Overflying a nuke plant is LEGAL in Switzerland and pot ain't. That's some fucked up sense of priorities there.

Also: no foxes were harmed in the production of this video.

*quality *nsfw edumacation [ooooh and pot brownies!] Love this guy immensely

Your right but in Zimmerman neighborhood there have been break in by young black men. Hence young black thiefs' set the precedent for Martin to be followed.


If it were young white kids doing the break ins then Zimmerman would have followed them.

Its been later found but not allowed in the trial ( rightly so) that Martin had burgles tools and pot items in his locker, Woman's Jewelery. Also the pictures of him smoking pot and the gun photo on his phone and apparently he took a Swing at a bus driver.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120504/Trayvon-Martin-case-He-suspended-times-caught-burglary-tool.html



In the end Martin is a young man embarking on his criminal carer and decided to teach Zimmerman a lesson and lost.

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^BoneRemake:
>> ^spoco2:
A useless video. How did that show that it worked? How do we know that it made the ride smoother? What are we supposed to be seeing from the video? What are we noting? How do we know anything from that?
They have zero ability in getting across information. Terrible scientist (as part of science is conveying ideas).

Your reply is hilarious! did you just stub your toe or get a talkin to from "the boss" ? ?
you're just blabbering bullshit like its 1955.

Please do tell us then, how that video shows that this solution works.
Did it show that from within the car there was less bump than before it was put in the pothole?
Did it tell us what we were looking for from this solution? That the black mat stayed there? That it didn't move? What exactly?
Did it show a comparison of having the hole filled with sand and have 100 cars drive over it?
I'm not sure why 1955 was a particular year for bullshit either.



Did it show that from within the car there was less bump : It showed the pot hole not blasting the liquid out of its bag. Busting a nut if you will. If a hole that is 3 or 5 inches deep is filled, that hole is not a hole anymore now is it ? pot hole solved. would you rather hit a bump that has a half inch deformation or would you rather hit the hole head on with its substantial drop/bump factor ? if your an asshole you would of said yes.

Did it show a comparison of having the hole filled with sand and 100 cars drive over it ? No, it did not, the fact you asked that seems fairly odd as it clearly shows it did not. On that note, any ass who has passed grade 2 would know that if a hole that was filled with sand,dirt,mud,clay or rocks etc. the loose debris would be dislodged and blast out of there like your daddy did to create you. leaving what ? A FUCKIN HOLE.


Did it tell us what we were looking for from this solution? what you are looking for ?? its a god damn hole in the earth that is filled providing LESS of a fuckin hole in the earth.

That the black mat stayed there? That it didn't move? The black mat is just there for surface traction/absorption of energy/ and a over all nicer gentler ride over THE BIG FUCKIN HOLE.

I found that you got all pissy over something you did not understand fully. You go all substandard with your criticism and its just your own ignorance that seems to have perpetuated your thoughts. This video is a great video depicting a fantastic idea.

I am not the smartest man, but I knew the second I read " non newtonian fluid" and pot hole (bag) that it was a fanfuckin tastic idea.

I guess what I mean is the video depicts a great deal if you know some shit about some shit.

fuck off i'm goin fur a smoke. I havent wasted this much time on another poster in a while, excuse me.

*Howto seek real justice!

The majority of crime isn't committed by people who grew up saying "when I grow up I wanna sell coke and go to jail!"

Crime is a clear demonstration of the lack of purposeful employment opportunities as well as the inequality between rich and poor.

But I guess the takeaway is that the state has to be in financial trouble before it realizes it cannot lock every nose picker and pot smoker up, and Canada isn't going to be in financial trouble until the oilsands dry up. Perhaps what the conservatives don't quite grasp is how many Canadians smoke pot and work 9-5 jobs...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'lesbians, good giving and game, being creative, that and pot' to 'lesbians, good giving and game, GGG, being creative, that and pot' - edited by calvados

Ya know the government and law enforcement agencies are always telling us they're thwarting terrorists and protecting us from villains often with no demonstrable evidence. And they have time to harass farmers and pot growers and anyone that looks at them wrong. I'm told constantly we need more cops...how about take the moron FBI agents that are investigating stupid things that don't hurt anyone and put them on the street with a badge and have them patrol. Maybe then they'd be doing a public SERVICE...which is what they're supposed to be doing Serving US!

lol..off the top of your head..now you're just full of shit..those are popular atheist talking points. pathetic. You utterly failed to prove your case; apparently the bible is historically accurate, and you admit this but only for the things you want to prove. like your contention about the freed slaves. It's obvious im arguing with a search engine, a dishonest, disingenuous search engine at that. you don't actually know anything about the bible, or history..what's been discredited here is your testimony. >> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
what I did say however is that it has never, and that is, not once, been proven historically inaccurate
Four off the top of my head, massive events which would leave piles of evidence in the most dug up part of the world, and their complete absence from the archeological record constitutes proof?
In short your argument is that absences of evidence is evidence of accuracy?
>> ^shinyblurry:
evidence of solomons temple http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071023-jerusale
m-artifacts.html

Did you read the link? They found some bone and pot shards, no link to any building or complex like the biblical temple.
>> ^shinyblurry:
evidence of exodus: http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

Half a dozen vague artifacts with pages of excuses as to how they might vaguely "prove" biblical authenticity? Apologetics is not archeology. You still, for some reason, claimed archeology backs you up. If you want anyone to accept that you are going to have to come up with some archeological evidence.

>> ^shinyblurry:
what I did say however is that it has never, and that is, not once, been proven historically inaccurate

Four off the top of my head, massive events which would leave piles of evidence in the most dug up part of the world, and their complete absence from the archeological record constitutes proof?

In short your argument is that absences of evidence is evidence of accuracy?

>> ^shinyblurry:

evidence of solomons temple http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071023-jerusale
m-artifacts.html



Did you read the link? They found some bone and pot shards, no link to any building or complex like the biblical temple.

>> ^shinyblurry:



evidence of exodus: http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

Half a dozen vague artifacts with pages of excuses as to how they might vaguely "prove" biblical authenticity? Apologetics is not archeology. You still, for some reason, claimed archeology backs you up. If you want anyone to accept that you are going to have to come up with some archeological evidence.

Thats incredible. Good for them. Now if all the stoners in Canada would do that, maybe they would be heard. But no mannnn, peace love and pot, were going to do sit ins at our mp's offices.. That will show them !

Actually I never had tried Meth,

2 months ago I tried Ecstasy/mdma for the first time... Lets just say I liked that too much I am super glad it is not around me very much. Feeling down ? want to touch the moon and drink the sun? eat this pill and you will. but 3 hours later you will want to eat another one because the moon and sun fade out of reach....


my sister was like Rehab addicted to meth so no.. no meth for me. I do however drink WAY to much. Alcohol should be illegal and pot take its place.

Wait, so..

He was found by police in the parking lot of a closed business at 6:15 in the morning with some beer and pot.. and a 15 yr old girl.. and they just told him to go home?!

::hazy eyes:: Sorry, ossifer. I'll get home- hiccup- IMMEDIATELY!!

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^ipfreely:
Well, instead of feeling sorry for these prisoners. Lets find out about these "Forced Labor Camp"
Has anyone actually spoken to these prisoners and gotten their views about this? No? Then lets not sit here and feeling sorry for them.
Forced labor? more like "Here are some job skills you can learn, maybe kill 8 hours of your life that you are going to lose anyway. Make the best of it instead of being forced to sit in your jail cell or walking around in a yard."
Or maybe "Hey, want to help America? Produce some much needed equipment for American soldiers. Make yourself feel good about yourself."
I'm pretty sure they are treated much better than some third world sweatshop child laborer.
Lets not lose any sympathy for the prisoners. Save them for the kids who have really no choice in real world.

I wonder why this comment recieved 3 downvotes. Honestly think whilst you read my post, don't simply react and go "SLAVERY BAAAAAD".
We are, after all, talking about people who we take out of society and lock in a cage. If we lock a human in a cage and deny them their freedom if not their life, why are we suddenly so indignant when we are getting work out of them? Is the work bit so bad compared to the cage bit?
Imprisoning someone, locking them in a cage, taking away their life and freedom - YAYYY, GOOD!
Forcing someone to work in reasonable conditions with shitty pay - NOOOO, TERRIBLE!
Just food for thought, guys. Obviously we need prisons to stop people hurting others, but after i stopped for a minute and thought about it, it just made me wonder:
a) why we all feel so indignant about the 'slavery' over the 'bondage'
b) why we lock people up for carrying or using drugs - surely we should lock them up IF we catch them in the act of stealing/harming others to feed their drug habit or tossing away dangerous needles/chemicals unsafely, but other than this, why do we need to lock these people in a cage? They only hurt themselves.
...well, ok they may 'hurt' their relatives too, but so do smokers, drinkers, gamblers and over-eaters.


your argument would be pertinent and concise if we didnt consider a few facts:
1.the prison system is no longer about rehabilitation or punishment but much more to do with corporate business and politics.
2.labor camps would not be an issue if A.the labor was voluntary B.defense contractors and corporations didnt profit from this labor and C.they were actually being taught skills which could translate to a job with livable wages (there are a few prisons which offer this but they are a minority and have limited openings and availability).

one more point i would like to make concerning your argument.
you create a false premise by making it out to seem that others only have a problem with the forced labor issue but not with the actual incarceration.
this is patently false.nobody is saying that violent criminals,thieves or drug dealers should not be punished and removed from society.what we ARE saying is that non-violent offenders,petty thieves and pot smokers should not be spending years in a penitentiary and then,as an example, being forced to labor for the profit of a giant defense contractor,who reaps huge profits.

let me conclude with a few things to think about:
we find ourselves in a dilemma.on the one hand america is incarcerating more people than the rest of the world combined and the majority for non-violent offenses.
on the other hand we have created a HUGE prison industry which employs millions of people to keep it running.sometimes whole townships entire economy is based on a single federal prison.
so what do we do?
if we legalize weed and change it from a type A narcotic to a mush lesser class we would effectively diminish the prison population on a massive scale.this means lost revenue for corporate run prisons and means major unemployment which could devastate entire communities.
this is the dilemma and to me it is a moral one but there is no easy answer.

Why bother to quit smoking? Longer life? You'll miss the last 10 years, drooling in a wheelchair. Better breath? You're getting laid/GF now, aren't you? Yellow fingernails? You're not gay, who gives a shit? Breathe easier? Unless your job involves running from bears, as an adult you don't need to sprint. Ever.

If you're going to choose life, make your vice something healthy, like cigars and pot.

Would I have chastised you if Aemaeth was a Scientologist or polite Neo-Nazi? That's a very good question. Probably not. It depends.

I understand your disdain for the LDS. A long time ago I sublet some studio space to a recently converted Mormon, and had to endure the proselytizing every day. I agree, it's laughable at the least, and dangerous at the worst. But I put up with it because just prior to his conversion, his young son had died suddenly in his sleep, without any medical explanation. He had no real support from friends or family, and this was his "port in a storm" I guess. A Mormon must have knocked on his door at just the right (wrong) time. You would surely cite this as opportunistic and playing on the weak, and I wouldn't disagree. I think he shook it eventually and moved on to hard-core Ufology. Just as kooky, but I thought that was more interesting, at least.

I am as disgusted as you at the politicization of the church. Despite our recent victory in Connecticut, there's still a strong anti-gay sentiment brewing. We get robocalls about it all the time, somebody's trying to see if there is enough support for a referendum. I don't think my response was recorded though, since it was full of invective that couldn't be deciphered by the computer doing the calling.

I think you and I are probably politically and ideologically very similar. I can think of a few things we might not agree on, but for the most part I hazard the guess that we are like-minded. There's some contrast in how we go about it though. I think minds are fragile, and need to be opened carefully because otherwise they break or snap shut for good. You're angrier than that, I imagine in this case because of the Prop8 debacle. That's fine, I'm angry too.

But I'm still curious about where your morality comes from. It's not entirely natural, although you do see altruism in primates and some other mammals. You must have learned it from someone. Parents, teachers, television, sunday school. I am willing to bet that a majority of atheists come from loving and secure family settings, where kindness and decency and love feel like natural principals of the universe. Why would we need a god, we know what's right and how to look after one another. The trouble is, it's not true of everybody. For many people God is that stern but loving father they never had. That's the only reason I defend the religioulous. Don't take it for granted where your morality comes from, and give a moment's thought to others less fortunate is all I'm saying.

What a lovely chat. I wish we had beer and pot and a glowing fire.




In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
You can't blame me for breathing on a wilting violet. This was a dialog, not a monologue. If Aemaeth didn't want a discussion, then he shouldn't have responded to my video in the first place. He's no victim.

I wasn't trying to chase him off the site. I was just trying to seed some doubt and engage him in some frank conversation. I'd love nothing more than for him to come back and stand up for himself. He could bring his friends too if he likes. The more the merrier.

Again, I'm going to re-iterate that there is a double standard when it comes to religion. The religious are allowed to damn people to hell and decide which humans are allowed to be married, but point out some glaring problems within a faith and all of a sudden you become Darth Vader.

Inelegantly: fuck that

I honestly find Mormonism very troubling, from it's morally disgusting inception, to it's unbelievable mythology, to its history of discrimination and misogyny, to its recent foyer into politics. I see it as a negative force in the world and would like to seed some doubt among its followers.

Can I be tolerant and severely critical at the same time?

Here are some questions that culture tells me I shouldn't ask.

-Joseph Smith had 33 wives, some of them as young as 14, some of them were others men's wives. How does this square with Mormon views on morality? How can you follow the teachings of a despicable lech and then seek to limit the rights of gay people?

-Do Mormons really believe that God waited 1800 years and then revealed himself to some dude in rural Utah, whom he instructed to sex up dozens of women and girls?

-Is it possible that this entire religion started out as a sex cult?

-Do Mormons really believe that Native Americans are actually a lost Jewish tribe?

Does tolerance require my silence on these points?

Would you have chastised me if Aemaeth was a Scientologist, or a polite Neo-Nazi?

Does tolerance have limits?