Well entr0py, actions like these earn them douche-points with all their like-minded kinfolk in the douchebag fraternity, and hopefully seals their fate when sentenced for more egregious violations when they finally show supreme ass and get sent upstate where they may even be lucky enough to meet some 'reforming' felon they helped put-away....where there is no camera, and no-one to tattle on a good deed for all of humanity...

Sarah Wallace needs a Junior Anti-G-Man Badge!
Here ya go sister!!

✋✊✋

And to address jubuttib's comment....That should be the job of EVERY citizen who travels the U.S. or (insert police-state here) roadways, to have on-board-streaming, real-time "upload to cloud" systems to thwart the actions of any and all police who chose the lower path.

FUCK the criminals, as they have been handed the power through voter complacency to fuck the citizenry!

Agree with your sentiments 100% eric, btw.

The methylation turns off genes, so it alters the development of the embryo without altering the actual DNA.

I'm not arguing against Darwin, he was a careful and methodical researcher who did good work. It could easily have been called Wallaceism though, had things gone even slightly differently A lot of things which are now called darwinism should probably be more properly called "Spencerism" since they derive from Spencer's "survival of the fittest" and not Darwin (or, perhaps, from Alfred, Lord Tennyson's In Memoriam A.H.H. - Nature, red in tooth and claw).

Those are some weird results that shouldn’t really be possible, since the female is born with the eggs and thus the genetic material for the future offspring is already set when the mother is born. But nature is full of surprises.

But the other thing that separates Darwin from Lamarck, and even Wallace, was how much he really got completely right about evolution. Common decent, gradualism and the fact that evolution happens as a change in populations are all , in addition to natural selection, things that Darwin got spot on , and this was before we had even discovered genes. These insights is why we call it Darwinism, and not Wallaceism

His Darwin/Wallace descriptions is rather unfair on Darwin, Darwin had been working for 20 years on what became "The Origin of Species" when he received Wallace's letter, He already had his theory of natural selection worked out, he just hadn't actually published yet. This is a pretty well known historical fact, based on extensive documentation(Darwins notes/letter etc, see http://darwin-online.org.uk/ .

Also the jump to "nazi Germany" is complete bullshit. If natural selection looks like any political system it would have to be unregulated capitalism or total anarchy. Both of which might turn out to be very bad, but why should you base a political system on natural selection anyway? He confuses Darwinism with "social Darwinism" which really has nothing to do with Darwin or his theory. At best, it was a complete misreading of the theory, confusing strength/looks/class with fitness and using it as an excuse to sterilize and or kill the "unwanted" and "weak". But even social darwinism really had nothing to do with "nazi germany", As the extermination of the jews were largely based on religiously inspired resentments and superstitions, combined with an exploitation of the frustrated german people, looking to place the blame for their post WW1 plight.

Seems like this guy also misunderstands why Darwin/Wallace is credited with "discovering evolution". Its correct that they didnt, but neither did Lamarck, really, as it was obvious for some time that animals seemed to have looked differently in the past, and that something had changed over time. What Darwin and Wallace discovered was the mechanism: How evolution actually works, why it works, and so on. Lamarck also presented a mechanism (inheritance of acquired traits), but it turned out to be wrong.

via Wikipedia:

Der Fuehrer's Face (originally titled Donald Duck in Nutzi Land) is a 1943 American animated propaganda short film produced by Walt Disney Productions and released in 1943 by RKO Radio Pictures. The cartoon, which features Donald Duck in a nightmare setting working at a factory in Nazi Germany, was made in an effort to sell war bonds and is an example of American propaganda during World War II. The film was directed by Jack Kinney and written by Joe Grant and Dick Huemer from the original music by Oliver Wallace. The film is well known for Wallace's original song "Der Fuehrer's Face", which was actually released earlier by Spike Jones.

Der Fuehrer's Face won the Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film at the 15th Academy Awards. It was the only Donald Duck film to receive the honor, although eight other films were also nominated. In 1994, it was voted Number 22 of "the 50 Greatest Cartoons" of all time by members of the animation field. However, because of the propagandistic nature of the short, and the depiction of Donald Duck as a Nazi (albeit a reluctant one), Disney kept the film out of general circulation after its original release. Its first home video release came in 2004 with the release of the third wave of the Walt Disney Treasures DVD sets.

OK, I am completely sidetracked by trying to figure out JUST WHO or WHAT is Sarah Wallace looking at just slightly off to her left?

We love you Christy (Poison Ivy) Wallace!!

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Wallace and Gromit - A Grand Day Out. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Mike Wallace, sucking Satan's cock. I hope he died of horrific throat cancer.

Can't stand Wallace's leading interview (intimidating cunt) btw, leave it to a prick and the prick(s) writing the question(s)-She was too resourceful for her own good and with tooo little knowledge to arrive at a workable thesis for a workable master plan....

Now watching her again and again and must say, might just entrust her with those codes....

>> ^peter12:

Is there any kind of god out there or not? At the end it doesn't matter. For me it's very interesting how much our prejudice influence our perception. If we wonna see evil in Romney or Obama, we do. We are masters in creating our own realities, sometimes for our good, sometimes not.
A bit similar story told by David Foster Wallace in a commencement speech. This particular story lasts 2 minutes. For me the whole speech is great.


What the hell kind of example is that ?

How is this video even remotely similar to a political example. wtf buddy.

Lets all drink some Chair Tea and hold hands. Break some of these perceptions.

Is there any kind of god out there or not? At the end it doesn't matter. For me it's very interesting how much our prejudice influence our perception. If we wonna see evil in Romney or Obama, we do. We are masters in creating our own realities, sometimes for our good, sometimes not.

A bit similar story told by David Foster Wallace in a commencement speech. This particular story lasts 2 minutes. For me the whole speech is great.

A relative of mine owns a small business, and recognizes that an increase in purchasing power in the bottom 90% of Americans would drive more purchasing in the US, and more buying would drive more investment by him in terms of labor and non-liquid assets in his business. However a bit of cognitive dissonance leads him to "feel" that increasing taxes on large corporations and the very wealthy to lock in lower taxes on the middle class is not 'leveling the playing field', and "feels wrong".

Basically he optimistically feels that he may one day be in the top 1% of earners, and this weird selfishness that he may one day be incredibly wealthy and thus affected by a higher tax burden is leading him to vote against his own goddamn interest. This, and he "feels" that once taxes have been raised on the wealthy, there will be blood in the water and it will eventually slide down to those making $~100k. Its hard to argue with feelings about the future.


>> ^TheFreak:

Thank you QM for that thoughtful reply.
It just seems that the imbalance right now is in demand, not the availability of capitol to invest.

Thank you QM for that thoughtful reply.

It just seems that the imbalance right now is in demand, not the availability of capitol to invest.


>> ^quantumushroom:

Your logic isn't flawed per se, just incomplete.
In an unstable environment like the one created by Obama and his ilk, no sane wealthy person is going to expand businesses or invest.
Lower tax rates mean more investing and more lending to entrepreneurs. It also means less "hoarding" by the wealthy, who in an electronic world can transfer monies rapidly and keep them parked elsewhere.
The idea is that even though the tax rate is lower, there is more economic activity, and thus greater revenue.
Taxation is only half of the equation, the other is spending. Government spending will certainly not stop under a Romney Administration; a continuing taxocrat-majority Congress means spending will barely slow down.

Outrage over the Ryan proposal is selective at best. His Earness has already screwed the middle-class. Here are the new taxes the middle class will be paying for Obamacare. The ink is already dry.
>> ^TheFreak:
Give me $2500 over a year and it will all be spent on household expenses in the bat of an eye, directly into the economy. Give $250,000 to a millionaire and what exactly is it going to do? How is that money going to stimulate the economy better than the millions they're already hoarding?
Someone give me a coherent argument for how an extra fraction of wealth is going to encourage these people to invest and grow anything. Show me the flaw in my logic.

Your logic isn't flawed per se, just incomplete.

In an unstable environment like the one created by Obama and his ilk, no sane wealthy person is going to expand businesses or invest.

Lower tax rates mean more investing and more lending to entrepreneurs. It also means less "hoarding" by the wealthy, who in an electronic world can transfer monies rapidly and keep them parked elsewhere.

The idea is that even though the tax rate is lower, there is more economic activity, and thus greater revenue.

Taxation is only half of the equation, the other is spending. Government spending will certainly not stop under a Romney Administration; a continuing taxocrat-majority Congress means spending will barely slow down.


Outrage over the Ryan proposal is selective at best. His Earness has already screwed the middle-class. Here are the new taxes the middle class will be paying for Obamacare. The ink is already dry.

>> ^TheFreak:

Give me $2500 over a year and it will all be spent on household expenses in the bat of an eye, directly into the economy. Give $250,000 to a millionaire and what exactly is it going to do? How is that money going to stimulate the economy better than the millions they're already hoarding?
Someone give me a coherent argument for how an extra fraction of wealth is going to encourage these people to invest and grow anything. Show me the flaw in my logic.