic factors that also drive conflict.

I work regularly with Muslims who each are rich enough to buy my worldly belongings a couple of times over, and violence is the farthest thing from their minds. Exploiting migrant workers and suppressing equality and freedom of speech is quite familiar to them, but violence - despite their Muslim faith - is very foreign to most of them. Which of course is why Al Qaeda considers them traitors to Islam - they have too much in common with their supposed enemies the Israelis or Americans, and almost no common points of reference with a radical Muslim Chechen or Afghan.

Islam today is the most violent religion only in its overlap with regions that are good breeding grounds for violent extremism anyway - there's no reason to believe that in a country with the material preconditions the US has that fundamentalist Muslims wouldn't be more like the Westboro Baptists. By trying to indicate that Islam is in itself a greater driver of violence than Christianity, Maher conflates extremely disparate cultures and regions and obscures the real issues.

@bobknight33

No red herrings please.

Illegal immigrants pay taxes. They would pay more if they weren't threatened and demonized. They would pay even MORE if legislation like the DREAM act were passed.

The work that unauthorized immigrants do is slave labor. Unemployed Americans simply refuse to accept that level intense work for the comparatively low wage. (Young Turks did a report on that as well. Plus I would know, since all the onion farmers in south georgia were affected by these new "Arizona style" immigration laws)

Just admit, you've come across new information that requires you (and the rest of America) to rethink your opinion of migrant workers and their families.

Aye I agree that not hurting people is a worthy cause, but if you follow that line of thinking, once again you will find inconsistency. For example, if he truly doesn't want to hurt people, why did he try to have the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 repealed - twice.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.2310:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d094:h.r.13264:

Wouldn't having less safety at work result in more harm to workers, and even deaths?

How about his stance on the environment, would a degraded, polluted environment lead to harm? Quite possibly, and he's sponsored more than a half dozen bills to try to get rid of, or limit legislation protecting it, including a bill to repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7079:

There are plenty of studies that demonstrate a scientifically significant correlation between pesticide exposure and cancers, birth defects and spontaneous abortions. Look up carbaryl, atrazine and benomyl-carbendazim to name a few, if he truly wanted to avoid doing harm, shouldn't he focus on legislation that tightens up the use of toxic chemicals in the food chain so that the seasonal and migrant workers (especially) might have improved health outcomes?

What about his handling of the Florida oil spill, the ecosystem there got devastated and there will be ongoing health consequences for not just the locals. His reaction was that there should be less oversight by the Government and instead there should be promises by the corporations to make good any damages with the populations they affect. That's not just an example of how his principles could harm people but it's an example of libertarianism gone crazy. His sponsorship of the H.R.2415 and H.R.4004 bills back this up, both of them incentivize off-shore drilling.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-06-16/ron-paul-defends-obama-on-bp-oil-spill-and-himself-on-owning-gold/

He takes the stance that he 'doesn't want to hurt people because he's then able to get a lot of anti-abortion supporters to vote for him, or in other words, he's doing a good job of being a politician. In addition, he's deciding what is right and what is wrong for the people that have other opinions and may wish to express those opinions in the form of exercising the right to make an informed decision about their future family - I don't call that libertarianism.