Good quality Japanese blades are carbon steel, with no concessions to stainlessness at all. In a humid environment (my cellar, for example) carbon steel can grow that much rust in a week, easy.

If the media had more of this kind of stuff in the past few decades instead of sensationalist or partisan bullshit, we wouldn't be in a position to need it.

It's easy to call media fake - a lot of it has been for a very long time. We who watch and discuss politics videos here would be celebrating Sanders if he was on TV right now talking about how biased a lot of media was.

The left and the right have a lot that makes them different but essentially they want the same things - security, happiness, prosperity. They disagree on how to get those things and that's all ok, but we agree to a level playing field so that things like Hitler, Trump, etc. can't happen. The playing field has to be level for everyone or people get angry. When people get angry under a theocracy or dictatorship they revolt. When people get angry under democracy, they vote for populists.

We need to hope that the playing field can be levelled again. People aren't happy with a rigged system - crony capitalism, profits before people, corporate welfare, tax dodging...

You know how people were saying it should have been Bernie vs. Trump? Well, that's because ordinary people on the left and right saw unfairness everywhere.

The left weren't going to seriously mobilise for a wishy washy weathervane like Clinton. But the angry right had their ideal candidate and they DID seriously mobilise. The kind of mobilisation that has teeth? You only get that when people believe they've got the right guy.

In my opinion, an Ocean's Eleven style heist occurred some time ago involving, basically, businessmen. People who wanted money. The best way to make money was to be involved in politics. So some businessmen joined political parties, or donated money to them and demanded a few favours. A few politicians think, hey i could use some extra money, and make a few promises. This goes on for long, eventually business and politics become the same thing and policies are designed around business and profit.

People aren't happy, the system is rigged. Trump is the immediate problem, but concessions must be made by those with money and power or another Trump will happen. He is a symptom not the cause. Desperate people place desperate votes.

Lol. That's the funniest shit I've read all day.

Your and my definition of destroy must be very different.

It was YOUR contention that any argument "followed" rather than preceded. If you don't want to be held to a claim, don't make it. Funny, that's the same as any good atheist would argue.

I wrote "any coherent arguments". I was quite specific. His "arguments" are a rambling stream of consciousness with a few statements that don't support any ideas to form a coherent argument.

Now here's where you fucked up big time: "you Trump supporters". Get ready to eat a bag of dicks because you got that wrong. I'm not. Buy them here https://www.amazon.com/Bag-Of-Dicks-Sent-Anonymously/dp/B01GKEUY1Y

"when given a cogent argument" bwhahahahahaaha. Yeah, he's not cogent.

"against your claims" bwahahahaahahaa. What claims did I make (besides Jim Jefferies not presenting an argument)?

" you consistently ignore it to focus on some insignificant, off topic bullshit, like "That proceeded-not followed-"Fuck off"" Bwhahahahahaa. This doesn't cover your mistake. You made a claim. I held you to it and pointed out that even if I didn't hold you to it you'd still fail. You're the one focusing on that point.

"when cogent arguments both preceded and followed the excellent retort to his utter bullshit." Bwhahahaahahaa. Except they didn't. You can say it's a cogent argument but that doesn't make it true. FFS I provided the transcript - it's right above - with no coherent/cogent arguments in it. I'll give the concession here that your standard for cogent/coherent may be lower than mine. "the excellent retort" is not excellent. It's a great example of someone with not much to say. It's verbal diarrhoea of someone who can't immediately think of a good retort.

Get over it mate. Jim Jefferies is a loud mouthed verbally aggressive comedian who doesn't present any good arguments in this discourse. He's great at shutting down his opponents by cutting them off with vitriol and bullshit but that's about it.

Oh, and Piers Morgan is a dick. Lol, how handy, you can add him to the bag your eating.

This segment is so short that unless you go and watch the whole thing (which I haven't) you're basically making an educated guess about what they're even arguing about.

I don't know why you're so desperate for Jim to be right. Every argument against Trump and his policies is not automatically cogent, coherent, correct, etc., even if one hates him.

Lastly, Godwin's law. He loses.

PS - This is getting boring. Unless you can assure me that you're non-partisan, and follow through with it in your arguments, I'm not willing to further discuss this with a proverbial pigeon.

Why are you saying "we enslaved"? I've never enslaved anyone. And nobody currently alive in the US has participated in legal slavery.

Even a descendant of a slave owner is not responsible for the atrocities of their ancestors - we aren't Klingons.

Yes white people did terrible things in the past, but "we" didn't do it and to take on perceived guilt for someone else's actions just because they are the same skin color as you is just self indulgent.

Further, please don't say "we expect" just as black people aren't all the same neither are white people, and one person does not speak for others unless they have been nominated to do so.

So here is what I expect: everyone on the planet regardless of race, religion, nationality and life experiences to be a decent human being, that respects the rights of others, and I expect it to go both ways, without concessions because of someone's culture.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I support Bernie, but a 3rd party run would make Trump much more likely to win. I'm hoping for party unity with major concessions to Sanders platform. Best cast: Bernie for Veep.

What exactly is valid about gamergate...?

Anyway. These people who can see all privilege except their own, who make mountains out of every molehill, who can't seem to understand nuance, martyrs without a cause... wait - I've forgotten which side of this retarded bullshit I am I talking about. The only people I can think of who whine more about nothing of real consequence than those misguided campaigner types...are those misguided campaigner types. Could you get any more #1stworldproblem than white guys complaining about integrity in games journalism? (please do enlighten me if there is something more to that besides that charade)

Honestly enoch. I don't know you, but you still mystify me completely. I can't reconcile the person who watches and posts these videos with the one who has responded to comments with respect, and even sometimes concession. How do you watch these things without your brain cells forming a puddle around your feet? Are there people who abuse political correctness? Yes, of course - people will and do abuse the best things in life. Like trust or love or welfare or selfies or god knows what else. Is the answer to brand all of these are evil tools of oppression? or, you know, to take a more, err, nuanced position and accept that a few entitled fucks doesn't invalidate occupy, or feminism, or black lives matter etc etc.

gamergate is still retarded though. That shit invalidates itself

I'm rambling. I wish I was a better at this.

@Barbar

your comment is a non sequitur.
the video was not addressing those points but solely revealing the:employee/employer dynamic.

there is plenty of documentation that backs this videos claim that when people are given the illusion of being "free" they become far more productive.

there is nothing in your examples that the state gave out of benevolence.every example you posted were hard fought battles that were executed by the people.many died to earn those concessions,and they ARE concessions.

as for your final example of "quality of life".this just equates to more comfortable slaves.

the dynamic of employer/master/owner vs slave/peon/worker remains intact.

maybe it is the usage of the term slave that you find offensive?
ok..fair enough.the word is used for dramatic effect i agree.
how about we change the terminology to:power vs powerlessness.

in that context would you find this video more palatable?

There never was an issue about concessions. They always were ready to accept their fate. But even the peace talks before only included the condition that their emperor was left untouched. And thats exactly what the USA gave them later. So not accepting peace with them was a farce from the start, no matter from what side you look at it.

Truman didnt restrain Stalin. Truman provoked Stalin massively, making him think that they would invade Russia next or at least start a war with them, which started the cold war.
The USA was always provoking, especially at the start of the cold war. Theres a well known video on Youtube (prolly even here) that shows exactly where and when nuclear tests happened. It makes perfectly obvious how much the USA provoked the Soviets.

Well, right until Pearl Harbor there were the do-fights and don't-fights. If the anti-war party hadn't been assassinated, ran out and broken, we wouldn't have had to fight Japan at all.

The problem is these people still ruled. Imagine them pressing forward with a nuclear plan (which would have absolutely occurred if they thought they could get away with it.) Interestingly Germany sent material to them to dump on our shores as a sort of nuclear bomb but we intercepted it. It is thought that we used it against Japan, which is hilarious. But I digress.

The point is--even if they planned on surrendering, they had no intention of concessions. Would those in power (who were as guilty as the Nazi) willingly turn themselves over for trial? Huehue.

As far as the Soviet issue, yeah, your facts go without saying. And Truman did get his results--he got Stalin to restrain himself (In a certain way...though there was the cold war.)

@Asmo

On your comment:

The CIA's role in the 1953 Iran ouster is generally exaggerated. Several things - (1) by 1953, the Islamic clergy supported Mossadeq's ouster, something they have been suppressing ever since in inflating their anti-US stance (2) by the time of his ouster he also lacked the support of either his parliament or the people, (3) prior to it that year, he deposed his disapproving parliament with a clearly fraudulent 99% of the vote in a national referendum, (4) strictly speaking Iran was still a monarchy and the shah deposed his PM legally under the constitution, something that Mossadeq refused to abide by.

Did the UK put economic pressure on Iran when it threatened to nationalize its oil and usurp its remnants of imperialism? Sure. Did the UK then convince Eisenhower to mount a political and propaganda campaign against Mossadeq? Sure. Was that instrumental in fomenting a popular uprising of the parliament, the clergy and large portions of the 20m general population against him? Probably not.

Also I listened to it. Really, it's a meandering, probably scripted (the parts where he feigns surprise at the questioning is particularly humorous) that tries to generalize US actions, some of which were obviously harmful and support his argument. Putting Stalin in a positive light relative to the willingness of the US to use the bomb is, amusing? I'm not sure what to call it.

That the US needs a common threat to unite against holds some grains of truth in the present day but is really part of a wider narrative by Putin to construct the US as imperalist and domineering when by all accounts since the end of the Cold War, excluding GWB's term, it has been pulling back. It hardly needed to invent Iran's covert nuclear ambitions in the early 2000s, NK's saber rattling or China's stakes on the South China Sea islands.

Modern US foreign policy largely relies on reciprocation. The US provides a military alliance and counterweight to China's military for small SE Asian nations at a hefty cost to itself, and presumably gets various trade concession and voting support in various international agencies. The key word being reciprocation, something that Russia could learn a fair bit from in its own foreign policy.

Considering the dick-waiving that the whole Star Trek vs Star Wars thing always devolves into, I actually enjoyed the light-heartedness of this skit.

That said, the purpose of the stories told by each is meant to be completely different. That Star Wars goes for the simpler, classic hero's journey doesn't make it a lesser work, it just has a more singular focus, and the original trilogy did it well. But when you have a strong foundation like that, you really can't expand on it without losing a lot of the charm of the basic story. That's part of why the sequels were so disappointing. They couldn't retell the hero's journey without being a rehash, and by focusing on the hero's downfall, they had to up the complexity of the plot. But how complex can you make a plot before it just drags the movie down? (The exception was Clone Wars, which was able to circumvent this because it had more space to tell the story.)

This is why I am fairly certain that the new Star Wars movies will be lacking. They can either go the simple route and end up with a rehash, or the complex route, and end up with a similar mess to the prequels. There's a fine line they need to ride in order to make a good set of movies, but there are a lot of things working against them, from the expectations of the Star Wars fans, to the concessions writers have to make to appeal to the mass audience of modern movies. (To say nothing of Abrams, whose insultingly abysmal treatment of Star Trek gives me little confidence.)

Now on the Star Trek end, the stories are meant to be more complex, with commentaries on philosophy, modern politics, and the human condition (as well as showing the unique technological possibilities that the future held). Most of the stories were designed for introspection, and that's a major part of what made the show popular.

But if you lose that introspection and focus on action and special effects, the stories become empty. This is why many of the later movies, which again had to focus on mass appeal, were so lacking. (Movies like Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country, Generations, and First Contact avoided this because they were able to draw on the richness of the show to round out the themes they were trying to express, but even still, they weren't quite up to par to the shows when it came to the fundamental concepts of Star Trek.) The same goes for much of Voyager and Enterprise, which often ended up going more for appeal than intellect. (Perhaps the writers ran out of things to say, perhaps the audience just got dumber, who knows.)

So in the end, which one is nerdier? Star Trek, hands down, and as ChaosEngine said, it's a good thing.

Which one is better? That depends on what kind of story you're looking for.

But in the end, there's no denying . . .


Riker is a freaking boss.

OMFG. How have republicans thoroughly forgotten bailing out the banks was under Bush?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008
BUSH bailed out first the airlines, for nothing in return, then the banks, for nothing in return. Obama sadly continued that flawed policy, but did at least get partial ownership and concessions for our money, and got our money back. Bush simply gave it away with a smile and a nod.

I've been hearing that BS since 3 years into his first term. It's just that, BS. A quick google search, ignoring political sites and sticking with non-partisan factual numbers, and not blindly putting the entire cost of the Iraq war on Obama because Bush kept it's costs 'off the books', will show you quite clearly you're wrong. He's not been good on debt, but a large part of the deficit he did run in his early years are due to the tanked Bush economy, and WAY less taxes coming in without spending cuts. I'll remind you again, republicans turned down a budget that had $10 in cuts for every $1 in new taxes, a budget that would have erased the deficit....but you still blame Obama?

Heard that before too...that Democrats forced lowering banking standards for home loans and securities through the republican held congress and against the wishes of the republicans and Bush...absolute BS not worth refuting, they simply didn't have the majority to 'force' anything.

How many people died of exposure, drowning long after the storm, starvation, lack of water, unsanitary conditions at shelters in NJ? As for rebuilding, Jersey insisted they would do it without FEMA, and even though they had the money, they haven't rebuilt a lot of what's damaged, but still probably a larger percentage than New Orleans.

Clinton absolutely did not have intelligence that Bin Laden was planning an imminent attack on American soil, Bush did. Clinton did not allow Bin Laden's relatives to leave the country after an attack, it's reported Bush did. Clinton had an opportunity to kill Bin Laden, with unknown amounts of collateral damage in a country we weren't allowed into (so an act of war), and decided to not start a war on flimsy 'intelligence'...a good plan now that we know how that goes.

I'm pretty sure you have sand up your ass, and a sever case of cranial rectosis.

Sure sounds like it fits the Logan Act to a T to me. Just because others did it and weren't charged in the past doesn't invalidate the clearly broken law.
Can anyone charge them with treason, or does it have to come from the DOJ, because I'm ready! Imagine, 3 years with standing, but absent republicans "in charge" of congress (but no longer having a majority vote)! Hilarious!
I love it that, in their 'open letter', they completely misrepresent the facts, congress doesn't ratify treaties as they claimed, nor does it take 2/3 vote to concede and let the president ratify them, and he doesn't need their concession anyway. D'oh! Another republican mega-fail. I hope they go down hard this time.

That's a sentiment I've been hearing much more lately.

If enough people start saying it, it's even possible that some changes could be made.

Of course, it's also possible that Europe will just keep muddling through and make the barest concessions required to stop a revolt.

You know, I don't think the unelected part is such a problem, it's all down to the unaccountability.

1. Watch before second 10, he's not closing (4 lines between him and the truck). Watch again starting at second 15, he starts closing. (down to under 3 lines between him and the truck, and less than one between him and the first car). Proof to me he sped up, since you can see the blue truck didn't slow down (passes the other truck at a constant rate).
2. He sped up like a car...brakes work better than acceleration on a semi., he should have gone with the larger pedal.
3. No, traffic ahead seems to go the same speed throughout. Traffic is clear ahead of them, and no brake lights from the truck.
4. Yes, you can hear it. Case closed IMO, and a concession of your point #one. He sped up, blocked the spot (illegal), and caused an accident he could have easily avoided (also illegal, right of way or not), therefore his fault.
5. Yes, definitely unsafe passing on the right. In Cali, it's also illegal to stay in the fast lane if someone is going faster than you..."Slower Traffic MUST Keep Right" signs are everywhere, just ignored....so a bit of a wash that, in this state. Truck and car were doing their thing both in the wrong lane by our rules.
Also important, the truck driver was distracted by being on the phone. Distracted driving is actionable everywhere, no matter what the phone laws in your state are.