When someone asks you if you believe we evolved from apes, the correct answer is "I believe in evolution, but we did not evolve from apes, only an idiot would believe that about evolution."

There are some that suggest May or the tories in general are trying to lose the election so that Labour WILL take the backlash. Ultimately no way to know how that will go, but right now there is severe backlash towards the tories and the narrative is swiftly changing towards Labour. I see an election win as the start of a very, very long conversation. Activists will have to continue the fight, press standards will have to be changed either through public pressure or through legislature. And in Britain that might happen because the press here are the most distrusted in europe (52% disapproval, or 52% considered biased/corrupt, or something).

I said in the past that the UK was ready to change. Essentially, the narrative was there to be taken right back, but I didn't know if Corbyn's team had the skill to do it. I have to say that I am blown away by Labour's campaign, it has been almost flawless. I say that because i think the narrative is there to be taken on Brexit. The tories called the referendum to hold onto power. They arrogantly called the general election to consolidate power, with Brexit talks imminent, only to whine about being too busy to do interviews because they're thinking about Brexit! They have then made a catastrophic hash of their campaign, u-turned 5 or 6 times, contradicted themselves, and generally shown themselves to be weak, without answers, and bullies. In 10 years time, who knows what we will think? But in the short term at least, this can be framed as a "they fucked it up, but we'll take over in a crisis and try to fix it."

At the end of the day, a Corbyn government has always been so out of the question that i don't know what to expect if that were to happen. Is another referendum on leaving out of the question?

At the very least, for now, i would say Brits prefer the idea of Labour sorting out Brexit than the Tories, and the average attitude towards Brexit in the country is rather one of resigned acceptance - we know it's bad, but we did it, so now we better get on with it. But we're very suspicious, and don't want to get shafted by irresponsible or reckless politicians. True for the left and right, but obviously for different reasons.

Good one there! "I know you are but what am I?!"

Trump is not afraid to lead? What's he leading in exactly?

An idiotic, poorly thought out travel ban that won't help anything?

Mouthing off to our allies, making us look like idiots? (Mexico will pay for the wall... wait, maybe not, but they'll pay 20% tariffs.... well actually the Americans will be the ones paying... sounds like a solid plan everyone!)

Appointing unqualified cabinet members? Rick Perry for energy secretary.... the department he wanted to destroy... the department that he had no idea manages our nuclear stockpiles... the department whose previous leader under Obama was a nuclear physicist. It's now Rick fucking Perry.

The only thing he's leading in is in being the most embarrassing statesman this country has ever seen, arguing with celebrities on Twitter like a child. This moron was actually ranting about Schwarzenegger and The Apprentice ratings in his National Prayer Breakfast speech. All he had to do was just recite a short passage from the bible or something. But nope, not him. He needs to ask like a 12 year old.

We have a 70-year-old man, who also happens to be THE PRESIDENT, who can't control himself and act the part. He really has a few screws loose. There's no other explanation. But we did give him the nuclear codes! Yaay!

Leader - my ass. (Besides, it's Bannon leading him anyway.)

We don't have Kinder Eggs in the US, but we did have Wonder Balls in the 1990s. It was only a fad however and we have yet to have anything like Kinder Egg or Wonder Ball since.

We made viking longboats when I was a kid. My mum and I got well into it, we built a proper keel and ribs and then layered strips of card for the hull. She did quite a bit of the fiddly construction, but we did the research and planning together and I was thrilled to be making something totally awesome.

There is obviously value in getting kids to go away and create something independently, but real life projects are usually collaborative, even if reading any CV makes it seem otherwise. In the end it was a different (obviously inferior ) boat that "won", but you better believe that if my hypothetical kids ever have to build a boat that I am going to pass on what my mum passed on to me.

Well this is a very interesting video, because I'm trying to figure out wtf UTA stands for, I'm thinking it's Utah Transit Authority or something. So do they have a rule about not smoking on UTA property? That's got to be it.

I'm thinking these two male cops are thinking what a lot of male cops think, which is why the fuck did this little woman become a police officer.
But i got to cover her ass because she probably can't fight her way out of a wet paper bag. She probably needs to get into the DARE program so her biggest challenge is keeping 7 yr olds from putting boogers on her pantleg.

Of course, some women cops are pretty awesome, pretty fearless, and quite useful. Some, like I suspect this one, is pretty worthless.

I don't understand why they trespassed this guy from UTA property however. I just don't see how that's legal.

The whole interaction is quite irritating because I have to agree with the hoodie guy, nothing makes sense.

Which is fine as far as it goes, until he starts painting all cops are brainless gov't toads who sponge off the taxpayer etc etc etc. You lost me there, boss, because now you're insulting my avocation, in which I take a lot of pride.

Lemme give you an example of police work. Yesterday I helped a lady who had an auto accident, her brand new Mini Cooper got destroyed by some little juvenile driving a big ass Jeep Cherokee.

Today I assisted my Lt. with a neighbor complaint, some jerkoff who sounded like he had 18 Red Bulls for breakfast and wouldn't shut the fuck up had thrown a bunch of trash over a patio divider in an apt. complex because he thought his Latvian neighbor was making too much noise. Nobody got arrested, we were just there trying to resolve these two idiots from killing each other.

Then today I drove some old handicapped biddy 15 miles down the road so she could be with her husband who was having hip surgery. it took us a good 30 minutes to find out where the old codger was but we did it.

Two other officers responded to a family who called about their grown son who was off his meds and had a knife...we've been to this house dozens of times because the son is a fucking mental. I thought for sure this guy would get shot dead today, but turns out he was just arrested and transported to the PD for processing.

A couple of people got arrested for shoplifting, nobody got beat, they got a piece of paper with a court date on it.

etc etc etc

But no, this 'hispanic' dude has to jump to 15 conclusions about what ALL police officers do and it's total bullshit.

Dude, you're about as idiotic as these phony UTA cops.

If you lived through the sixties most of these seem normal even if they are horribly dated. The hot Dr. Pepper, however, is fucking weird regardless of what decade you're from.

Also the glass wax I've never seen but we did have spray artificial snow to decorate windows and we'd make our own stencils.

Well never had any lawsuits, but of course people understand that loss prevention will follow you around an upscale store. Did it in Macy's in New York for 10 years. People whined and were asked to leave if they didn't like the policy. And if people came in with baggy clothes or pants sagging, they were also asked to leave the store. Macy's wasn't a public park to goof off in. And on the door they reserve the right to refuse service to any one on any reason.

but that's upscale "Snooty" stores for ya, but hey, it paid damn well.

and I wore a suit, but we did have plain clothes that did work in same department, but the suit was to put public pressure as everyone knew what I was up to when I followed a customer. And if someone refused to empty a pocket, a cop was available to check them and if they were clear they were free to go.

IT was a bit gestapo I admit, but that's how it works in large cities, and there has been no lawsuits and won't be, cause the company has the right to run their business any way they wish. If customers quit buying the stuff in mass then of course they'd change or whatnot, but customers won't, plus Macy's and many upscale stores in New York pride them self on being assholes so they can sell to a specific demographic, rich/celebs/etc. that demographic won't be caught dead in a crappy store like Walmart for most part.

>> ^Skeeve:

Nice of them to make it simple for kids... but we did not evolve from Chimpanzees. We share a common ancestor to Chimpanzees. Sloppy simplification can be worse than no simplification at all - especially when the "my grandma wasn't a monkey!" people get involved.


Yeah but stupid people will always be stupid. At least this way the kids who this does spark an interest with will go on to learn the facts eventually themselves, even if it is in the way of going one day to their mate, or a teacher in class "oh, we descended from apes didn't we?" and then they are in a prime position to learn the complex truth of the matter, because they give a shit and it was already somewhat in their head.

I just like things that are entertaining and educational, I can see the use of it even if it isn't bang on scientifically correct. I can see your aggravation too, if Bob Hale oversimplified parenting or grammar (even though I'm not great grammatically I'm not a rapist and it fucks me off when I see it) I'd be straight up on my soapbox

Nice of them to make it simple for kids... but we did not evolve from Chimpanzees. We share a common ancestor to Chimpanzees. Sloppy simplification can be worse than no simplification at all - especially when the "my grandma wasn't a monkey!" people get involved.

I can't NOT do a run-down of the subtitles. They're just too goddamn funny.

"The justified and has charged up former C_i_a_ officer
are john and tour kalo
steeple player is said that right
arbiter reiterates problems they write me anyway out with a espionage act
now that's a very very serious charge you know that before president obama
theres only been
three instances of the united states government
charging someone with the espionage act
forgiving excessive information
as they claim
this former cia officer there
and
six different tastes
that is special on it because president or bob promise to
i'd be air and friend to whistle blowers
entrance passage
there's something wrong in our government he reported he was going to
help you
doesn't look like he's albania
so whatever sag ideal while he talked about
how we want a quart of people
and how was torture
now he thought it was justified even did an interview on sixty minutes
and said
uh that he thought it worked the underplayed amount of george but we did
but do you happen to call it torture
now they look at that missy i did not like that
furthermore there was a two thousand a new york times story which invade
believe he is the source of the dam
proving at and so they well okay i got past and i jack I guess you're you
know
there was one of the toughest laws we have
and we're company get your are part of the spaces
because it's if
here's a great irony of that
if you actually do the waterboarding if you didn't torture
you got no punishment whatsoever
now present all mama claimed it was torture and ridiculous and he says he
stopped at
as ridiculous in a squabble right
is torture
but he didn't always scot-free
the president will not
look backward euler look for work
if you report the waterboarding the torture
espionage act
when I play with a look back work
all its to protect the C_i_a_'s after this thing
protect that's the bush administration
error and dick cheyney that order that torture well then of course you look
backward and in fact the new uh... looked very deep into you know us info about
charging
the defense lawyers at one time all back
our whole system is based on
an adversarial system
where somebody gets a defects
now one of the press uh.. tactics was to look at that
interrogators
and try and determine who they were so they can bring them into the court
and say eight use them as witnesses
because the guys who aren't going to have a bank
that are face execution
listen when you get an executed we should be able to call the witnesses

That's not even half the video. But I laughed my ass off.

My grade school gave out "E"s instead of "F" for failing grades, we didn't know much in West Virginia, but we did know the first digests of the letterbet.

we actually made these this summer! We didn't quite manage to roast them over a fire but we did slather them with lashings of butter. *promote

I want to repeat first your original claim is the US outproduced the rest of the world many fold from 1700 to 1900, which as I stated is absurdly false.

Percentage of increases is NOT total GDP. Just because we grew more doesn't mean we outproduced another country. Higher GDP = higher production.

Right now, China's economy is growing faster than the US economy. Does that mean their GDP is higher? According to you, apparently, the answer is yes, but it's not. US GDP is higher than China.

Of course, this also doesn't take into account that population impacts GDP, as the larger your population, the more labor resources you have to produce goods and services. GDP per capita also comes into play in factoring relative productivity.

Using your own link, Great Britain's total GDP was higher than the US all the way up to 1913. Therefore, sometime between 1870 and 1913, the US GDP surpassed Britain and every other country on earth in raw amounts, but to claim we did from 1820 - 1913 is by your own data patently false. We outgrew everyone else, this is true, but we did not outproduce everyone else that entire time. In fact, for most of that time, we were outproduced by several Western European countries in raw amounts.

Then there's the question of GDP per capita.

In 1913, US population is estimated to be about 100,000,000. 517,000/100000000=0.00517

In 1913, the British population is estimated to be about 45,000,000. 225000/45000000 = 0.005.

IE, RIGHT ABOUT around 1913 the US began to be more productive per capita than Great Britain, but for most of 1870 to 1913 (and prior), Great Britain outproduced the US per capita. Therefore, your assertion the US outproduced every other country on earth per capita is wrong, and Great Britain outproduced the US in raw amount in 1870.

As I said, most historians do not consider the US an economic superpower until at least WWI. There's ample explanation for this. Great Britain industrialized before the US did. The US also suffered a massive interruption in economic production due to the US Civil War in the 1860s. This is plain as day fact, even with your own data you're providing.

And btw, what were the contributing factors to the US surge in production? Industrialization coupled with massive immigration. To discount the role of immigration into the US as a key contributor and say it was all about free market economics is ridiculous. Are you suggesting we need to allow Mexicans and anyone else to immigrate into the US again?! We also cashed in on imperialist gains at the expense of Mexico, gaining a massive amount of natural resources in the Mexican Cession. You don't honestly think the US Industrial Revolution would have been as wildly successful as it was without that massive resource of various metals, do you? So we're supposed to start taking land from other countries because it's god's will?

And now, to my absolute favorite part of your analysis. You attempted to show the US's slowing economic growth in the 20th century compared to the previous century, because that central banking and regulation we got post 1913 apparently really hurt us.

1820 - 1870 = 50 years
1870 - 1913 = 43 years
1913 - 1950 = 37 years
1950 - 1973 = 23 years
1973 - 1998 = 25 years

So how much did we grow comparing 1870-1913 vs 1950 - 1998, over a comparable time span?

526% vs. (7394598-1455916)/1455916 = 407%

Considering how unproductive humans were before and after industrialization, improving on top of that another 407% is EXTREMELY impressive. On top of that, US economic output was severely reduced because of the Civil War in the 1860s and had not recovered from it by any stretch of the imagination, so simply recovering from that would fuel a massive percentage increase. By 1950, we had already recovered from the Great Depression, and we STILL managed to grow the US economy 4x in the next 50 years.

Now, on top of that, keep in mind that with smaller numbers, percentage growth gets exaggerated compared to bigger numbers. IE, it's easier to double when you start with 1 than 1,000,000.

From 1820 to 1913, US GDP went from 12,548 to 517,383. From 1913 to 1998, we went from 517,383 to 7,394,598! That's less successful?! OH POOR US!

Compared to the rest of the world, we didn't grow as fast percentage wise from 1950-1998. We did however grow the most in raw amounts. By your analysis, Mexico has done a better job growing their economy from 1973 to 1998 than the US did because of percentage growth. Uhh, seriously?! growing 279,302 to 655,910 is more impressive than 3,536,622 to 7,394,598?! Then WHY ARE MEXICANS TRYING TO IMMIGRATE HERE!?

Why is Africa, Asia, etc. growing so much faster than we did? Because they are industrializing, which results in percentage gains greater than the switch to info tech because they're starting from a very low number. That doesn't mean they're outproducing us. It means they have more low hanging fruit to improve their productivity than we do. You're also cherrypicking another historically convenient time. Europe and Asia in 1950 were still recovering from the destruction of WWII, where entire cities were leveled. Simply rebuilding from that would give a massive boost. US industrial capacity was never threatened during WWII. Therefore, we won't start suddenly artificially lower in 1950 compared to a Japan, China, Germany, Britain, France, or Russia.

Your historical analysis is laughable. I have never seen anyone claim that the US economy was better off from 1800-1900 than they have been from 1900-2000. Kudos for attempting to provide statistics for your crackpot retelling of American history.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^heropsycho:
Except you're completely, utterly, 100% wrong about when the US became an economic superpower.
Most historians do not recognize the US as a global economic or military superpower until at least WWI, and it's hard to argue that even then because the US paled in comparison to the likes of Britain until WWII, so your claim we outproduced every other country many times over from 1700-1900 is absurdly and patently false. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 (just prior to WWI), which allowed constitutionally for the first time a federal income tax. The Federal Reserve Bank was also established in 1913, which I guess is what you're referring to as "central banking". The US was undoubtedly recognized as a global Superpower, both economically and militarily, by the end of WWII, some 30+ years later, and it's been one undoubtedly ever since, with the FED and the federal income tax in existence that entire time. During that time, the US has outproduced economically every other country on earth with the dreaded "central bank" and federal income tax you think is destroying our economy.
You might actually want to look stuff up before you say something that grossly incorrect.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?


Don't let facts get in the way of your clouded thinking.
http://www.theworldeconomy.org/MaddisonTables/MaddisontableB-18.pdf
We were the most prosperous country in the world prior to income taxes and the federal reserve.
In 1820, US GDP was less than 2% of the world's GDP. By 1913, US GDP was more than double any other country and 1/5 of the world's. Funny thing about freedom, it works.
From 1820 to 1870, US GDP increased 784% while the world GDP had only increased 59%. From 1870 to 1913, US GDP increased 526% while the world GDP had only increased 246%.
Period, Increase in US GDP, Increase in World GDP
1820 to 1870, 784%, 59%
1870 to 1913, 526%, 246%
1913 to 1950, 281%, 197%
1950 to 1973, 243%, 300%
1973 to 1998, 209%, 210%
And if you do the math per capita, the numbers are even uglier for the US 20th century.
But not surprising one thinks that printing money to pay for bombs and tanks makes a country prosperous. How's that government stimulus working out present day? Funny we still haven't paid off that debt from WWII stimulus. We've being paying the interest on it though.
Did expanding the monetary base (i.e. inflation) make us richer? The father of the theory that government stimulus is the way to fight severe downturns, John Maynard Keynes, famously said about inflation:
By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft.

Depends on what you mean by solved. If you mean what it actually means, which is dealt with, then the result of any conflict must be said to be solved...as it has an end result not based on inaction. Now, as the the question of solved well, I didn't offer an opinion on that...though my general position on violence should be self evident; a reality that I hate, but is ever present and effective.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Was the objective of Vietnam and Korea to stop Communism? If so, then the success rate is 50%.


Actually the War in Vietnam was pretty much a complete success. The idea was to make sure that Communism didn't spread...it was to show that if you consider this way of life we will visit the terrors of the earth upon you. After the Tet Offensive the business community decided that this wasn't profitable anymore and turned against the war. Many pundits wrote that the US should just claim victory since we did achieve our main objectives. So yes...2-4 million Vietnamese dead (we don't count our victims hence the 2 million discrepancy) and effects from Chemical warfare that are still being felt today through thousands of birth defects. Yeah it's not taught in schools and it's not generally accepted but we did actually win in Vietnam...but I would point out how could any human being say that it solved anything?