I certainly wouldn't argue with that. The problem is that the rich fellas at the top don't give a crap about the average person's standard of living. So they take all our tax money and spend it on a military to protect their investments. I really wish the people of this country would figure that out. It's gonna bite us in the ass before too long.

Yes, we are letting other countries mooch, but in reality, we spend all that money on the military in order to have a global presence which props up our business interests. What it really is, is subsidizing global corporations. Remember, we've got the number one military by a huge margin, and we also have the largest GDP by a huge margin. Interestingly, our GDP is not as proportionally huge as our military is. We're not getting the best bang for our buck...

Big badda boom.

Funny video, but it's a load of horsecrap.

All the other "annoying, cutesy, toys" worked in the overall context of the film. Ewoks stood out like a sore thumb. Mostly because they were overstuffed. If they had been able to move like the deadly warriors that they were meant to be, it would have been fine. But as it was, the Ewoks were the first sign of Lucas' pandering to children, the beginning of his downward spiral.

Well, they don't call it Fontucky for nothing.

And yet, two people won.

Sometimes I look at a video like this and think, would still I be outraged if I hadn't been prepped for outrage by the title and description? I don't know. I like to think so. I've loved books since grade school. But would it have occurred to me to treat every copy as if it was sacred? Or would I have just thought, "What a waste of time" like I think of most DIY projects?

>> ^charliem:

Wait....the voice over guy states that cannabis has negative health side effects....but doesnt say what they are..??


My thoughts exactly. Maybe he's talking about the negative aspects of inhaling a burnt substance? That is easily bypassed. The only other negative side affect I know of is the altered mental state, which is only a negative if you don't want it. Maybe also "the munchies".

Spoiler: The answer is Yes.

OMG, get the crazy off me...

>> ^RhesusMonk:

No one asked you to defend anything, bub. Didn't mean to pick a fight.>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^RhesusMonk:
I'm pretty sure I know why you don't think this is real (whether you're aware of it or not), and it has nothing to do with nuance. Play it again. (a) The voice does doppler as he moves to and from the mic; (b) There is not a single moment where the lips or Adam's Apple are not perfectly in sync with the recording (a near impossibility while lip-syncing, especially with this guy's idiosyncratic syncopation); (c) The acoustics in that auditorium are excellent (considering how loud the performers' snaps come through), which may explain the reduced dopplering that you experienced; (d) It is very unlikely that the mic in the video is the only device through which the recording was made, which again explains reduced doppler effect. I hate to call you out, but the unlikeliness of this guy's voice is what makes this so incredibly promote-able.>> ^MaxWilder:
I find it hard to believe this is real. Not because he doesn't "look" like he could have that kind of voice, but because the sound of his voice is rock solid and extremely nuanced while the man is nowhere near the mic and constantly changing position. I could totally be wrong, but I don't think you get that kind of recording outside of a studio.
Edit: Awesome version of this song, whoever actually sang it.


You're pretty sure of my deep inner beliefs? Pray tell, what are they?
Also, moving toward/away from a mic should cause change in volume, not a noticeable doppler effect. He would have to be running past the microphone for that to happen.
And since I explicitly said "I could totally be wrong" I see no need to defend my opinions, which are my honest opinions and I stand behind them after multiple viewings.



Ok... contradicting everything I said, claiming to know what I'm actually thinking is different from what I posted, and then using the phrase "call you out"... and you didn't mean to pick a fight? I think perhaps you need to consider your words a tiny bit more before hitting that "submit" button.

>> ^RhesusMonk:

I'm pretty sure I know why you don't think this is real (whether you're aware of it or not), and it has nothing to do with nuance. Play it again. (a) The voice does doppler as he moves to and from the mic; (b) There is not a single moment where the lips or Adam's Apple are not perfectly in sync with the recording (a near impossibility while lip-syncing, especially with this guy's idiosyncratic syncopation); (c) The acoustics in that auditorium are excellent (considering how loud the performers' snaps come through), which may explain the reduced dopplering that you experienced; (d) It is very unlikely that the mic in the video is the only device through which the recording was made, which again explains reduced doppler effect. I hate to call you out, but the unlikeliness of this guy's voice is what makes this so incredibly promote-able.>> ^MaxWilder:
I find it hard to believe this is real. Not because he doesn't "look" like he could have that kind of voice, but because the sound of his voice is rock solid and extremely nuanced while the man is nowhere near the mic and constantly changing position. I could totally be wrong, but I don't think you get that kind of recording outside of a studio.
Edit: Awesome version of this song, whoever actually sang it.



You're pretty sure of my deep inner beliefs? Pray tell, what are they?

Also, moving toward/away from a mic should cause change in volume, not a noticeable doppler effect. He would have to be running past the microphone for that to happen.

And since I explicitly said "I could totally be wrong" I see no need to defend my opinions, which are my honest opinions and I stand behind them after multiple viewings.

I think the bird is crying because it is trapped inside a device that measures its oxygen use.

While I agree that Dr. Phil is a hypocrite and frequently flat-out wrong, that doesn't change the fact that this trigger happy hick is an idiot. He acted out of anger to destroy something that his child held as valuable. Not as a teaching moment, out of anger. If he had not acted out of anger, he would have donated the laptop to a charity, or at least sold it to recoup the money he spent on it. It's really as simple as that. But he was pissed at the kid, and couldn't shoot her, so he shot something she loved. I really hope the kid gets the right message out of this, but it's just as likely that she'll learn that's what you do when angry. You destroy something to hurt the person you are angry at. Parenting fail, no matter how you look at it. And that's even before the public shaming. And let's be honest, she's only shamed because her parent has made a public idiot of himself.

Full version is a little bit closer to making sense: http://youtu.be/iwM4fborwJk