He was cheaper than paying road workers to straiten the post. He gets sheared once a year and all the grass on the side of the road he can eat. Local workers are not happy about it since he was brought in from New Zealand and feel he an illegal immigrant taking their jobs.

Yeah, I've always found these to be FAR more enjoyable than his late night show. The shear scope of his collection is pretty damn amazing.

I actually think this was a pointless interview. We gained no great insights, we heard no new information, etc... All of what was said has been said for weeks AND has been said better, i.e. reasons to be there and reasons not to be there.

Plus, I don't consider the CIA to be anything more than a tool anymore and hopefully it stays that way; as in the past you could make a case that the CIA was GETTING us involved in wars and shaping internal politics. I'm sure they still do this, but enough whistle-blowers came forward to create an environment were the CIA must tread carefully. Especially, after their complete and utter fuck-up of the century for the last Iraq war.

I appreciate this man's council, but in the end he has as much experience in leading a country as I do (armchair generals). He's very well informed in some international dealings, but his answer of "do nothing" is an old answer and it needs to be done away with to some degree. As it's an answer that does nothing; in fact it shows you the shear amount of apathy that our country feels is O.K. to use (like Cambodia, Ivory Coast, Rwanda, etc.). The problem as I see it is that the U.N. passed a unanimous security council resolution on Libya, a U.N. member. Libya said it would comply and then went on to do exactly what @bcglorf has said.

The solution I see is that NATO shouldn't be the watch dog here. The problem is that the U.N. is a useless body without fangs. It NEEDS fangs. The fact that EVERY security council member is not involved in this situation/resolution to me means that their "security club membership" should be nullified. I'm tired of people abusing the U.N. . It's perhaps our best way to solve many of these problems. But, when the military action is ALWAYS carried by NATO at the end of the day, I begin to believe that members that don't participate in resolutions THEY PASSED need to be kicked out of their position (I'm looking at you China).

Until the U.N. gains some fangs and the ability to enact resolutions that are passed UNANIMOUSLY (5 abstains for the countries too scared to take a stance), we will continue to carry the weight via the U.S. Armed Forces or NATO; otherwise, we let innocent people die. We could do nothing, but if we did do nothing the media needs to put the blame squarely at the feet of U.N. Security members that abstain; make them swim in the blood they've spilled by their political maneuvering called "abstain"... We don't do this, but I think it's time we did. If China wants to be a big boy, they need to learn about responsibilities related to their direct inaction. Likewise, Russia needs to learn that the Cold War is dead; holding their feet to the fire internationally might do that.

Eventually, this comes down to the media getting the story right and being willful enough to put countries to the question: Why?

Don't bring up the "reverse angle" of death and destruction. I know it will happen, but this is the cost of choosing and FIGHTING for any side. Death is everywhere; it doesn't make it right, but it makes it true...

Here is the vote for, Resolution 1973:

U.S.-Y*
Lebanon-Y
France-Y*
U.K.-Y*
Bosnia and Herzegovina-Y
Columbia-Y
Gabon-Y
Nigeria-Y
Portugal-Y
South Africa-Y

Abstained (the eternal worthless permanent security council members: China-they never do ANYTHING, and The Russian Federation-who seem to vote just to be contrary); I'll put a mark next to permanent members that abstained^:

^The Russian Federation-NA*
^China (as usual)-NA*
Brazil-NA
Germany-NA
India-NA

I find it hard to keep Russia and China on the security council (they'd whine like babies if removed) as they almost always abstain AND they don't help; in fact they do nothing. The other members are not permanent and may be cycled out in the upcoming year; making me not very concerned with their attitude.

*Permanent Security Council Members

So take it or leave it; but, I think our worldwide diplomacy from every country still revolves around the Cold War and WWII. It's terribly sad to me that we are still stuck on such ridiculous fears and ghostly machinations...

Has the world become a deus ex machina to politicians? Do they believe complex problems can be solved with the smallest of effort? This is what it seems to be coming to and it's scary to see people like Donal Trump in the runnings for president. Sarah Palin is a walking and breathing Captain Catherine Janeway in the sense that she believes she has answers and solutions that are easy to implement and as ridiculous as every piece of deus ex machina "Voyager" ever used. AND she is not alone...

I see this in our country and in others. Simplistic leanings that help no one except to further their own agenda. It's as though politicians and leaders use Rube Goldberg machines, yet these do have a purpose: they grab your attention, they pacify, they cause you to become their disease--ready to even spill the blood of what they hate. It's true in every country on the planet. So when Russia and China take the easy way out, that is what I think of them. It is also why they should NEVER be given leadership, as they seemingly don't know what it truly is or they abuse it.

/My long two cents with a little drama to get a dialogue started...

>> ^davidraine:
Was that clip shot with a 6 aperture twin-filtering camera? The color resultivity is amazing! It looks like they used ZN Xenon-3 lighting for this scene too. You can see how it accentuates the shear shadows on that computer. NCIS is truly a triumph in videography.


Well whenever you have the footage shot with a dual-lyopholizing meta-synthesis generator, you're gonna get good results.

Was that clip shot with a 6 aperture twin-filtering camera? The color resultivity is amazing! It looks like they used ZN Xenon-3 lighting for this scene too. You can see how it accentuates the shear shadows on that computer. NCIS is truly a triumph in videography.

The SHEAR magnitude of it all.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

@duckman
If you cannot see the problems there I don't hold a lot of hope for you.
In essence, all you're saying is the engineers who built it thought it probably could withstand the impact, and maybe the fire.
Well the engineers who built the Tacoma narrows bridge assumed it would not fall down on it's own. When it did collapse it was the first time a bridge had collapsed due to harmonics and wind shear. I guess it was a government conspiracy because the engineers hadn't planned for it to fall down that way?
Are you trying to say it was the first time engineers have been wrong?


Yes, that it. The facts are wrong, so are the Engineers that designed the towers, and you are right. End of story. ROTFL. By the way I'm not saying anything, the text I posted speaks for itself. The text says nothing about maybes. They tested for these scenarios. Quit making things up, like the site you referred me to, it sounds desperate. The link you provided me outright lies about the jet's size, speed, and fuel capacity and you have the balls to refute the statements on the site I provide with no proof to back up your claims? LOL That's rich. So you're going to actually sit there and say they are wrong? I didn't know you were an expert in building skyscrapers. Oh that's right. this is the internet. We can claim to have any degrees and knowledge we want here...

Additionally, comparing a bridge that was built in 1940 to skyscraper built in the 70's is a joke. Try harder.

Once again you are under the assumption I give a rat's ass about your opinion of me. I say again I don't. So please stop making such statements.

@duckman

If you cannot see the problems there I don't hold a lot of hope for you.

In essence, all you're saying is the engineers who built it thought it probably could withstand the impact, and maybe the fire.

Well the engineers who built the Tacoma narrows bridge assumed it would not fall down on it's own. When it did collapse it was the first time a bridge had collapsed due to harmonics and wind shear. I guess it was a government conspiracy because the engineers hadn't planned for it to fall down that way?

Are you trying to say it was the first time engineers have been wrong?

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

"There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse."
http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm
>> ^Duckman33:
I see the third steel structure building ever in history to collapse from a fire. 3 buildings in one day, but has never happened before in history. Wonder what the odds of that happening are?



From your link "Debunking 9/11":

"It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time."

This is actually not entirely true at all. According to this site:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

Not only the is size of a Boeing 707 only slightly smaller than a Boeing 767, but it holds only a mere 980 gallons less fuel, and is faster than a 767 by 77MPh.

Also:
"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires."

And:
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there."

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

See also: http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/index.html

"There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse."

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

>> ^Duckman33:

I see the third steel structure building ever in history to collapse from a fire. 3 buildings in one day, but has never happened before in history. Wonder what the odds of that happening are?

He's talking to our president like a teacher would talk to a student. He's a complete douche. That's Jon Stewart's problem is that he legitimizes this ego-maniacal "how does the moon work?","If you answer me, even if it's true: You're a pinhead".

That is the person interviewing the president. His science is as complicated as a second-grade class requiring no critical thinking, him offering opinionated options and blanket statements mean nothing to me; he can't logically think himself to the library or a book store.

(That's right Bill some of the questions you think are reducible to a simmering comical pun like, "pinheads" shows that you don't know that people older than your great grandfather could have answered you. Now, you make yourself look like an ignorant ass, unless you have a Nielsen Family™ watching--a rating system that has been shown to have a bias; their selection process is, very, selective.)

I can't upvote this for the shear fact someone doesn't feel a disgrace for doing what Bill'O does. The questions asked were all slanted; even though a laid back night was in store. Also, and I really hate to say this: if Jone Stewart keeps acting as though O'Reilly is different somehow than the rest of Fox, I may stop watching him (and I know others who feel the same, since we're pinheads, and Bill'O lacks the ability to actually fend off an answer "that is wrong" in the right way, proof of deniability, facts countering the afore-mentioned answer, etc... He answers within his realm of knowledge: nothing. Then he must resort to ignorance, because the great Bill'O knows all.

P.S. Can we get him on a episode of BS?

Automatically anything that someone else says that you individually disagree with?

For some people - yes. I like to believe that most people are more sensible than that. But when you say something in public, it reaches not just that majority of sensible people. It also reaches the INsensible minority. And sadly that noisy, nasty minority is the group that all too often has the megaphone. Case in point with this rather amusing op-ed by one Micheal Shear...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/obama-and-palin-a-tale-of-two-speeches/?ref=politics

Palin is "bubbling anger and resentment", and Obama is "soft & restrained". No bias there, eh? I saw both speeches, and this guy is full of it. He interprets Palin so as to be what she "really is" in his mind. They hate Palin, so it is 'truth' to say she is hateful, spiteful, angry, or responsible for the violence (directly or indirectly).

Two polls recently performed show that the VAST majority of the American public completely disagree with the left-wing punditry's wishful interpretation. They don't blame Palin, conservatives, Limbaugh, or anyone else except for the one deranged young man behind the trigger. But the SENSIBLE people don't have the megaphone. Instead, a tiny minority of the biased and spiteful are screaming their opinions in the hope that people will agree with them. Thankfully, that is not happening.

If I do something, like say, type "hate speech" into google, do you think I will find a more narrow definition? Is that google engaging in "hate speech"?

Normal people probably are more inclined to define hate speech as language that directly calls for or encourages acts of physical violence towards individuals or groups. They may find other forms of speech to be distasteful, insulting, or vile - but would not necessarily classify it as 'hate speech'.

Further, is hate speech some use of speech that is morally reprehensible? Should it be condemned? Or is condemnation of hate speech...also hate speech?

Calls for violence are morally reprehensible. I take your intent here to mean stuff like, "I hate minority group X" or "Group Y people are all stupid" and "gender Z should do what I say..." and that sort of thing. I.E. Words that offend people.

I believe in freedom. That means I believe in freedom of speech, even when I don't like it. My opinion is that political correctness, and other speech 'codes' are a form of soft censorship. I disagree with it, and reject it.

I believe that the nation is strengthened - not weakened - when opposing ideas collide in the marketplace of the national discourse. That means there is even room for people who believe things I find morally repugnant. I think any effort to stifle free speech - particularly one that seeks to specifically stifle only 'one side' - is misguided and destructive.

Should 'offensive speech' be condemned? Sure - by anyone and everyone who wants to condemn it. But regulated? Heck no, because what is deemed offensive or reprehensible is often a matter of personal opinion.

This is one of those things that fricken amazes and saddens me when I'm in the States. The shear NUMBER of these ads, and the huge list of side effects and warnings they have in them.

In Australia it's against the law to advertise prescription medication, and that's the way it should be.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'natural, disaster' to 'Natural disaster, landslide, sea can, ccan, shift, geology, shear, flow, disaster, brazil' - edited by BoneRemake

Wow look at the...Shear..strength.. of it all.

bhahahha