Does noone realise that Gavin McGuinness is a comedian..?
I'm pretty sure hes just doing this to get a rise.

Hes the co-founder of Vice....that fairly left leaning media organisation. Who here HONESTLY thinks this guy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL61JreooRk

..actually believes the shit he was saying here...?

That's the most ridiculous, jingoistic thing I've read in quite a while. Americans are 99% angry cowards who panic at the drop of a hat and flee from car backfires and fireworks.

Society is collectivist. Pure individualism is Thunderdome.

Exceedingly few individualists have ever stood up and fought for it, even fewer are willing to die for it. If you assume Americans will stand up and fight for their rights and freedom, I'll assume you haven't ever paid attention to many Americans.

The word "refugee" DOES exist in the US, because it's descriptive OF the US. A large part of our population are refugees, arguably including many of the founders.

That rifle behind every blade of grass didn't help much in 1812, nor did it scare the Moonies (the only group to ever commit a biological attack on America). Don't be fooled that we intimidate anyone with our armed populace. We are more dangerous to ourselves than to others.

From an article on ArsTechnica:

SpaceX's founder, Elon Musk, has said it costs the company about $60 million to build a Falcon 9 rocket. The propellant itself only costs $200,000. Thus there is the potential to slash the costs of spaceflight by 10, or even 100 times.

You wouldn't like my resolution.

Course main reason majority of Americans are against it is our culture and heritage. Americans have never ran. During British rule we didn't run to Louisiana territory begging Spain or France to accept refuges. We took up arms and bled for our land. Patriotism is not bad as political correctness morons try to push.

That's why for us, or many of us, refugee makes no sense. And our forefathers even exclaimed if any Americans became refugees they deserved no country, our creed "give me liberty or give me death!" The 2nd amendment left behind by our founders to ensure a free society.

"We need a revolution every 200 years, because all governments become stale and corrupt after 200 years. " - Benjamin Franklin

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

The word refugee makes absolutely zero sense to Americans. At least me being Generation X and all my generation and older. You do not run you die fighting. The beginning of the Revolution Americans didn't have hardly any weapons, it was sabotage and terrorism and the capture of gun stockpiles by militias the armed the beginning, then France helped supply us.

They should right, but the proof is they are not refugees! That's media political correctness lies. Just as said in that video
Quote by Muslim - "this isn't refugees, this is invasion"
They use political correctness as a shield to get in.

electoral college is fine. It's gerrymandering and "winner take all" that fuck it up. The founders are right about direct democracy not being good in situations like this.

Eliminate those two things and the electoral college is fine and it would eliminate swing states as well.

Popular vote would totally fuck over any area that doesn't have a high population density. I'd be fine with tweaking the voter-to-electoral vote proportions though and get rid of the "electors" That would be reasonable.

It may need tweaks and refinements, but the overall concept is still valid.

It's interesting to note the initial class action lawsuit against VW and Audi failed because the lawyer for the plaintiffs mentioned VW's founder in his opening arguments and the judge ruled against him under Godwin's Law.

@SDGundamX

We can criticise religion generally - for it's falsehood, for it's stultifying effect on the mind, for the shadow the faithful cast over an enlightened world.

We can criticise religions individually - for the divine exhortations to genocide in each of the abrahamic canons, for the promise of infinite torture by a benevolent god in both christianity and islam, for their arbitrary or bigoted taboos, and particularly of the newer creeds - islam, mormonism, scientology - for what we know to be the bad character of their founders.

And, as you say, we can criticise the behaviours of individual believers, communities or sects - catholicism on condoms and the spread of aids, genital mutilation in africa (which you're quite right to point out has cultural roots that pre-date islam, though it would be disingenuous to claim religion has no reinforcing or propagating effect on that practice).

I wholly disagree that this last is the only or most meaningful critique to offer of religion. There are fundamental tenets of these ideologies on which all their denominations, however fractured, can be said to agree.

Allow these people their diversity, their specificity and their subtle variation of interpretation and you're in danger of chasing a thousand little fish at once, in a thousand different directions, while the religious school as a whole shifts, shimmers, dazzles and slips away. I prefer to play the dolphin pack: surrounding, corralling, squeezing and finally devouring the enemy entire.

You can't really be that dense, can you?
Flying the battle flag represents love and support of the 'confederacy' and what it stood for, which was clearly based on racist dehumanization of millions of people (just read what the confederacy's founders said at the time, it's clear). You can ignore that it's a symbol of racial hatred, you can listen to those that claim it's about 'heritage', but you must consciously ignore that the heritage it represents is one of complete subjugation of a people based on the amount of melanin in their skin, and a clearly stated superiority of those with less melanin. That IS the history of the flag, it is not, and never was about any other part of Southern culture.
Your mistaken feelings about this flag indicate that you think Germany should still fly the swastika, just below the current German flag? It's pretty much the same thing, and the same level of insult to the victims of the confederacy as the swastika would be to Jews/Polish/French/Belgians/etc.

Many people seem confused about our government's origins.
Wiki- Treaty Of Tripoli-unanimously ratified by congress and President John Adams 1797
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

"By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.[15]

The constitution and bill of rights were based on English Common Law, which existed long before the Romans brought the idea of Christianity to England....so if people insist our laws are based on religion, remind them the religion in power where/when they came from was Pagan religion, and they should be worshiping Odin.

Paul Tudor Jones II (born September 28, 1954), is the founder of Tudor Investment Corporation, a private asset management company and hedge fund. As of March 2014, he was estimated to have a net worth of US$4.3 billion

*related=http://videosift.com/video/INEQUALITY-FOR-ALL-Official-Trailer

Glad to see the rhetoric of victimhood is "alive and well" among the elites in their treatment of minorities.

I doubt Ms. Obama recognizes the irony of her speech that uses the very type of race-baiting that the founder of Tuskegee University, Booker T. Washington, railed against. Even back then, a former slave could see how such instigation such as the kind displayed here results in little more than sewing the seeds of discord in the black community. So much for "higher education." It's too bad Michelle wasn't booed off the stage, protested, or that the students didn't walk out on this self-serving, victimizing tripe.

Your video, Georgia School Founder's Racist Remarks At Graduation, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

newt,

Paying $500/mo and getting what you want/afford is not the same as getting what we say you can have. Your such a stooge.

Why would anyone want to rely of government if they don't have to? I was taught better than that. Obviously you don't have any self pride or dignity. Your such a stooge.

In essence the VA is a single payer system. The government pays. Not the Veterans. Your such a stooge.

Blah Blah .. military, Interstate Highway department, police,, Public utilities. All proper Government functions , Granted they are slow, inefficient, for good reasons, as intended by the founders. Your such a stooge.

ACA still doesn't cover all. But will penalize and imprison those who fail ( or cant ) pay premiums. Yea for total government control..Hand over total control of you life to them. Your such a stooge.

Once again you prove that Your such a stooge.


Your friend,
bk33

Ok you can un-friend me.

Net neutrality is not bureacracy?

It is now, at least in the US. The gov't just decided to regulate it, which means we'll soon have a Dept. of the Internet.

I understand that some bureaucracy is inevitable. Again, bureaucracies are made to grow and grow and grow, which is what we now see in the US. It's large centralized power, which was not the intent of the founders.

Also, I don't see much benefit from socialized medicine. It only feeds the debt, which will be unsustainable. This is a concern since Obama has added at least $8 trillion to the debt in his 6 yr reign.

But I know with socialists...debt is just something invisible, or we'll let our great-grandchildren deal with the collapse.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 39 states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-83% range or higher. - in recent or past closely divided battleground states, in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote.com