No sir.
I even mentioned one group in America that never adopted petroleum...Amish...and I would counter your assertion with the fact that most people on earth don't live using oil, they're too poor, not too fortunate. 20-30 years ago, most Chinese had never been in a car or a commercial store bigger than a local vegetable stand.

Both customers and non customers are the victims.
Using (or selling) a product that clearly pollutes the air, land, and sea is immoral.

Yes, it's like our business is predicated on rebuilding wrecked cars overnight which we do by using massive amounts of meth. Sure, our products are death traps, sure, we lied about both our business practices and the safety of our product, sure, our teeth and brains are mush....but our business has been successful and allowed us to have 10 kids (8 on welfare, two adopted out), and if we quit using meth they'll starve and fight over scraps. That's proof meth is good and moral and you're mistaken to think otherwise. Duh.

Yes, we overpopulated, outpacing the planet's ability to support us by far...but instead of coming to terms with that and changing, many think we should just wring the juice out of the planet harder and have more kids. I think those people are narcissistic morons, we don't need more little yous. Sadly, we are well beyond the tipping point, even if no more people are ever born, those alive are enough to finish the biosphere's destruction. Guaranteed if they think like you seem to.

Um, really? Complete collapse of the food web isn't catastrophic?
Wars over hundreds of millions or billions of refugees aren't catastrophic? (odd because the same people who think that are incensed over thousands of Syrians, Africans, and or South and Central American refugees migrating)
Massive food shortage isn't catastrophic?
Loss of most farm land and hundreds of major cities to the sea isn't catastrophic?
Loss of corals, where >25% of ocean species live, and other miniscule organisms that are the base of the ocean food web isn't catastrophic?
Loss of well over 1/2 the producers of O2, and organisms that capture carbon, isn't catastrophic?
Eventual clouds of hydrogen sulfide from the ocean covering the land, poisoning 99%+ of all life isn't catastrophic?
Runaway greenhouse cycles making the planet uninhabitable for thousands if not hundreds of thousands or even millions of years isn't catastrophic?
Loss of access to water for billions of people isn't catastrophic?
I think you aren't paying attention to the outcomes here, and may be thinking only of the scenarios estimated for 2030-2050 which themselves are pretty scary, not the unavoidable planetary disaster that comes after the feedback loops are all fully in play. Try looking more long term....and note that every estimate of how fast the cycles collapse/reverse has been vastly under estimated....as two out of hundreds of examples, Greenland is melting faster than it was estimated to melt in 2075....far worse, frozen methane too.

You can reject the science, that doesn't make it wrong. It only makes you the ass who knowingly gambles with the planet's ability to support humans or other higher life forms based on nothing more than denial.

Edit: We are at approximately 1C rise from pre industrial records today, expected to be 1.5C in as little as 11 years. Even the IPCC (typically extremely conservative in their estimates) states that a 2C rise will trigger feedbacks that could exceed 12C. Many are already in full effect, like glacial melting, methane hydrate melting, peat burning, diatom collapse, coral collapse, forest fires, etc. It takes an average of 25 years for what we emit today to be absorbed (assuming the historical absorption cycles remain intact, which they aren't). That means we are likely well past the tipping point where natural cycles take over no matter what we do, and what we're doing is increasing emissions.

If you live alone with your adorable dog and happen to die and no one finds you for a few days, your dog will eat you starting with your face.

Now you know what dogs are thinking when you see them staring at you.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/06/pets-dogs-cats-eat-dead-owners-forensics-science/

Ok....I hate to be this guy, but I must.

If @bobknight33 is honest about himself when we spoke privately, he's nowhere near the racist he appears to be. The sad thing is, his unthinking support of all things far/alt right, especially Trump, and hatred for anything left of that far right political position/trap makes him support racism and racists.
@Drachen_Jager, that's for your benefit as much as Bob's. “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” - master Sun Tzu- The Art Of War

@BSR, the video made clear why that, like the OK hand gesture, are racist. In a vacuum, you're correct, that statement is as true as all your other examples, but we don't live in a vacuum, and that slogan is purely racist and is intended to be just that. Bob would like us to all ignore that and think as you suggest...because that allows his racist brethren to spout their racism and claim morality and righteousness, but privately among the like minded, they're gleeful about cucking the libtards and getting away with public racism, shielded by the intentional misrepresentation of their meanings.

Already had my lobotomy of the heart. I think about you a lot. I need your pen. And I know I need to earn it.

How long do you think before you snap?

I think if you asked the average woman in Spain, they would say aggressive machismo and misogyny aren't attractive features of masculinity, and they would prefer to be treated as equals by strong men rather than objects by insecure men....but that's just my guess....I haven't polled them.

I will drink a mojito and think of you.

Lol.
I do get to say what constitutes American values in my opinion, an opinion informed by civics class, something it seems most people were deprived of. Those values are honesty, fairness, and equality under the law.....honoring one's word/agreements, helping the needy, standing up for right not just maximum profit internationally. These are historically the values America held dear....but no longer, at least not officially.

Fox does not honor those values, it rarely gives them lip service and never more.

Well, the boy cried wolf 1000 times this year, and twice there were wolves, you go ahead and drop everything and keep running, pitchfork in hand every time he cries out, I quit listening to him the second time there was no wolf, only a boy laughing at us. Call me emotional and dismissive, I disagree but that's fine. You don't want to know what I think about you and that boy.

Good reporters would not associate with those zealous, hyper biased, hypocritical blatant propagandists, so no, there aren't good reporters there. Maybe some who occasionally tell some truths, that's not enough by far to be "good", and as a network they've squandered any chance they had for redemption as a legitimate news organization with zeal and glee repeatedly.

Yeah.....you know me so well. I don't watch any Trump bashing sessions, they were boring before he was elected. I haven't had my tv on CNN in years, not that they're solely Trump bashing sessions, but they do host some.
You seem to think any news not stroking his ego is a bashing session, quoting him, out of bounds bashing, discussing his new policies, out of bounds emotionality, discussing his recent court losses, out of bounds schadenfreude, pointing out constant stream of blatant self serving lies, out of bounds emotional garbage. Only positive spin is real news...Fox is real news with real reporters, not >80% hyper biased hosts spouting opinion as fact. No thanks....Homie don't play dat.

Edit: True, Trump didn't say all Mexicans are rapists like some others have claimed, he said all Mexican/central American immigrants are rapists....like I claimed.

They used "accost" because 3 large men tackled a topless woman in tights (so clearly unarmed unless she had a snuke), hard....it's a proper and correct description using the correct terminology. Your inference that they were implying something improper by the police is likely your bias coloring what they said.

Lol. Censor you!? I think perhaps you might look up that word too, because I don't think it means what you think it does. I certainly don't have either that power or desire. I wish only to dissuade you from being an unwitting dupe of an Orwellian movement against fact and truth.

There is no equivalent stupidity or bias on the left, not by half...not by 1/10.
Again, please name reporters that speak at Democratic rallies....from any non right wing network since limiting you to CNN yielded no answer. If the left is just as bad as the right in this regard, that should be incredibly easy to do.

It seems having it pointed out that there is no equivalence is intolerable and like an attack in your eyes, but it's simply fact.

I know, facts are for liberals. The truth isn't the truth. What you see and hear isn't really what's happening....also known as blackwhite/duckspeak.

There is no other main stream network besides Fox who's viewers are actually less informed than people who watch no news at all, and OAN and Info Wars likely perform the same job for minor networks. CNN isn't perfect, but it's viewers actually gain information and become more informed rather than loose it, becoming more ignorant. They are not equivalent.

Jesus bob, that's fucking low, even for you.

And yeah, you're entitled to your opinion. The same everyone else is entitled to tell you exactly what they think of you and your opinion.

Your video, If you could hear what your dog is thinking, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I completely disagree with you about being inspired by her is like being inspired by Hitler. Hitler's philosophy was a complete sham on every level, and contradicts itself numerous times. Objectivism's foundation works well on many levels. Personal aspiration, bettering yourself, valuing logic and knowledge over emotions, those types of things are valuable to an extent.

Objectivism is ultra-logical in the end, very much the same as Social Darwinism. Fundamentally, those ideas have value in some situations and settings. A business for example, in the end, if an employee is not doing his or her job, it's not necessarily the business's job to figure out why unless it's within their self-interest to do so, and they shouldn't have to think that stuff through in every single instance. They should have the flexibility to fire someone in that instance without a second thought about the social ramifications.

It ultimately is a societal problem though that this employee be taken care of as a member of society, which is where Objectivism falls on its face, among other areas. Another one is Objectivism really has terrible implications in many aspects of parenting, to put it mildly.

I was personally inspired by Ayn Rand in high school quite honestly. She made me care about philosophy, about achieving the most I could achieve via hard work and self-determination, to learn how to critically think and use reason, to be OK to not conform necessarily to group think, etc. Just like every ideology, it's not perfect, and following it to a T just doesn't work, just like any other ideology and philosophy we may encounter and blend into our own as we age and grow. But it made me want to learn more, achieve more, and think more.

You can do a lot worse than that, IMO, you know, like Fascism. :-)

I think if you're going to have P2W - it should take place on a P2W server separate from those who are grinding the game. It's just one of the many reasons WoW isn't all that special anymore. Need a level 100 toon? Pay $30, get one instantly, on any sever ya like, you know with the people who put in 1000 hours of their real life.

I don't really care about loot boxes as long as they are cosmetic. In HOTS or Overwatch it's just like an added bonus, even though most of it is trash. Though, having loot boxes in HOTS is a little different than Overwatch which was an overrated/overpriced $60 game while HOTS (also made by Blizzard) is actually free to fucking play and even then I have most of the toons and never spent a cent and get plenty of loot boxes for free as well.

Keep this shit up though and the underground/indie devs are going to take over the gaming industry. Just like what happened with music, MTV not playing real music, the radio playing the same shit over and over again, major labels putting out garbage over and over again... and it eventually broke the mainstream music industry (thank fucking god).

I think if you saw the astonishing, death defying, hilarious, and technologically advanced, artistically inventive adult acts also under the pressure of live performance, that all lost out to two cute girls, one of which sang well, not great, the other who played with dolls and was a cute blond girl so she won, you would likely think something similar if you aren't just insane for children.

Her act was worthy of winning her school talent show, not this.

Singing sweetly? To your ears, maybe. I heard far better singers this year that lost. She wasn't awful, but not a singer either.
Forgotten time? This is the second ventriloquist that's won AGT in the last 2 seasons...it should be forgotten, but it just won't die.

That's what.

First I swear I'm not stalking you. I was going to write off your comments as trollish or whatever. A video unrelated later, a picture of britney spears (hey she's hot) , and I find this comment discussing Britts talent.

": newtboy: While I do get your point, I think perhaps you miss the point that a real live singing/playing concert is different from a 'pop star concert' (although I do think they should be billed as 'pop star performances', not 'concerts').
If I go to the opera, I am expecting to hear people sing live while performing a play.
If I go to a 'concert', I expect to see a singer or band singing or playing live, but not doing much else (old Van Halen and GWAR being the exceptions).
If I go to a pop star performance, I usually expect to see flashing lights, smoke, sparks, special effects, stunts, and crazy dancing while you hear a track of the performer.
It's not possible to do the stage performance AND sing competently at the same time. If I expect to see dancing, I should not expect the dancer to also sing live, that's not realistic to me."

But this 13 year old, with the pressure she is under singing as sweet as she does, while being humourous at the same time using talent from a forgotten time of family entertaining. What do you expect from this show? I've literally never watched an episode, saw this and was amazed, and here you are all high and mighty on her. wtf?