or how does the vending machine know that half way through a hospital night shift to reject every last coin in your pocket

I love the video, but object mildly to some of the content.

"pin-point accuracy"? The vending machine isn't sniping someone from 800 yards out. And as for accuracy, why do most machines reject my coins a number of times, but if I slam the coin into the slot, it accepts it just fine?

There is not a difference between Democratic Socialist and Socialist. It is just a terminology to use as a stepping stone towards the full implementation of Socialism. It just semantics to fool the sheeple.


From their web site: American democratic socialist party...
Their Constitution states:

We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit,

We are socialists because we share a vision of order based on popular control.

We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production.

We believe that such a strategy must acknowledge the class structure of American society and that this class structure means that there is a basic conflict of interest.


So Its aim is to make all people equal-
The people run the company.
All get paid equally.
The floor sweeper and the one with the PHD all equal.


If you had talent to open a business should you and your worker make the same money?

Private profit is a bad thing. so much for the entrepreneurial spirit.


Democratic Socialism is a fools paradise.

The GOP never to this point kowtowed to that part of the base anyway until they decided to attempt to harness the energy of that faction to the point that this faction has a stranglehold of the party, and yet are wholly ignorant on the issues. We're talking about people who hold up signs that read "Keep your government hands off my medicare" caliber people. Or people who think Obama isn't an American. Or people who think Obama is "a complete socialized take over of health care". Stuff like that which is so obviously untrue, it's laughable.

And I want to be clear. I'm not accusing the right of having a monopoly on stupid people in their base. There's PLENTY of stupid liberals. The difference is the Democratic party is doing a far better job of keeping their idiots supporting them without enacting what those idiots want or succumbing to their idiocy.

Here's proof - how many times do you see Democratic leaders constantly say crap like George W. Bush is a war criminal for Iraq? Name a Democratic presidential candidate who actually has said over and over again that Ted Cruz isn't a US citizen? Donald Trump, the current GOP frontrunner, over and over again insists Obama isn't a US citizen, as have many many Republican Congressmen.

When the GOP signed the deal with the devil so to speak by trying to co-opt the Tea Party movement, this was the inevitable outcome. The Tea Party has been hijacked twice by my count because the people within it are so incredibly ignorant, they don't seem to realize what they stand for. It was Libertarian in the beginning both socially and economically. Then it got hijacked to become more socially conservative and economically conservative. Now, it's been hijacked by Donald Trump, who nobody actually even knows what he is socially or economically at this point overall.

Why did this happen? Because GOP support is so contaminated and dominated by so much ignorance, you can have a TV personality say a bunch of stupid crap they want to hear but is certifiably absurd, that he can become the front runner. Building a wall to keep the Mexicans out, no matter how you feel about illegal immigration as far as ideals go, is simply not a practical solution to stop illegal immigration. You can't make Mexico pay for a wall even if you built it. Obama wasn't born in Kenya. Replacing Obamacare with something "terrific" is NOT a policy proposal; it's non-specific anti-Obama BS to make people who hate Obama love you. He could replace it with "Trumpcare" which could be basically Obamacare, and that could be "something terrific" for all you know.

Trump and Cruz don't exist without the Tea Party, and the Tea Party wouldn't be a thing if the GOP didn't decide to eventually attempt to galvanize it. Well, mission accomplished, but you're never going to get the support of the growing minority segments of the population. You've forfeited the support of moderates like myself, too. And young people by enlarge are rejecting this version of the GOP big time. Women are increasingly rejecting it, too.

Your second point... Umm, big fat no.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/21/the-last-presidential-candidate-who-was-as-unpopular-as-donald-trump-david-duke/

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

He is a perfect example of what happens to a person when you conflate your opinions with your identity; an abject rejection of any evidence contradictory to his world view. I sort of pity him.

Yeah, I'm sure being rejected early access to review code has a far bigger impact than cash. It takes time to review a product and get content generated and ready to go, which is why early review code is necessary so you can launch your review as soon as that review embargo ends... as those are the ones that will generate the click revenue, which is probably exceeds whatever studios may pay directly.

Hey, I've been offered review code (never of AAA titles, biggest I got offered was The Incredible Adventures of Van Helsing: Final Cut and Sword Coast Legend) on occasion from a PR firm that somehow I got on their list (I do have a blog that is gaming focused, got a very small Twitch channel and YouTube channel that largely focuses on games). I personally only accept ones that I genuinely have an interest in... of course this perhaps clogs judgement all the more. I wanted to like the title... so I may be more forgiving. When I founded and ran Mortyr.net (it's long since been taken over) I admit my preview of the game was clouded a bit, though I've tried to apply lessons learned from that forward. Then again, it's perhaps easier to apply those lessons to myself as I'm too small to matter (and the offers for review code are very few and far between), a big publishing site who's reviews count on the Metacritic analysis, and rely on click through revenue has less room to be apply such lessons and almost needs to ignore impartiality in favor of making sure you keep in the publisher's good graces. A PR firm handing me a review code that doesn't work out well isn't as bad if Game Informer or somebody like that doesn't give it a positive review.

TLDR: Exactly what RedSky and Stormsinger said.

@Stormsinger

Indeed, I doubt it's ever explicit cash, just the promise of being rejected from early review events and being snubbed for previews. Being late to review or not getting any exclusive information can be a big deal for a mag or game site.

A foetus is a living entity. You'll be going down a fairly preposterous set of arguments that go against all of our understanding of life if you try to maintain that it isn't a living entity. It is in many ways a parasite that has latched onto the mother's body and is trying to suck nutrients from it long enough to be able to be born. The foetus releases hormones to fight against the mother's immune system to prevent the mother's body from rejecting this invasion by such a vastly different genetic entity. At least, that's one way to look at it. There are many others that are correct. None of those suggest that the foetus isn't a living entity.

It is somewhat true that the foetus is part of the mother's body. Her body certainly envelopes the foetus' and the foetus couldn't live without it.

To say that it's her choice whether to terminate is clearly not true. The state has permitted women to make that decision in some places around the world, in some periods of time. It certainly isn't an inalienable right as you seem to be suggesting. It's a fight that women have had and continue to have in order to be able to express control over the bodies and lives. A simple expression of what you think should be the law isn't an argument for why the law should be that way.

The Senate approves / rejects the Justice that Obama appoints.

The Senate also approves what will be heard on senate floor. Senate Leader Mitch McConnell might not even let this go to the floor for a hearing. But the republican leadership will cave like like every other time and give Obama what he wants.

I'm genuinely curious. Why won't support for legalization play out like gay marriage? If anything it will go faster.

pot has been legal for a long time before it became illegal. It's only illegal because of corporate interest and a decades long fear campaign against it.

Meanwhile homosexuality gaining acceptance is pretty astounding considering for how long it has been rejected and ostracized.

Now of course, homosexuality acceptance is about human beings and marijuana legalization is about a plant so I'll grant you a difference there. But once it's shown that the states that did legalize it aren't falling into chaos and lawlessness, the fear mongering is going to die a quick death.

Christ....

Odd how Republicans always scream about "redistribution of wealth", but are fine with the fact that most employers no longer pay living wages the way they used to. They are fine if it's some rich guy taking his wealth generated by his employees' hard work for himself, but god forbid that the government take anything to help those that rich guy is leaving behind. Over half the people who work for Walmart qualify food stamps (only about 30% actually take it), despite the fact Walmart's profits are so high it could pay them all living wages, give them benefits, higher more, give more hours, and still make a huge profit while not raising prices... but it's the people needing food stamps that are bad, not the people who own and operate the company and take so much from their workers.

The one true small government candidate that the Republicans had was Rand Paul, and they rejected him for big government, tough talk, candidates that capitalize on their fears... most of which are fairly unjustified. Americans aren't lining up on the streets to get the sort of jobs that they accuse Mexican's of coming here to take. Our own actions of telling Muslims how to live is the reason they want to kill us, leave them alone and govern themselves... stop preemptively attacking... you know be more Christ like who wouldn't support such things...

And as @oritteropo basically noted, Reagan was far to the left what today's Republican party is. Reagan wouldn't even get through the Primary process. Fox News, Rush and all of them would be ripping him a new asshole for not being "conservative enough". Obama is far closer to Reagan style politics and economics than most today's primary candidates. McCain once upon a time was close to Reagan, but he swung to the right to appeal to the extreme right base, and then added an idiot running mate. Had he ran down the center as he used to be, and got a centralist running mate, he would have had a chance of winning... though Obama sort of captured a hope for progressive change that never came, he turned out to be a Democrat in Name Only and was closer to a Reagan Republican than a true progressive.

Let's also not forget that Congress controls the purse strings and the US economic outlook (at least to what degree the government can, since the rest is in the hands of investors and business owners). Congress has been obstructionist for the last 6 years, and haven't allowed ANY of Obama's policies through, any of his attempts to help fix the economy. Want to blame somebody in the government for the mess, blame Congress, not Obama... if they attempted his stuff, then yes it would be his fault, but they haven't tried a single one of them. You can't say no to trying something, then when what you did instead doesn't work blame the person you said no to.

For the price of the F35 program so far, a plane that only barely passed some of it's flight tests, the rest still failing, we could have bought every homeless person a $600,000 home.... in this area a $150,000 home is very nice (good 3 bedroom home, nice safe neighborhood with good schools), let alone what $600,000 would get you... for the price of it this year, we could fund the school lunch program for 24 years. Now to be fair, I haven't fully vetted those two "facts" myself, but what I have vetted, is for the price of the war in Iraq from 2001 to 2011, we paid more than NASA's entire history, even after adjusting for inflation. It's all a question of priorities. Republican's don't care how much the military costs the taxpayer, but suggestions to help the people being left behind as the rich take more and more for themselves (redistributing the wealth generated by their workers to themselves, rather than their workers) and suddenly they start screaming bloody murder.

Every time a Republican opens their mouth and spouts such things like this video I hate their gullibility... and all too often they talk about their faith and Christ... and I've already covered how the Republican views are 100% opposed to the teachings of Christ and it's why I first lost faith in God as he'd be screaming at them and trying to convict them that their views are wrong were he real. Don't just trust the first few Google results you see, as they filter their results to appeal to you and your views. Don't listen to the echo chamber. Learn to truly vet sources and understand what is actually going on. Don't parrot claims about a "liberal media" or whatever, when over 95% of the news sources out there are controlled by the same 5 companies, none of which have an incentive on letting people know just how bad they are being fucked by the business interests in this country... supporting gay marriage, supporting a minimum level of help isn't liberal, it's being a decent person... being against equal rights under the law because somebody sins differently than you, or not wanting to help somebody because they aren't working 80-100 hours a week is being a heartless asshole. But feel free to keep living in your echo chamber of stupidity, "You are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity."

Again, you either ignore or are ignorant of the social needs of baby elephants....even though I've explained it repeatedly. Baby elephants NEED social interaction constantly, without it they usually die.
Often a herd will not accept a baby back. I'm not saying they shouldn't have tried, but it's not always possible. It's actually likely they did try and it was rejected, since they seemingly knew which herd it came from.
Keeping it outside as close to what nature would be like means someone or a few someone's need to live outside with it 24/7. Leaving it outside alone is almost certain death.

Again, this woman has spent her life rescuing and rehabilitating orphaned and injured animals successfully. I'm pretty sure she knows what that baby elephant needs more than you or I, and she's clearly the best option they have available. Yes, perhaps it's not the perfect solution to make it comfortable around people, but elephants are not wolves. Baby elephants are NEVER left alone in the wild. You can't just make them afraid of humans as infants, they need someone to care for them and they NEED interactions with others.

In this case, it seemed like there was a choice. Either take in this baby and treat is as a baby, with all the social needs a baby has, or don't treat it as a baby in need of constant contact and let it die. Neither is a perfect solution, but saving it is the preferable one. Perhaps it won't be able to be re-introduced to the wild because of how it's being raised...that's better than just letting it die IMO, which I see as the only alternative to her care.

Don't care. At all.

Still, it's good to have the argument put to you so that you can reject it. Most people consume animal products because most people consume animal products, not because they've made an intelligent moral choice.

I see videos like this and mainly I think about how cool and elegant are the logistics involved in food production.

i still can't tell if this is a joke or not. is yannopoulos a rejected bond villian?

@Sayja
i can agree that that this is not a zero sum situation.

but i have to disagree that this video,or even the other video i posted has anything to do with 'mens rights".

and i have to take you to task for your specious claim that 'there seem to be a lot of men on the internet that feel threatened by feminism".

while i cannot speak for anybody other than myself,i can quite confidently state that i personally,do not feel threatened by feminism,but i find this "intersective third wave feminism" to be a form of feminism that,until recently i have been wholly unaware of ,to be out of touch and nothing that resembles the feminism i grew up with.

and i think that distinctions differentiating the two forms of feminism extremely important.

equality,fairness and justice are noble ideals to fight for and classic feminism did just that.it took amazing courage for those women to stand up and fight for issues regarding women.
see:suffragist movement of the 1800's.

or the bra-burners of the 60's fighting for their sexual rights and rejecting traditional social norms.that they owned their bodies and therefore.their future.

even the proud women of the 70's 80's and 90's who brought to light the casual nature of our society in regards to womens sexuality and heightened rape awareness.

what i find most disturbing,and i am struggling to understand (and maybe you can help me in that regard) is how the feminist movement which has taken courage and determination,addressing real and actual womens issues,has been perverted into this weird,perpetual victimhood decrying the "oppressive patriarchy".

because this new feminism is threatening and is garnering actual real life consequences.
see: stephanie guthrie vs greg elliot
see:the duke lacrosse players

cases where you don't actually have to BE harassed,you just have to "FEEL" as if you are being harassed.

or where you can accuse three boys of rape,get the coach fired and ruin three boys lives,and when it is revealed to all be a fabrication?

the accuser walks away with zero consequences.

so i find it delicious irony when some will defend these "third wave' feminists and state EMPHATICALLY,that words have consequences and that these men SHOULD pay a price for their words.

yet the accusers rarely,if ever,pay for THEIR words.no consequences for THEIR misrepresentation.they just falsely accused.which had real world consequences.

hypocrisy much?

and where was this "oppressive patriarchy" swooping in to protect these men?

can you explain how that is morally,or intellectually consistent?
because it appears to me to be pretty damn hypocritical.

so this woman disagrees with the current trend of feminism.
that is her right and she explains why she disagrees.
does this mean she deserves the death threats and threats of physical violence from these feminists?

so if you could explain to me this "third wave feminism" i would really appreciate it my friend,because i dont get it and it is a real break from the philosophical feminism that have grown accustomed.