search results matching tag: tee

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (80)     Sift Talk (12)     Blogs (12)     Comments (414)   

Ghost In The Shell - Trailer #2

asynchronice says...

"kindergarten up-skirt tee hee" is perhaps the best phrase to date to explain why anime very frequently irritates me. Thank you.

Zawash said:

Fortunately, a western adaptation will also tone down any kindergarten up-skirt tee hee, if present. Hard core Japanese anime isn't necessarily all good.

Ghost In The Shell - Trailer #2

Zawash says...

Fortunately, a western adaptation will also tone down any kindergarten up-skirt tee hee, if present. Hard core Japanese anime isn't necessarily all good.

RedSky said:

Honestly, it's an adaptation for Western audiences. Of course the lead is going to be white. I'm more concerned the subject material is inevitably going to be dumbed down.

Deepwater Horizon Blowout Animation

Watch As Man Pulls Rabbit, Err Sheep Out Of A Small Hole

People are awesome - best of 2016 so far

Drachen_Jager says...

Yeah, he hits the tee, but he ONLY hits tee. If you freeze frame the moment before impact, you can see the club head is well below the ball, if he'd made any contact, at best the ball would have gone nearly straight up.

The flat lighting makes it hard to tell, but it also seems the ball's shadow disappears as soon as it starts to move.

serosmeg said:

Looks like he got under the ball. The tee moves. 1:46

People are awesome - best of 2016 so far

People are awesome - best of 2016 so far

Bill Maher: Who Needs Guns?

scheherazade says...

(I edited, and some stuff pertains to your reply)

Regarding well regulated, here's the sauce :
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Keep in mind that the 2nd amendment is 2 part.
1st the motivation for why the rule exists, 2nd the rule.

The rule exists, whether or not the motivation is provided (and it's nice of them to provide context - but not necessary).

Even if regulation was meant in the modern sense, it would not change the fact that the rule does not depend on the motivating factors.

But if you insist on motivational prerequisite, here's Hamilton regarding individual right to bear :

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. "
[etc]

(That last sentence - there's your training requirement, tee hee. Not only that, but that they should assemble people 1-2 times a year to make sure that everyone is armed and equipped. That's more than an individual right to bear, that's an individual requirement to bear. Let's just be happy with it being a right.)


Laws are supposed to be updated by new laws via representative legislators (who may need to be coerced via protest facilitated by freedom of assembly).
Or challenged by juries (i.e. citizens, i.e. members of the state) via jury nullification (i.e. direct state democracy). That's why there are juries. You need direct state involvement so that the legal system can not run amok independent of state sanction. It's not just for some group consensus.
The system was architected to give the state influence, so that government can't run off and act in an independent non-democratic manner.

-scheherazade

newtboy said:

Exactly....but now it's interpreted to give a right to a single individual...300000000 times.
Yes, you could, but that militia must be well regulated (which doesn't mean it never wets the bed or cries about it's parents being mean) before it meets the criteria to be protected...technically.

Your contention that "regulated" as a legal term actually means "adjusted", as if a "well adjusted militia" was a phrase that makes any sense, or did back then, makes no sense. You may continue to claim it, I will continue to contradict it. Unless you have some written description by a founding father saying exactly that, it's just, like, your opinion...man. Try reading "Miracle at Philadelphia" for context.

If Y and Z didn't exist, but are incredibly similar to X, then it's reasonable to interpret laws to include Y and Z....if they existed and were not EXCLUDED, it's up to the judicial to interpret meaning...the less clear they are in meaning, the more power they give the judicial. Today, congress is as unclear as possible, and complain constantly that they are interpreted 'wrong'.

It's not a simple matter to make any law today....no matter how clear the need is for a law or how reasonable and universally the concept is accepted. Sadly. It SHOULD be a simple matter. It's not.

The court never "jumps the gun". They only interpret/re-interpret laws that are challenged, and a reasonable challenge means the law is in some way open to interpretation.

Kiwi Pronounces eYes

ChaosEngine says...

Yeah, there's an old joke which actually got me a few years ago:

Obviously, this is meant to be spoken rather than written.

what does "em eh cee dee oh en eh el dee " spell? MacDonald
what does "em eh cee cee eh are tee haich why " spell? MacCarthy
what does "em eh cee haich eye ehn eee" spell?

Lots of people will say MacHine.

Payback said:

I feel for him. I constantly get mind-stuck like that. Get locked into a pattern that takes a concerted effort to back out of. Especially if I'm concentrating on, or preoccupied with, something else.

I probably would have figured it out faster and just started being pigheaded about it, though. Then made the joke of when she asked, "what does eYes mean?" I would have replied "the opposite of eNo."

Zero Punctuation: Crackdown 2

Someone stole naked pictures of me. This is what I did about

Mordhaus says...

The absolute definition of a 'First World Problem'.

Boo hoo, someone stole my nude pics, so i'll take more and release them MYSELF! That'll show them, hear me roar, #takingbackthepower.

Is it wrong to steal pics and then slut-shame someone? Yeah. Is she to blame? No. Should she get over it and just block people from email and social media that are harassing her? YES!!!

I guaran-damn-tee that the women being raped and sold into slavery by ISIS and Boko Haram would slap her silly for getting into a tizzy over someone using mean words at her.

Phone Notification Trolling

Malasian airline shot down in Ukraine today

The Onion Looks Back At "Saving Private Ryan"

newtboy (Member Profile)

enoch says...

ya..i didnt see bones comment at the time of posting.
guess i was typing tee hee.
not saying that would change my stance,but i was unaware of that fact.

and its not like i am defending morganth himself ,that boy downvotes my comments and vids more than anyone..including ant.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon