Had no idea this was a thing. I assume they are made because there is a demand. Those Tech Insider vids linked are annoying and can't imagine ever watching those...but then i have sound.

Just say NO!

People don't say no to talons that big... 8 \

I didn't know that but it doesn't surprise me. It's just... hyperbole - using literally in a sentence that should not be taken literally. To me it's exactly like somebody saying "no exaggeration..." and then exaggerating wildly. Would people not expect to be called on that shit? It is too much like lying! It will turn into an arms race - we'll have to develop other means of saying "literally" when we really mean it and in turn those means will be turned against us until ALL LANGUAGE DIES!!!1

but then. Sarcasm. My standards are double. I can offer no defence.

but also, quantum leap. It might be an abrupt change, possible overcoming some sort of previously imagined impenetrable barrier... but it surely must still be a very small change

Our legal system up here already has codified that 'idiocy', and it's been in place quite awhile.

The women's only clothing optional spa that tried to say 'no penises allowed' is legally at odds with the provincial human rights code:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/male-genitalia-policy-spurs-backlash-at-toronto-women-s-spa-1.3456844

The Canadian charter of human rights also lists freedom from discrimination as being no different for choice/behaviour things like religion, alongside birth traits like race or gender. So legally our system doesn't think rejecting a clergy application for being atheist as any different to rejecting it because of race.

And I kind of hate using a 'trivial' and much trumpeted example from America but a bakery not wanting to make a cake based on people's sexual preferences was declared illegal:
http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

I'll try to summarise my last paragraph better.

The Democratic party needs to reach out to people that didn't vote Hillary. They are instead choosing to condemn those that didn't vote Hillary as racists or friends of racists. They need to be doing the exact opposite. They need to find things to compromise on and reach out to the people that didn't vote Hillary. That doesn't have to necessarily be on any of the ideas I've tossed out above, but they've gotta do something.

A last point, the moral relativism or correctness of the cause here isn't the only thing that matters. If you can't convince a majority of the population that you are on the side of their self interest and liberties and freedoms, then you are going to lose. The things I've listed are examples of the left taking away freedoms that many on the right consider important or even fundamental to them. If no compromises can be made, the Democrats haven't got much reason for optimism about the next election looking any better.

Just Say No To Drug Test Kits has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

Well, seeing as the devil doesn't exist, I'm gonna go ahead and say "no."

To be fair, google is piss poor at presenting these kinds of stats, and my google searches for this info took me about 10 minutes, far longer than it took him to write a short response.

What I found was that many have been CHARGED with murder, but usually are found guilty of the lesser included charge of manslaughter if they're found guilty at all, and that's also true when the victim is white.
Can you find stats of white police convicted of murdering white men to compare...and can you actually point us to a .gov url with the stats you cited? I couldn't find any at all on google, nor could I find anything saying no cop has ever been convicted of murdering a black man. I looked.
I did find that in the last 2 years at least the number of cops convicted of any murder was zero, and in the last 12 years there have been 13 convictions for manslaughter/murder (they didn't split them up, but I would assume they were all actually just manslaughter).

If Captain Obvious were here, he would say no, not the first time.

Adorable, but clearly not the first time.

Baby loves that kitty!

I don't care what they say. No way I would walk away from a fight with a nose like that, and call it a "win."

Just say no to embalming.

At first I thought the helmet was in case of a crash.

Then I thought it was because of the low steel ceiling beams.

Then I thought no. It's to protect the rider's ears from the noise that thing must give off. Epic music can only do so much.

Still, I wouldn't say no to one, but as they say in Hungary "I will not buy this hoverbike, it is scratched."

Wonderful collection. From a very serious perspective, it demonstrates the sense of entitlement, the lack of understanding, and the sheer contempt of the leftist media faction and "their party" for the concerns and challenges faced by a large fraction of our population. That nearly 50% of our population would vote for a bloviating buffoon like Trump says no less about their attitude toward the leftists preferred alternative than it does about their affection for Trump.

@newtboy
you were not the only one who put me on the defensive for supporting chis hedges.
so if you feel singled out,i apologize.

the point of this post is put into light an adored spokesperson for the left,and a commentator who is also left leaning (and many of his upvoted videos can be found on the sift) to make a point.

and by your comment,you are struggling to reconcile the two.
but you DID reconcile,and you did so by giving maddow a tacit pass and condemning kyle for being a "complete bombastic liar".

when the truth is:
they both are...kinda..sorta..

they both are approaching,and making their points by using biased and slanted data to influence you,and i for that matter,into adopting their viewpoint.

these are not outright and pernicious lies.they are lies that serve a purpose and i find maddows far more egregious,because it is far more subtle..and you appear to have bought it.

she did so by using the innocuous word "might",yet her inferrence cannot be mistaken.they call it the "dog whistle".this is a wink and a nod that those dirty ruskies own our new president.

wink wink...nudge nudge..know what i mean?

now kyle is not exactly lying either.
he is using russias reaction to the new deployment from putin himself.who has stated that there was an agreement that there would be no new encroachment after the GDR,but that simply reveals the cleverness and political saavy of putin.

the real truth is this:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

or is it?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html
from 2009?

maybe this is the truth?
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html
from 2016.

well,personally i am going with the LAtimes and der spiegel.
brookings is a right wing think tank with deep tentacles in the pentagon and DoD.

but CNN reports that poland LOVES the new troops:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/14/europe/poland-us-troops-nato-welcome/

look,
while i will agree that putin is a vicious thug,who murders political opponents and tortures dissidents.that he is ruthless and relentless political player.

i do not see any evidence of russian hacking influencing our elections,nor do i see a new russian empire pushing for those cold war expansionism days.

the only entity/country i see pushing for expansion and a renewal of the cold war..is us..the pentagon and the department of defense,and those juicy juicy defense contracts!

i feel my time on the sift is coming to a close.
having to defend my admiration for a pulitzer prize winning,war correspondent and author is just...weird.

at least i know i am biased,but i do my best to self-correct.

As well as that from Charles Dickens, who wrote in "A Christmas Carol":

"Oh, Man, look here! Look, look, down here!" exclaimed the Ghost.

They were a boy and a girl. Yellow, meagre, ragged, scowling, wolfish; but prostrate, too, in their humility. Where graceful youth should have filled their features out, and touched them with its freshest tints, a stale and shrivelled hand, like that of age, had pinched, and twisted them, and pulled them into shreds. Where angels might have sat enthroned, devils lurked, and glared out menacing. No change, no degradation, no perversion of humanity, in any grade, through all the mysteries of wonderful creation, has monsters half so horrible and dread.

Scrooge started back, appalled. Having them shown to him in this way, he tried to say they were fine children, but the words choked themselves, rather than be parties to a lie of such enormous magnitude.

"Spirit, are they yours?" Scrooge could say no more.

"They are Man's," said the Spirit, looking down upon them. "And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers. This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. BEWARE THEM BOTH, and all of their degree, BUT MOST OF ALL BEWARE THE BOY, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased. Deny it!" cried the Spirit, stretching out its hand towards the city. "Slander those who tell it ye. Admit it for your factious purposes, and make it worse. AND ABIDE THE END."
(emphasis mine)

Ignorance is a bill that always come due and it comes due like a motherfucker when you will least expect it and can least afford it.

To quote Orwell:

"The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."

Reality is a motherfucker, too: if ignorance is the fall, then reality is the sudden stop at the end.

What your saying is we should ignore all the things he has said and done. I say no.
Thousands of people openly mocked a disabled person, that conversation stops right there. My president wouldn't do that. If yours would,well good for you. But for me,that conversation stops right there.