Honestly @Mordhaus, you can't even make up your own mind.

You start off saying "Almost every single country benefits from 'illegal' immigrants" Then you go on to list a bunch of reasons why they hurt the labor market.

True, immigrants drive wages down, especially illegal immigrants. That's part of the point, Right-wing politicians have protected businesses from the fallout, now they want to turn around and pretend to be the "good guys" protecting American jobs.

Americans complain when their McDonalds costs too much and complain when they can't get decent pay for working at McDonalds. Which do you want?

Still, none of that is the immigrants fault. It's the government and the businesses. Punish them.

@newtboy,

You said:Stop.

Glad we might be getting somewhere .

I agree on not forgiving the blatantly racist factions. I've said the same thing of ISIS, jihadists and their ilk. They and guys like Richard Spencer remain the mortal enemies of civilization. We never accept them or their ideas, if they want peace or cooperation, they are the ones that need to change.

I do still fear that for all practical purposes your position, and seemingly that of the democrats and protesters out in force, is little different from writing off everyone that voted Trump. If the expectation is that Trump voters need to be the ones that swallow all the change or make all the compromises then the difference doesn't matter. If you want to get people to vote your ticket or candidate, you've got to be the ones reaching out. Demanding the prospective voters come apologetically to your party isn't drawing them in, it's driving them away.

Neil Mcdonald from CBC I think summed up where a lot of Trump voters came to the conclusion that Hillary was no lesser evil:
You can bet they're listening closely every year at Halloween, when progressives reliably denounce as racist anyone allowing their children to dress up as a member of any other culture. Like, say, sending a little girl out dressed as Mulan.

Or when they're denounced as Islamophobes for even discussing the question of why so many people who commit mass murder of innocents do it in the name of Allah. Or as transphobes for using the pronouns "he" or "she" without explicit permission. Or as homophobes for obeying their priest or imam. Or as some sort of uninclusive-o-phobe for uttering the phrase "Merry Christmas."

There are millions of people out there who aren't terribly interested in a lecture about the difference between "cisnormative" and "heteronormative," and how both words supposedly describe something shameful.

I can't name any organisation anymore that seems to hit it consistently. Frontline is still pretty consistently good. The few print papers like NYTimes are more likely to host real journalists in amongst everything else needed to keep sales going.

Largely it's individuals, and they are running short. Some of the best access to news is stuff like Charlie Rose, and the Daily Show in Stewart's day when they would have on knowledgeable or important guests on air. Neither Charlie Rose, Jon Stewart or their guests counting strictly as journalists, but they provided great access to individuals with good or unique perspectives. Neil McDonald on CBC seems good at staying balanced, one of the few names I can throw out as having a real journalistic credibility.

For the most part though, news paper journalism seems dead. The best sources of information on subjects seems to have become relegated to authors of old fashion books. There you can still find guys like Peter Galbraith writing good insightful and informed stuff.

And of course, the late Christopher Hitchens, now you've gone and made me sad...

*ban
Efetobor Mcdonald Okeligho
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFlZw8Xepsk

And what significance did the McWraps have in your life? Gave you some sloppy shits? And what McDonalds did you go to that had the foresight of using bitcoins?

I feel the same way about McDonald's breakfast McWraps.

Your video, The Truth About the Infamous McDonald's Hot Coffee Incident, 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 is more of an opinion. While other lawsuits have failed and Mcdonalds as a chain has not changed their holding temperature, they and other retailers have made significant effort to make warnings clearer, as well as adding cup features to mitigate or prevent the likelihood of spills.

In the case of the original lawsuit, 12 jurors found that they agreed that Mcdonalds had failed in providing adequate recompense. The lady simply wanted her medical bills covered, a statistical zero loss for a company the size of Mcdonalds. They made a huge error in deciding this was the case that they were going to take to court to prove, once and for all, that they were right and that customers who burned themselves could go pound sand. In retrospect, they should have settled for the medical bills out of court.

Maybe the rest of you were unaware of the facts of this case until you watched some video but I researched this story in the 90's so this video by Adam didn't tell me anything new and Adasm didn't ruin anything for me. I simply disagree with the emotional bias people seem to bring to the case. In my opinion there is one issue. Was McDonald's negligent in serving coffee at 180F. The answer regardless of botched testimony is no. The proof is in the fact that virtually all major vendors of coffee from Starbucks to Dunkin Donuts serve their coffee at that temperature to this day. The difference now is that they are more careful about warnings and labels to let their customers know that, you know, their coffee is hot.

They could have made a case that the cup was too fragile but that wasn't the problem. The woman even made a point of saying that she opened the cup away from herself to avoid spilling but spilled it anyways which to me indicates that she was aware of the risk.

Were the woman's injuries horrible. Yes. Was McDonald's response and testimony incredibly douchy? Yes. Does that in and of itself make them liable. No

And @enoch thanks for the link to the video I watched 3 years ago. You'll notice I didn't upvote that one either. You could have linked me to the documentary "Hot Coffee" that I watched 5 years ago. Here's a new one for you but maybe you've seen it.
*related http://videosift.com/video/The-Truth-About-the-Infamous-McDonalds-Hot-Coffee-Incident

Also, I may not be as much of a bleeding heart as you but no, not a sociopath.

Adam Ruins Everything - The McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit has been added as a related post - related requested by nanrod on that post.

The Truth About the Infamous McDonald's Hot Coffee Incident has been added as a related post - related requested by nanrod.

Congratulations! Your video, Adam Ruins Everything - The McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 69 Badge!

found it!

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Burned-by-McDonalds-Hot-Coffee

The specified related post, Burned by McDonald's Hot Coffee, is already associated with this post - bypassing related request by enoch.

yeah..i held the misconception for years until i actually was shown the full story...

and it was a fucking horror show.just the pics alone of that poor womans groin and the burn damage../cringes
if you did not have a compassionate reaction or an empathetic response.

you are a sociopath.

not to mention mcdonalds response.which was so drenched in inhuman corporate speak,that it just left me cold,and dead inside...or maybe that was just the mcdonalds representative which basically admitted that the company was playing the ratios.they KNEW how hot the coffee was,because they set the standard.

they just viewed the small percentage of customers that DID burn themselves as acceptable losses,and they used a tried and true tactic of ignoring the complaints,which usually led to people giving up.

so the jurors damage was less about the actual burns,but more about mcdonalds knowing how hot the coffee was,because they set the temperature,and the negligence on how they responded.

so while mcdonalds did settle without actual admission of guilt,they lowered the temperature by 20 degrees.

@nanrod you should check out the video here on the sift regarding this lawsuit.i am sure you will change your attitude.

hold on..lemme go find it for ya.