The neanderthals decry their complete omission.
The scythians were peeved to only be in crowd shots.
Still no one appreciates the pale Visigoths, who appear a bit washed out on the big screen.
Most of china is assured that jk rowling thinks mongolian means retarded.

"Whether or not Lincoln could have bought all the slaves is entirely irrelevant."

Irrelevant to what? Jon Stewart's comment?

"That is not why the Civil War was fought."

And?

"Buying the slaves wasn't an option."

It was not an option because that would not have prevented confederate secession. As you say, Lincoln did not care about freeing the slaves only about preserving the union no matter how many were killed or maimed in the process. It is totally relevant to Judge Andrew Napolitano saying that if Lincoln had wanted to free the slaves, the Civil War would have been unnecessary. But as you say (and he would agree), freeing the slaves were not Lincoln's concern.

So you are right, totally correct. For someone who did not want the South to secede and for whom it did not matter if the slaves were freed or not (in his own words), as long as the South would keep paying its tariffs, paying to free the slaves and avoiding bloodshed was not an option. Avoiding bloodshed was not his primary concern. Preventing secession was.

From his first inaugural:
"[T]here needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it is forced upon the national authority."

Basically, obey the "national authority" or suffer bloodshed and violence.

Which they did.

While the "bloodshed and violence" were unnecessary to free the slaves, had that been the goal, at least it would have been a worthy goal even if the means were monstrous. But "bloodshed and violence" to "preserve the union" or to collect taxes, that's beyond the pale.

reminded me of...
http://videosift.com/video/Pale-kid-raps-ffffffast
I though pale kid was fast, but DAMN, that's some progression

Thank you siftbot.
You are the coolest webbot out there.
All other webbot's pale in comparison.

1. So you are suggesting people who live on 40p a day would give two squirty shits about a smartphone? That is a result of global economic issues of which one person smashing a phone (they presumably own) is negligible to the point of complete irrelevance. Non sequitur, if this is really a concern to you then you need to go after the corruptions and inequalities in our very financial system. Handing down a phone (which is likely near the end of its useful life anyway) is not going to change anything of significance here.

2. I'm suggesting you are making an entirely subjective value judgement about the pleasure and practical use one could derive from the same investment of money/material. Lets not forget he generated around $7000 of personal income from a £50-100 investment. But more than that, perhaps to some people the pleasure and entertainment of smashing that phone was comparable to other activities that might cost the same (e.g. a night of drinking or a weekend away could easily exceed the cost of that handset). Are you suggesting spending £50-100 on leisure activities etc. is morally reprehensible? Let's not forget "smartphones" don't do anything essential for most people, they are luxury items. If you have a problem with 1st world culture that's absolutely fine (laudible even) but you can't be singling out this guy for making a very successful comedy skit when there are people everywhere who's lifestyles could be politely described as "a decadent waste of atoms".

3. Absolutely nothing is stopping that smashed phone from being recycled, many shops would give you a £50-100 trade in on a new handset even in that state as they are typically just melted down anyway (and your new shiny phone contract is worth more to them than caring about the state of your bag of broken phone bits).

Besides as a matter of pedantry my point clearly stands, doing NOTHING in a drawer is clearly inferior to generating $7000, and providing 2mins of hillarity!?!?!?!? (the comparison was between hammer and drawer not drawer and charity) What you did there was called a "straw man" (i.e. twist my word's to make a different argument that helps make your own point)

4. The phone is old and they are not built to last (again feel free to rant on our disposable culture but leave this guy out of it) as @Payback pointed out it's probably knackered anyway.


Somewhere in your argument is some righteous and commendable rage about the inequalities of the global market but you're focusing it in the wrong direction here. Be angry at the CEO and shareholders of Samsung who profit from human death and suffering in the Coltan mines, the Corrupt banks that hold a fake debt over the poor populations of the world or the Complicit governments that support them. Or maybe go after the Ideologues and philosophers that conceived and spread the culture of consumer and corporate greed driven economics.


Basically anything but rage at this guy for making a IMHO pretty funny video on a budget that utterly pales into insignificance compared to just about anything else.



Could he have handed it down? Sure. Could he have traded it for a crate of jack Daniels, a half ounce of weed, an animatronic chicken alarm clock, a present for his wife etc. etc. etc.?

Your argument taken to its logical conclusion would condemn anyone that spends money or resources on anything other than practical necessities or charity. I'm not saying that's what you meant, but that's what your argument as stated invites.

I studied English and Philosophy in school and have continued reading a lot of utopian/dystopian literature since. My familiarity with economics and economic history pales in contrast, but the close relationship with subjects I am interested in has caused me to spend some time and consideration learning what I can.

That said, when I see a video like this I lump it into the same pseudo intellectual/science/news that things like Bill O'Reilly, TYT, Kirk Cameron, Creationists and bigots bring to mind.

Why did I watch this? Well I'm open to listening to legitimate and informative critiques of socioeconomic systems. If they are particularly good it can lead to all sorts of follow up questions and inquiries. I get bored while i'm "slaving" away at work so I put things on in the background...

Then there videos like this. There are very few facts throughout the entire video. The analogies used are misleading. The terrible acts and downfalls of groups, individuals, or particular ideologies are often blown out of proportion entirely. There is no nuanced investigation, no insights, nothing but a self satisfied narrator with droll delivery.

Thanks for rummaging through my videos for dead links. I'll pass on using my downvote on this video.

Steve Nash looks fine with a decent haircut-
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1073274/Nash_BSoS_2.jpg

These two guys though, when they stood together on the court blinded the other players with pale ugly gym shorts ugly.

Danny Ainge & Kevin McHale
http://thumbs.boa.ulximg.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_gallery/public/article/images/ainge_mchale_0.jpg?itok=b2FgEoqr

"At one point in time, space travel only existed in science fiction, but with time and hard work, it eventually became a reality. In present day America, it seems impossible that we will ever rid our country of it's primitive, backwards, sociopathic gun culture, but just as sure as we evolved to be capable of space travel, we will also, one day, gain the wisdom to evolve past our current violent pupal stage.

Maybe not today, or tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, or the day after that.... but one day.

I know these words might come as an insult to those unable to dream of a better world, or for those who cling to the status quo like a piss stained security blanket woven of rotten flesh and broken bones, but there have always been people whom insist that the world is flat, the center of the universe and mounted on the back of a great turtle.

Evolution is not easy, but evolve we must. If we are ever to have any hope of co-habitating on this tiny pale blue dot, it is the only path forward."

-Carl Sagan

(just kidding... kinda... but not really)

I find it amusing how cloistered some of you folks are who continually associate Texas with ya-hoos, inbreds, gun-happy rednecks,etc. You folks who have never been to Texas,or the southern United States at all???...go fuck yourselves.

Pick ANY fucking state in the U.S. and you will find that morons and idiots, and the generally fucked, abound.

Happy to have been raised in Texas and becoming more grateful for my heritage the older I get, commensurate with how increasingly out-of-touch with the planet the rest of the world becomes.

The short-list of associative derision applied to Texas from some of the users here PALES when compared to the shithole the rest of the fucking country would be in today, were it not for a fuck-load of native Texans, and expatriates from the Northern Untied States who decided to tell the pussies there to kiss their asses, and come on down to a state larger than many countries, with unlimited resources human and otherwise, and massive brass balls.

Ever been to fucking Rhode Island?? Florida?? How about Portland, Or.-Head to PDX if you wanna meet a bunch of ineffectual hipsters and listen to pseudo-intellectuall horseshit over 10 coffees....
Insult where insult is due ya buncha wankers what think Texas is fulla hillbillies!!

That is all ingrates, return to your regularly scheduled delusions.

Just a reality check:
The millions a company spends on faking footage of the construction of their product pales in comparison to the billions in profit they receive from the people who buy it.

Sure: probably a nice camera. Small children across Asia are still building the ones you have.

To condense this more seriously, Armstrong was the organiser and chief perpetrator of PEDs in cycling.
Given the rules in which he operated he should pay a price. There is also the related legal backlash from various third parties - good luck there Lance.

But I do accept we need to ask if a war on PEDs is any different to the (arguably) failed war on drugs.

People *want* to see cyclists bombing along at speeds ordinary folk can't muster. They want to see Olympic records broken. You either do this by being a naturally outstanding athlete (e.g Bolt, who's on record as happy to chomp down chicken nuggets) or start doping.

It's bothered me a bit that improving yourself in this sense is beyond the pale but having access to the best facilities, coaching and medical staff while others skimp by with very little is somehow acceptable.

I think it's acceptable because it's a nonsense to try to police that. And perhaps it's the same with PEDs.

IIRC there was a British athlete who went on to voice support for PEDs. That was a long time ago and I don't recall the name. A few more today need to start questioning conventional thinking.

Landing at HK is never easy... and yes, only the most experienced should be allowed to fly in and land there. The way the runway was aligned along with the distance from the airport to the main city... it's mind-boggling for me. But of course, this probably can pale in comparison to other insane airports out there.

Maybe someone out there knows it... but I'm wondering about this: for landing there, is there any flight path that takes you straight in, rather than turning almost 180 on the approach?

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Pale-Blue-Dot-Animation

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

http://videosift.com/video/Carl-Sagan-s-Pale-Blue-Dot-with-new-video