On one hand, I hate watching trailers that look like they're summarising the whole movie (regardless of their age).

On the other hand, Jodorowsky. WTF. I doubt I'd half understand the film after watching it twice.

*fixes his glasses* Technically, that's an illegal move, as the rules clearly state that players may only use one hand at a time.

It's hard to have an opinion on how this ought to work out. On the one hand, Erdogan is shady. On the other hand, coup d'etats rarely end up well.

Probably the third option is the best. Whatever that is.

"clickbait is written by a human"

Well, not necessarily. Not because the kind of people who write this bullshit are sub-human (although they might be), but because machine written articles are becoming increasingly popular and harder to spot.

On one hand, this is great. It means that actual writers don't have to waste their time on this bullshit.

On the other hand, the prospect of millions of clickbait articles generated at the touch of a button is terrifying.

On one hand, this is a *quality message that I totally approve of.

But, damn you eric!!! I refuse to *promote the freakin' Spice Girls....

oops

I agree with this. It's very important that people come together to fight for equality or whatever else they believe is right, but a movement has got to be self aware and self critical otherwise it will end up undermining itself.

Movements that become huge can have little groups forming within them and the outside world sees the actions of what might be an extreme faction for the actions of the whole. And things can become insular, where the members mostly talk to each other and reconfirm each other's worries and problems and things that weren't acceptable to you in a vacuum are ok because it seems like those problems are dominating yours and your friends' entire lives.

But that works regardless of the politics of the movement - from the left or right. So on the one hand you get die-hard gender rights campaigners using inherently sexist terms when arguing with the opposite sex, but you also get kind, considerate people rallying behind a right wing group or message because it starts with phrases like "we've got to look after our own first," but end up with racism and bigotry.

I dunno. I feel it could go either way.

On one hand, the sharks would probably think it was kinda dumb.
On the other, they might be impressed with your cajones.

Either way, for some reason, I am picturing the sharks as mexican gangsters. My mind goes to weird places at times.....

Can you buy your own debt?

On one hand, that seems like it would be against the rules somehow.

On the other hand, after watching this video, nothing would surprise me about this industry.

If it works, it's freakin' genius.

Actually, I've ignored the superdelegates in my math because I've basically assumed that they will go with whoever has the popular vote at the convention, but since you brought them up....

There's one scenario no-one has considered yet; probably because it's extremely unlikely, but just for fun, let's say Bernie continues as projected and arrives at the convention trailing Hillary by about 200 delegates. Meanwhile, Trump has been attacking the ever-loving hell out of Hillary and her poll numbers in the general election are starting to look REALLY bad, as in Trump might/could/probably will/almost certainly will win.

So far, this is all pretty much what's going to happen.

But in this strange alternate dimension, the DNC pulls its head out of its collective arse and realises "holy shit, we could lose the white house! Hang on, Bernie polls much better against Trump!". Unable to convince Hillary to drop out, the superdelegates swing en masse to Bernie handing him the nomination AGAINST the popular vote.

How do you feel about this? On one hand, yay, #FeelTheBern, #FuckYouTrump and on to the white house and potentially the most significant change in US politics in decades (or not, who knows how much one president can actually do).

On the other hand.... there's no way around the fact that the DNC will have subverted the will of the people. If the situation was reversed, and the superdelegates gave the nomination to Hillary where Bernie (hypothetically) had more pledged delegates, well, there would be riots.

Interested to hear your thoughts on this scenario (unlikely as it is).

BTW, the fact that your vote is essentially meaningless (luckily for you, it happens to be meaningless in your favour) in your state is yet another symptom of just how very fucked the electoral college is.

On one hand, that is an amazingly faithful cover. By god, that girl's got one hell of a voice.

My only criticism is that it's TOO similar. It sounds so much like the original that you may as well just listen to that.

I don't represent the entire left, but as a member of the left I think you're misrepresenting our (at least my) concerns. It's not that we don't care about the unborn, it is that this is a complex situation that involves more than one person in an unusual circumstance.

On the one hand, the mother (and others involved) who for whatever reason don't want to bring a child into the world and look after it (yes I know about adoption and yes, it is a very good solution for some women/situations). On the other hand, the foetus. It may be little more than a collection of cells. It might have a heartbeat. It might be thinking/dreaming/hearing/feeling. You could even consider it to be a person at certain stages of development (or even from the very first cell division, if you want). It could even be considered killing a person to kill the foetus. I can accept all of that and yet I can accept the need for abortion. Just like we accept killing and/or not helping (so that they die) poor people, old people, disabled people, sick people, refugees, soldiers from other countries, people on deathrow, animals, etc. We accept justified killing in many circumstances. Making abortion legal simple means that in this circumstance, we accept that the killing is justified.

If you kill a pregnant woman, you may not be charged with murder. You will only be charged if the state does not consider the killing to be justified. I think that is where you're struggling with this issue. In the US, on a basic level, the state and populace consider the killing of an unborn child to be justified killing. You need to make an argument for why it isn't. (I don't really need to make an argument for why it is justified because I'm with the status quo on this one.)

Some of the weightlifting and balance ones are amazing... I mean they are all very good in their own way, but some of them... like the lady at 1:25... and the lady with the ball in the thumbnail... one doing a one handed hand stand on a block on a pole.... and the lady who does a wall climb with a weight...
Beat me by 31 minutes so *promote instead.

this is pretty high on the retarded scale.
and tagging this in the *education *philosophy and *learn channels is insulting to those who use their brains.

look man,i get that you disagree with socialism as an economic system,and you are perfectly within your rights to hold that opinion,but it is apparent that you have no clue what socialism is and continue to regurgitate the tired old tropes from the mcarthy era.

you,my friend,suffer from an incredibly bad case of doublethink.

you cannot on the one hand view taxes as theft and then turn around and support the military.which is a socialist institution and uses taxes to fund itself.

what you fail to realize is that this discussion goes back to the beginning of this country:what is the governments role.since the constitution was a brilliant document,and what made it brilliant was NOT simply the words written but the fact that our forefathers KNEW that they didnt know everything and they allowed for the constitution to be changed,as our society changed.

which is why we got rid of slavery,and allowed women to vote.we expanded the bill of rights to include blacks.

we did these things as a society.

we got rid of child labor and we decided that basic education was a fundamental right.

socialism is not a utopian philosphy.it is an economic philosophy and it can be just as abused as capitalism.the bank bailouts in 2007 was a socialist reaction,and one the majority of the american people disagreed with,but so was the interstate highways...which we DID agree upon.

so to title this "socialism explained" is pretty fucking stupid.

i already linked you an actual breakdown of american socialism,which appears you failed to read.so allow me to try again and i implore you.give it a read:
https://mises.org/blog/bernie-sanders-right-us-already-socialist-country

On one hand, PTSD's a bitch, and I do feel sorry for him. But my sympathy ends the moment he raises his hand.

How about we respect and honour people who don't get drunk and beat the shit out of their partners?

Pulls up to car, blam blam blam.
Kids on either side of road, blam blam blam.
One handed, banking around corner, house and yard downrange, blam blam blam.

I figure it's like the old west.

On a completely unrelated note, he sounds like Sharlto Copely's brother. The South African accent aside, the timbre is close.