Yeah, that Krugman piece was pretty ridiculous.
'It wasn't the big banks that caused the crash, it was smaller banks....like Lehman Bro's' (really, smaller?), not BofA and their cohorts.....um....no. I'm sure he's technically correct, that SOME economists have said that, but not those that are impartial.

I'm also getting pretty sick of this lie that Sanders didn't have a plan and couldn't answer the question of "how do you break up the big banks". It's a lie, pure and simple, and only works on the ignorant willing to listen to edited 'interviews' where his actual answer is cut out, or willing to believe those with a clear bias against him. He had a clear plan, he explained it, it's a reasonable plan and it's well thought out. That Clinton can't 1)understand it or 2) admit it, and that her subordinates are willing to spread the lie exemplifies HER lack of qualification to be president, not his.

It's funny (sad really) that many of the 'extravagant promises' that she mentions that have taught the African-American voting block to be distrustful came from the Clintons.

Again with the 'large lead in delegates' lie.....it is 1) not large and 2) quickly evaporating. Without the (well paid for) super delegates, Clinton's lead (before losing Nevada and Missouri) was already <10%, with most states yet to vote polling heavily for Sanders (except in land line only, day time polls). In the past week, 2 states that were called for Clinton have gone to Sanders thanks to her delegates not showing up for her...even they don't really care for her enough to vote, and they're HER DELEGATES! When do we get to start saying Sanders is the clear frontrunner and that Clinton is harming the Democrats by badmouthing HIM? That day must be coming soon.

To the guilty, blame assignment is often called 'petulance' and 'self righteousness'. When one answers charges with insults against those making the charges, it's a pretty good indication that the charges are true.

The very last one is comedy gold. Also, total break-up material.

bla bla bla

You only believe in those who promote murder (Abortions).
Who keep poor people poor.
Who believe in debauchery.
Who promote the breaking up of family.

These are Democratic principals.
The party who voted to remove GOD from its party platform.


None of these ideas are good for America.

Live your ignorant trash life like the fool you are.

A man posted rap lyrics of killing his wife after a break up. She said fuck, he is threatening. Supreme court laughed, ex-husband laughed, wife cried. So to answer your question. Probably not liable for slander. Kind of like how pols can call Obama Muslim, or Hilary a whore.

Edit Added later:

Oh, and that comment pedophile comment could be easily construed as satire, which is protected. He would have to risk a lot of money to succeed...

Oh, and more. The content could be argued that it was in good faith because someone else called him it and it was reasonably believable. (That a 13 year old girl called him out on sexual harassment.) That the source was unverifiable is inconsequential. Even when they found out the woman was over age, they have no obligation for wasting time on the issue through apologies.

Blame the law, but yeah, there is that.

Your video, George Lucas Explains Why He Had To Break Up With Star Wars, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 11 Badge!

Ok so, Judge me with your opinions here...
But, I knew all this, intuitively.

I knew what was happening. I understood the persistence of vision as a given phenomenon. I can actually induce this persistence of vision on things as I look at them. Slowing down and increasing this persistence. Not a great amount, but I can do it enough to observe it. This means I can look at any normal object and move my head slowly to the side and watch the image degrade on my retina as I move my direction of vision to the side.

Now Destin, immediately saw this as a trick that fooled the mind into believing the image was a solid. But I wasn't fooled. Why wasn't I fooled? HAve I just been exposed to this before, and my mind is telling me the truth, thus negating the illusion?

I've seen similar tricks like this before, like on a wheel, to create an image, but if I concentrate I can see and immediately comprehend what is happening. I can stare long enough to break up the image and loose the illusion, and then have it come back.

I hope I'm making sense here.
So what I want to know, is, "does everyone have or not have, see or not see as I do?" I assumed we all did. So much so, that I've never had a question in my mind as to how this worked or that it was a trick.

Tell me I'm crazy, that's fine. But I'm interested in what other people are perceiving.

Similarly to any spouse who's been cheated on.

Worth noting he's not necessarily going to be a single parent, though. They may not break up and she may not go to prison.

Original Space X Broadcast with more info. Like and share to show support maybe?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeiBFtkrZEw

Nasa Broadcast from a different, more clearly visible angle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K030HRTutU&feature=youtu.be&t=133


I wonder what an equivalent pile of rocket-shaped money would look like upon breaking up..

I cant tell what's going on here at all. I'll read the article in a bit, but the title of the video doesn't seem to reflect what's going on. I was expecting a texas cop to break up a group of people (i.e. kids from a pool party or something) who were ganging up on some black kids.

Jesus fucking christ. That poor girl. That poor girl. I wish that fat white fuck had just suplexed that piece of shit off of her. This is fucking ridiculous. What must have been going through that poor girls mind... Omg.

So my instinctive late morning breaks were right all along! I love breaking up the work day into thirds. Start around 7:30 or 8AM, a long break around 10:30, then late lunch around 1:30PM. Unfortunately I'm the only person who likes it that way, so everybody thinks I'm weird.

Watch the movie again and see how much line the guy pulls up. That's about ten waders in length, almost in the middle of what looks like a well-defined channel. Even if it was out lengthwise, that tells me there's a decent current there.

Next, try and go swimming in waders, or get them off when you're either in water or hanging on to a broken ice ledge.

The guy doesn't have ice pick safety devices in easy reach, it's windy as heck, and the conditions are slushy which means that ice is breaking up. And the ice in the hole doesn't look very thick either, maybe a couple inches from what I can see.

I'm "quick to judge" because I'm also an experienced ice fisherman. From all evidence that's visible in the video, that's a very dangerous way to fish.

Congratulations! Your comment on Don't break up with fossil fuels has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment on Don't break up with fossil fuels has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.