I just coined a term for my dislike of remakes....
I have redux reflux.

And how did Breitbart respond?

By attacking the messenger

So there are so many things wrong with those fucking nazi assholes stupid argument, I don't know where to start.

Let's see:
sexism? check! She's just a pretty girl....
Ad hominem? check!
Being completely wrong about climate change? check!

oh and my favourite part... they attempted to coin a new logical fallacy... in their words "argumentum ad puellam pulchram. (aka the Argument from a Pretty Girl)".

Except the fucking morons can't even get the latin right.

"Argumentum ad" is arguing TO not FROM, i.e. they are attacking a "pretty girl", not being attacked by.

They inadvertently exposed their own fallacy while trying to make up a new one.

Morons....

*ban
XE Coin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbcMRSkcPLY

These comments are hardly written as if they are your "opinion".

"Cant take him seriously anyone since I realized he deletes comments that use facts to disprove him or expose his hypocrisy."

and

"Too many cases to list. I was actually a fan of him once, but then, after a few cases, realized he only takes sources that fit his agenda and does never look at the other side of the coin. He ignores other sources and facts completely. And if you dare to bring that up, or even ask why, your comment gets deleted. Politics, science, demographics, history, etc. Hes cherry picking and think people dont check for themselves."

I would be totally interested (and why I'd like you to bother) to know if he is being deceitful as ive never heard this about him. If you are going to make accusations like these you should probably show us what you know (evidence). Don't you think?

Too many cases to list. I was actually a fan of him once, but then, after a few cases, realized he only takes sources that fit his agenda and does never look at the other side of the coin. He ignores other sources and facts completely. And if you dare to bring that up, or even ask why, your comment gets deleted. Politics, science, demographics, history, etc. Hes cherry picking and think people dont check for themselves.

Coin-tel Pro? I thought it was Co-intel Pro, as in intelligence.

Important to have an actual measure of radioactivity. There's a pretty wide spread between banana level and chernobyl level.

I haven't been able to find a number for this exact plant, but the same process in Idaho listed here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0734242X05800217

This article states the highest radioactivity concentration from at 1780 Bq/kg primarily from Radon.

For reference, the potassium in Bananas makes them radioactive with a concentration of 82 Bq/Kg. So from that perspective, it's 20 times more radioactive than that same amount of Banana pulp.

I'm not sure how to directly translate, but the American standard for Radon in basements is set as being lower than 150 Bq/m^3. So your typical basement already is deemed acceptable when every 10 m^3 of basement air holds as much radioactive radon as a kg of the waste being discussed. The acceptable basement standard unquestionably takes up a much larger space, but it's mass would drastically less. I'm not an expert, but from that it almost sounds like a coin toss to whether breathing air at the highest threshold or drinking this stuff undiluted is worse for you in the long haul.

George Carlin would have a field day over this "softening" business. The person that coined the term softening needs to have their brains softened with a mallet.

The President does have enough power to totally sink us IF they're volatile enough. Simple incompetence in a president doesn't sink us. However, that can cost lives. 1,833 people died officially from Katrina, although obviously not that many were directly from the utter incompetence of the Bush administration. 4,500 Americans have died in Iraq during the invasion and subsequent occupation. These things don't "sink" the US completely, but they're VERY consequential.

But Trump is incompetent AND volatile. Bringing both of those qualities to the table as president, and you've got much much bigger issues.

Finally, I absolutely do not get the charges of personal corruption against Hillary Clinton, especially when compared to Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton, so far as I can tell, is an agent who is operating within a system that has been corrupted, and not personally by her. The system needs to be reformed. She's done things to win within the system that you'd ideally not do. But I don't get how she is personally corrupt.

But you speak as if Clinton is the competent but corrupt one, and Trump is the incompetent but non-corrupt one, which blows my mind. How is the only way you can be corrupt is through accepting campaign contributions? How is Trump University not an indictment of how corrupt Trump personally is? How is it not corrupt to appeal to white supremacists? How is it not corrupt to name call, incite your supporters to violence, and dismiss women because they must be on their periods? How is it not corrupt to have your daughter make a speech at the RNC and then tweet how to buy the dress she was wearing, so she could make some coin?

Because one of those forms of corruption is being potentially corrupted by a corrupt system, but they're at least trying to reform that system. Hillary Clinton is the one against Citizens United, officially calling for a constitutional amendment to get rid of it. Has Donald Trump?

I don't think HRC will be a great president. I don't particularly like her much. However, she is qualified to be President. She's done nothing illegal, which is the hallmark of whether someone is corrupt.

And don't kid yourself about our government's ability containing a fascist. The Weimar Republic's government had structures in place to prevent the rise of Hitler, too. They had separation of powers. The government was one of the most democratic governments in the world. Fat lot of good that did.

I'm not saying necessarily that Trump is the next Hitler. But I am saying that there are enough similarities that I can't vote for him, and the mere fact he got a major party's nomination is scary beyond all reason. And voting for someone like that proves out their blueprint for future candidates across the board for offices in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches at all levels of government.

As much as I don't like HRC, Trump is easily the worse major party's nominee in a very very very long time.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/How-do-vending-machines-figure-out-if-coins-are-fake-or-not-1

At this point, you have a point. The only way I see it working for Sanders now is if she's indicted, becomes seriously ill, or is killed. Otherwise, yes, her supporters would (and should) balk at nominating Sanders under those circumstances just as many Sanders supporters balk at nominating her today. It's an impasse on both sides that may lead to President Trump (hold on, I just threw up a little), and one with no clear solution.
Sadly, insanely, that seems to be where we're headed, to a coin flip for the most important position on the planet with no good outcome possible, just bad or terrible.
Time to build my floating island and move on.

"Evil" is a moral judgement that is a personal opinion. To say she's not "evil" is meaningless, because it all depends on what you think is evil, and there's clearly no consensus about that.

What she's clearly not for most people is trustworthy. Time and time again she's demonstrated that to the satisfaction of well over 1/2 the American people (at least according to all polls done on the subject). No matter what your personal opinion is about her or how wrong you might think those detractors are, that they say they think that is a fact, and that makes the election a coin toss...and unfortunately the Republicans supply the coin (because they make the voting machines).

In my mind, if I can't trust a person, it doesn't matter a whit what they say they'll do, because I can't believe they mean it or will follow through. I feel that way about both Clinton and Trump, but to differing degrees. I think they both have put their own interests above those of the country, and will do so again.

As a Republican that switched to Democrat for Bernie, screw that!

First off, I'm not a Bernie Bro. That's a derogatory term coined by the Clinton campaign to marginalize the Sanders followers.

Secondly, I don't vote for corruption. There's far too much evidence that Hillary's done twisted stuff, and I'll not be party to it. The problem is that when corruption wins, it makes fighting future corruption all the more difficult. Hillary has enough political experience that she can put into place obstacles for future progressive movements like Bernie's, and that's a problem.

Trump may have his own issues, but at very least he won't make an already unfair system even worse, which would have a longer term impact on the democracy of this country.

Walls can be torn down, Muslim immigrants can start entering again after 4 years, and not all conservative Supreme Court Justices are terrible. (Scalia actually was a pretty bright guy that passed quite a number of laws that had positive effect, for example. And despite him, the more progressive laws were still passed.)

I'm not saying I'll vote Trump, as Stein and Johnson are still options, but I certainly won't help Hillary in any way.

A smart person can do more damage than an idiot.