There is no rational argument to be had here. The left doesn't view life through the prism of right and wrong, only rich and poor (or rich versus poor).

On the one hand, the video is amusing and at least there is an attempt at creativity. On the other, this is nothing to celebrate, and while some use these cards as intended, many are sold or traded for cash, drugs and booze, yet another wasteful government system with no oversight or accountability (but who cares as the intentions are good).

The top 1% wealthy already pay 40% of the taxes. Forcing them to pay more will weaken the economy but snag a few more voters seeking "revenge" for perceived economic injustices.

Maybe the wealthy aren't "creating jobs" at the rate the left wants (that is, enough to stay in power) but what we DO know for certain is the socialist retards of this regime can't create a single job for less than half-a-million dollars each. Hasn't the Kenyawaiian already blown 4 trillion in fiat money with nothing to show for it? I'll take my chances with the 'evil' rich investors.

PS who are the real racists, the one who demand Black Americans need special gummint help at all times or those holding them to the same standards as everyone else?



>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

So let's ignore the whole wealth & income inequality reality..
to wallow in the fantasy that uneducated darkies & leftists are really to blame for "stealing all taxpayers' money"..

Hey, Mushroom.. I think one of your masters needs another 100k or so.
You know, so he can hurry up and "create jobs" for you and all your friends. ; ]

Bush 43 was disappointing. He spent like a drunken democrat. Today what is worse is that what Bush spent in 8 years OBAMA has spent in 3. Now that scary.

Bush turned me into an independent.


>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^bobknight33:
What made the USA great is following the Constitution. We have trashed that document over the last 60 years and now we on the edged of the abyss.
Bernie Sanders and most other politicians don't give dick about the Constitution but only care about giving out other peoples money to keep themselves rich through the good old boy network.

Stand up people and demand elected officials obey the Constitution or see the USA a broke ass piss poor 3rd rate Country.

What's your opinion of the Bush admin?

>> ^bobknight33:

What made the USA great is following the Constitution. We have trashed that document over the last 60 years and now we on the edged of the abyss.
Bernie Sanders and most other politicians don't give dick about the Constitution but only care about giving out other peoples money to keep themselves rich through the good old boy network.

Stand up people and demand elected officials obey the Constitution or see the USA a broke ass piss poor 3rd rate Country.


What's your opinion of the Bush admin?

What made the USA great is following the Constitution. We have trashed that document over the last 60 years and now we on the edged of the abyss.

Bernie Sanders and most other politicians don't give dick about the Constitution but only care about giving out other peoples money to keep themselves rich through the good old boy network.


Stand up people and demand elected officials obey the Constitution or see the USA a broke ass piss poor 3rd rate Country.

>> ^dag:
But to care about SF, it has to be about how it relates to human beings. In some sense we have to put ourselves in the shoes of the people who are experiencing the wonder. Otherwise it's dry and boring.
When I think about SF movies without good character, I think of Transformers. Style over substance.
Contact on the other hand had a great central character that let you feel the wonder of what she was experiencing through her eyes. That's vital.Well there's my point. We have theory of mind, plus mirror neurons firing away - if children can see through the eyes of a doll, we ought to be able to put ourselves into even the most simply drawn character. That doesn't have to mean badly drawn, like Transformers.

Just saw Rise ten minutes ago. It's surprisingly good stuff; a fantastic successor to the original PotA. I have a particular weakness for this story because I deeply wish we could make smart animals. I want to hear their perspective. I'd love to have a conversation with someone as intelligent as me but who didn't share my exact evolutionary heritage and inbuilt biases. Imagine living on earth with a separate race of equals. I really think it'd be enlightening - and, okay, potentially problematic.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

But to care about SF, it has to be about how it relates to human beings. In some sense we have to put ourselves in the shoes of the people who are experiencing the wonder. Otherwise it's dry and boring.

When I think about SF movies without good character, I think of Transformers. Style over substance.

Contact on the other hand had a great central character that let you feel the wonder of what she was experiencing through her eyes. That's vital.

>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^dag:
Hmmm. Examples? I guess Dave Bowman was pretty flat, but HAL as a character definitely wasn't. Deckard in Bladerunner was not flat, very tortured nuanced performance by Harrison Ford. I think I'd have to disagree with you gorillaman. The best SF, like all stories, is character driven.
Well there's Rama, where Clarke correctly focuses on the ship. I feel like people who complain about the humans' characterisation just aren't reading the book right. I read Schild's Ladder recently - the characters have intellectual disagreements but not much else, to the point of lacking differentiated sexes, and it still paints a compelling portrait of future civilisation. I hesitate to mention Ayn Rand's Anthem, but she understood if you detail your protagonist too explicitly then you lose your universality of meaning.
It's not often an author can write SF in its purest form and still get published, so it's easier to find examples where too much emphasis on the human elements detracts from the work. Like Asimov's Foundation, one of my favorites. The characters in that book are downright intrusive on what's otherwise an exploration of events on a galactic scale. After the reader gets his introduction to the wonderful concept of psychohistory, the characters start to drive the plot and everything falls apart. The rest of the book and the subsequent books in the series become just Some Stuff That Happens. Well stuff happens every day, I don't need to read about stuff. Just like Rama's sequels, no good can come from watering down high literature with narratological cliches.
Good SF communicates to the reader a single idea as clearly and elegantly as possible then ends. Characterisation, even plot, are distractions.
It's an educational experience. How would you feel if your maths textbook gave the number two a quirky personality, and the equals sign a terrible secret to hide? That's fine if you just want to be entertained, but not if you want to learn something. I use SF as a kind of zen meditation, projecting my consciousness into a construction of a future I won't visit in person, in order to become enlightened.

haha, I was doing the same thing for the majority of them. "OK, but be careful, don't let anybody see you" "Don't worry, I'll b-click"

>> ^mindbrain:

Up voted for the Die Hard Bonnie Bedelia bit. Whenever I'm watching that one I always continue talking as the house keeper Paulina as she's slowly and rudely and late 80's-ly being hung up on. "Oh Thank you Mrs Hol-CLICK."

>> ^kronosposeidon:

I don't know if Meg Ryan is a bitch or not, but who cares when you can have Helen Mirren. I might even see the remake of Arthur only because she's in it. But probably not. More than 5 minutes of Russell Brand and the exit sign looks mighty appealing. >> ^Yogi:
Why wouldn't the original Sally come do this? Oh right...she's a bitch.



She is...here's her on Parkinson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWEdi4uf7Eo

I don't know if Meg Ryan is a bitch or not, but who cares when you can have Helen Mirren. I might even see the remake of Arthur only because she's in it. But probably not. More than 5 minutes of Russell Brand and the exit sign looks mighty appealing. >> ^Yogi:

Why wouldn't the original Sally come do this? Oh right...she's a bitch.

>> ^longde:

Yeah, that skinny perp looks like a regular Jeffrey Dahmer. I'm sure he has raped 30 grandmothers this week. I'm sure glad Officer Donut -our best and brightest- is on the case. Peace of mind, peace of mind.
Also, you really think those characters in the car have an obligation to help? GTFOOH. Yeah, the involvement of those obviously well trained lads would surely make the situation 10 times better. The Hardy Boys are slipping, they should be making a citizen's arrest.
Scum of the earth, those lads, refusing to offer their crime-busting skills to that afflicted beat cop. Don't they know we've got a society to run, here?


Or he raped a child...but who cares about them huh? (That's patronizing...) John Couey any one?

But I agree with Blank, his guess is just that, a guess.

1. "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." -- Anatole France

Roads are built and designed for drivers, and drivers only. Bicycles are awkwardly sandwiched between motorised traffic and parked cars with doors swinging open, or shunted onto less convenient side roads. The laws as well, are written by drivers, for drivers' safety and convenience alone.

2. Nobody but pedants care about cyclists breaking laws because it doesn't result in anything worse than a pedestrian jay-walking does. So yes, I am actually saying that it's fine for cyclists to break victimless traffic laws. There's no danger to anyone. These laws didn't exist anywhere until car drivers showed they were unable to manage their vehicles safely without them. And then cyclists, who had often campaigned for these laws to bring car drivers into check, were then forced to follow them themselves, rather than devise a new set of laws for cyclists. I think it's time for that new set of laws.

And something's working -- either CM or cyclists' flagrant disregard for unfair traffic laws -- because in Toronto, the city realized there was no reason cyclists shouldn't be able to ride the other way on residential one-way streets, or turn right on red lights (at some lights cars can't turn right because this blocks the flow of traffic coming from the left), so they changed some by-laws to allow these things.

3. This idea that car drivers don't break laws is utter fiction, and one I'm happy to draw attention to. Cars regularly pass cyclists at an unsafe distance, follow at an unsafe distance, make unsafe turns and lane changes from in front of and beside cyclists, and open their doors into cyclists' paths. But for some reason, nobody thinks of these things as laws that are being broken. Nobody notices or cares. What's worse, breaking these laws is actually dangerous! These laws exist because people get injured and killed when they're not followed. They're designed for cars, and it's car drivers not following them.

4. (following on #2 above) Since the laws aren't written to fit cyclists travelling style, we learn that we have to pick and choose which ones we want to follow, because to follow the law literally would sometimes be dangerous (e.g. cyclists, like cars, are supposed to take up the whole lane and not let anyone pass in the same lane ever). This sets a bad precedent because now many cyclists simply decide for themselves that riding on sidewalks, or over people's lawns is OK. It's not. If the laws on the books actually represented how cyclists moved, it wouldn't occur to cyclists not to follow laws, except in as much as it occurs to car drivers as well. In a nutshell, bad laws lead to bad behaviour.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^messenger:
Most, however, will agree with what you said, that we're protesting for equal access to the roads.
Maybe the laws are different in Canada, but in the US a bicycle is subject to all traffic laws when on a road, just like a car. It doesn't get more equal than that. In fact, they've got it quite a bit better, because they also get to ignore virtually all of those laws with no repercussions.
What most cyclists need, in my opinion, is a reality check.

[redacted]

lol, gibberish can be in any language

In Farsi and Arabic writing, using the proper letter case is the rule. So if they wanted to use those letters it should be:
قدنف

It is like writing english in script font, but in all caps. Since the HOTEL was in all caps, the artist used all caps for Arabic sign, thinking that it should make sense, but it doesn't.

But who cares, the game looks awesome ...

>> ^Mcboinkens:

>> ^theali:
@ 0:23 the hotel name is complete gibberish, couldn't they get someone to proof read this!

Uh...what? You realize the text above "HOTEL" is not in English right?

Most soulful reditions don't change the melody as much as she did, but who cares; it sounded great and the crowd loved it. Throwing in a little soul into the SSB is more common than not anymore.

My english knowledge isn't enough to make a description for this video, or to come out with any keywords...

I would call this "fake"; but who cares.