aha! *canada

>> ^marinara:

my head didn't explode. I can spot a Red herring.
Money = power. Unlimited banking = unlimited power.


Aha! So you're a Ron Paul supporter?

Also, you believe the Catholic church is bent on world domination by hook or by crook? And that their interest in poverty is just a red herring?

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

I might not have notice the rest of the changing bric-a-brac, but the hat gave it away, and made me think "Aha! Things Have Changed."


Not me.
I was watching his hands so much I didn't see a thing.

I might not have notice the rest of the changing bric-a-brac, but the hat gave it away, and made me think "Aha! Things Have Changed."

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^packo:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^packo:
@Yogi
again, its all just conjecture without proper context... whether your conspiracy theory leans one way or the other...
its like seeing the picture of the two soldier and the detainee from Iraq... where if you cut out either soldier, the picture takes on a very different meaning... 1 soldier's gun appears to be held threateningly towards the detainee... the other soldier is giving the detainee water... remove the context of either soldier and the picture becomes misleading... in that case both directions
and in regards to this video... without context, we're left to our own prejudices to determine the context the video falls, so then it's simply chance if our prejudice aligns with the actual context of the video... people on both sides could use this to mislead
again, not attacking one side or the other... just the failings of the presentation

Not really since you're citing a war. I'm talking about civilians and police who are charged with protecting them. There is a much greater burden of proof to be addressed whether or not these women posed a threat to anyone. So there's some context right there...civilians, unarmed, not in a warzone.

technically there's rules to warfare too, and saying which are stricter is a whole other debate
accusers must prove guilt, guilt != not being able to prove merit in this instance : in regards to criminal cases... rephrased someone isn't guilty without proof to their guilt, being unable to prove innocence isn't the same as being guilty... ie, "you robbed the bank", "no i didn't", "can anyone attest to your whereabouts during the time of the robbery?", "no i was alone", "aha, you must be guilty then!"
civil i believe at best you'd be able to hold police officers accountable in regards to them not following proper procedure... which again, this video in no way demonstrates because (again) it was lacking context
all of that get's muddier with the Patriot Act and dealing with masses of people as opposed to the individual
and to summarize, this video doesn't qualify as evidence of misdoing, one way or the other... for the protesters or for the police... i'm sure the police have debriefed/taken statements from officers involved and if those statements/documentation was held up against this video as some sort of proof, no court (civil/criminal) would find much of a case... again back to context and corroberating sources

This is your opinion based on your experience as an expert on what? My opinion is based on that of a crazy person...badda bing badda boom shut the fuck up.


@Yogi,

not my opinion, i rolled over and let your mom get a few words in, she's the expert/professional

>> ^packo:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^packo:
@Yogi
again, its all just conjecture without proper context... whether your conspiracy theory leans one way or the other...
its like seeing the picture of the two soldier and the detainee from Iraq... where if you cut out either soldier, the picture takes on a very different meaning... 1 soldier's gun appears to be held threateningly towards the detainee... the other soldier is giving the detainee water... remove the context of either soldier and the picture becomes misleading... in that case both directions
and in regards to this video... without context, we're left to our own prejudices to determine the context the video falls, so then it's simply chance if our prejudice aligns with the actual context of the video... people on both sides could use this to mislead
again, not attacking one side or the other... just the failings of the presentation

Not really since you're citing a war. I'm talking about civilians and police who are charged with protecting them. There is a much greater burden of proof to be addressed whether or not these women posed a threat to anyone. So there's some context right there...civilians, unarmed, not in a warzone.

technically there's rules to warfare too, and saying which are stricter is a whole other debate
accusers must prove guilt, guilt != not being able to prove merit in this instance : in regards to criminal cases... rephrased someone isn't guilty without proof to their guilt, being unable to prove innocence isn't the same as being guilty... ie, "you robbed the bank", "no i didn't", "can anyone attest to your whereabouts during the time of the robbery?", "no i was alone", "aha, you must be guilty then!"
civil i believe at best you'd be able to hold police officers accountable in regards to them not following proper procedure... which again, this video in no way demonstrates because (again) it was lacking context
all of that get's muddier with the Patriot Act and dealing with masses of people as opposed to the individual
and to summarize, this video doesn't qualify as evidence of misdoing, one way or the other... for the protesters or for the police... i'm sure the police have debriefed/taken statements from officers involved and if those statements/documentation was held up against this video as some sort of proof, no court (civil/criminal) would find much of a case... again back to context and corroberating sources


This is your opinion based on your experience as an expert on what? My opinion is based on that of a crazy person...badda bing badda boom shut the fuck up.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^packo:
@Yogi
again, its all just conjecture without proper context... whether your conspiracy theory leans one way or the other...
its like seeing the picture of the two soldier and the detainee from Iraq... where if you cut out either soldier, the picture takes on a very different meaning... 1 soldier's gun appears to be held threateningly towards the detainee... the other soldier is giving the detainee water... remove the context of either soldier and the picture becomes misleading... in that case both directions
and in regards to this video... without context, we're left to our own prejudices to determine the context the video falls, so then it's simply chance if our prejudice aligns with the actual context of the video... people on both sides could use this to mislead
again, not attacking one side or the other... just the failings of the presentation

Not really since you're citing a war. I'm talking about civilians and police who are charged with protecting them. There is a much greater burden of proof to be addressed whether or not these women posed a threat to anyone. So there's some context right there...civilians, unarmed, not in a warzone.


technically there's rules to warfare too, and saying which are stricter is a whole other debate

accusers must prove guilt, guilt != not being able to prove merit in this instance : in regards to criminal cases... rephrased someone isn't guilty without proof to their guilt, being unable to prove innocence isn't the same as being guilty... ie, "you robbed the bank", "no i didn't", "can anyone attest to your whereabouts during the time of the robbery?", "no i was alone", "aha, you must be guilty then!"

civil i believe at best you'd be able to hold police officers accountable in regards to them not following proper procedure... which again, this video in no way demonstrates because (again) it was lacking context

all of that get's muddier with the Patriot Act and dealing with masses of people as opposed to the individual

and to summarize, this video doesn't qualify as evidence of misdoing, one way or the other... for the protesters or for the police... i'm sure the police have debriefed/taken statements from officers involved and if those statements/documentation was held up against this video as some sort of proof, no court (civil/criminal) would find much of a case... again back to context and corroberating sources

Rough translation: ".... he's got a million dollars hanging in his house somewhere", (cameraman) "who's that?" "That fucking drug headed Sheen. He may be winning, but the motherfucker is losing teeth. Have you seen his goddamn face?.... (emulates baboon)... You talk about that Charlie Sheen drug that's going to melt your face and shit? Motherfucker, I'll tell you what you should do bitch, you try a Charlie green drug. Because with the Charlie green drug, your face is still going to melt, but your kids... you don't have to worry about them crying over your fucking body, because you haven't got one no goddamn more AHA AHA AHA AHAHHHH!!! (draws breath) You don't deserve them.

"I'm Charlie Sheen, I'm going to buy myself some goddamn drugs, I'm a crackhead motherfuck. You piece of shit. Them goddamn boys, they loved you, they showed you respect, they tried to, and what do you do you drughead motherfucker? You... (spazboings)... you disappoint them, you disappoint everybody, you sorry piece of shit. Fuckyoufuckyoufuck youuuuuu.

"The name of your show was Two and a Half Men, well those two twins, they're the fucking men and you are the goddamn half. You sorry piece of shit, they're more grown up and adult than you are, you crackhead motherfucker, you toothless bastard Get these goddamned computer people to get your goddamn picture and touch up your fucking teeth. If you're so goddamn embarrassed, go to a goddamn dentist, write a motherfucking cheque. I did and I haven't got the money. You can write those goddamn whores $30-40,000 cheques, why don't you write your dentist one for a goddamn thousand?

"Let me show you what you need to do you dumb motherfucker. Everybody is being nice to you old Charlie Sheen, but you've got problems. But I'm going to be nice to you too Charlie. Look out... motherfucking orajel. You take this shit (mmmm mm mmmm mm mmmm splurt) and you spit the motherfucker out, that's how you get rid of the nasty fucking breath you've got. We've got toothbrush, toothpaste. Do you know what these are? Can we say updownupdownsidesidebackback? "

I CAN'T DO ANYMORE, I'M LAUGHING TOO GODDAMN HARD...

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

[T]he politicalmathblog post comes across as fairly even handed. The point of the first 4 graphs is to explain how a state can grow a bunch of jobs but still have a high unemployment rate.

Read what he's saying about the charts. Each chart is meant to say "Rick Perry's job creation in Texas is awesome!" Chart 1 is raw jobs, unadjusted for population growth, even according to him. Rather than saying "hmm, I wonder if that actually means the jobs situation has improved when you look at population," instead he says:

In a "normal" employment data set, we can easily look at it and say "Yep, that's where the recession happened. Sucks to be us." But not with Texas. With Texas, we say "Damn. Looks like they've recovered already."

Liar!

Chart 3 is a similarly unadjusted factor, though at least he puts it as % of raw jobs grown, so it's not as distorted.

Chart 4 finally reveals what's going on -- Texas's population is growing way faster than it's creating jobs. Aha! That's why the unemployment rate has just been going up!

Moreover, it means the jobs market in Texas is really getting worse, because while there have been jobs created, the number of people looking for a job per job opening has actually increased. Does he summarize it that way? Nope, not remotely.

Instead he summarizes that finding by saying:

People are flocking to Texas in massive numbers. This is speculative, but it *seems* that people are moving to Texas looking for jobs rather than moving to Texas for a job they already have lined up. This would explain why Texas is adding jobs faster than any other state but still has a relatively high unemployment rate.

Liar, liar, pants on fire!

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:
His supposition that Texas is the victim of it's own success is the only controversial statement in that section, and he clearly labels it as his own opinion.

It's not the only controversial statement, but it's the most blatant falsehood of the whole article. Yes, he makes it clear that it's his theory, but he's presenting his theory while summarizing the data that invalidates his theory!

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:
Meanwhile your think progress article seems completely irrelevant. Since it doesn't normalize for population size, their graph is naturally going to have longer bars for larger states, so calling someone the "worst" is basically just saying, "its bar goes in the wrong direction and it's a big state."

The politicalmathblog didn't either, and you're not rejecting it out of hand. Everyone who cites some statistic in pursuit of calling Texas's job record a "miracle" has to ignore the size of Texas's population, and it's population growth rate.

If you account for those factors, it looks like a below-average jobs record, and we can't have that.

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

But do the directions of these bars even mean anything? Look at the "best" state on the list. It's Michigan. Is Michigan's economy doing well lately?

The bar isn't meant to show goodness or badness, but the rate & direction of change. Michigan was in bad shape, but it's improving quickly.
Here's the unemployment rates of Texas vs. Michigan.

Texas was at 4.5% before, rose to about 8% and then never really got better. Michigan started at 7%, rose to 14%, and then rapidly went down to 10%. Both are unfortunately taking turns for the worse as the economy weakens again.

What's that mean? Hard to say in isolation, but someone could easily make a bunch of charts to support the idea of a "Michigan miracle", and spin a story about how it was Obama's rescue of the auto industry that's responsible, and that Texas has stagnated at its peak because it refuses to engage in fiscal stimulus.

You know, sorta like politicalmathblog did for Texas...

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:
This makes me believe that this measurement has little to do with the actual economic health of a state.
Maybe some smarty pants economist can come explain why I should care about that chart, but for now I don't, and I don't think you should either.

If you want a smartypants economist saying the same thing I am, I'll point you to the link included in the thinkprogress article with Paul Krugman giving his analysis of the Texas job situation.

>> ^hpqp:

The only way to help Islamic societies into the 21st century is by attacking the religious ideology of Islam itself.
btw, suggesting that AHA is militating to "bomb Islamic societies into dust" is dishonest and, frankly, fucking stupid. You remind me of the media you hate so much, needing to fit everything into your simplistic, dualist narrative.
>> ^Yogi:
She's for crushing Islam, I can't support her view. She makes good points about how women in islamic societies are treated horribly, but that means that we should help Islamic societies to join the 21st century not bomb them into dust or install leaders to make them more radical.



Not in this video no but she has and does. BTW I really hope I meet you one day.

The only way to help Islamic societies into the 21st century is by attacking the religious ideology of Islam itself.

btw, suggesting that AHA is militating to "bomb Islamic societies into dust" is dishonest and, frankly, fucking stupid. You remind me of the media you hate so much, needing to fit everything into your simplistic, dualist narrative.

>> ^Yogi:

She's for crushing Islam, I can't support her view. She makes good points about how women in islamic societies are treated horribly, but that means that we should help Islamic societies to join the 21st century not bomb them into dust or install leaders to make them more radical.

aha, but which part of it is sarcasm?

>> ^ForgedReality:

>> ^hpqp:
Little known fact: skittles taste better than cum.

Not sure exactly why you marked this as sarcasm....

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
What was the "test" and how did this thing "pass" it? This was more of a demonstration.

Nature:According to a privacy-impact statement previously released by the DHS, tests of FAST involve instructing some people passing through the system to carry out a "disruptive act".
...
As for where precisely FAST is being tested, that for now remains a closely guarded secret. The DHS says that although the first round was completed at the end of March, more testing is in the works, and the agency is concerned that letting people know where the tests are taking place could affect the outcome.
/
I had quoted the youtube source description ("passes" the first round of tests), but I've changed my description to "completes" since that's more accurate.


Aha... (sorry, I couldn't be bothered with clicking links this morning.)