Isn't it illegal to intentionally poison a river, even if it LOOKS like it's already in bad shape? I think that guy's looking at a hefty fine at the very least. Dumbass for doing this in the first place, doubly so for putting his face on camera.

He's just losing, stop crying like fucking babys. There is no mass conspiracy, he's losing. His supporters,don't vote. It's not Hillarys fault these dumbasses didn't register. When Hillary sees these people at bernies rally's. All she sees is a roomful of people who didn't register, or won't bother to vote. He's losing, that's all. Clicking like on Facebook,isn't voting.

exactly, and she didnt get the joke, got offended and set herself up for a takedown so perfect it was almost planned. shes a dumbass, never argued otherwise, but I understand why she took offense.

I drive a 94 Toyota Hilux Surf, and on Monday night some dumbass tried to steal it. They broke a window but failed at breaking the key barrel.

So I'm going to leave a sign on it from now on:
Dear Fucking Idiots,
If you want to steal this truck, you don't need to break in, just call this number and I'll meet you with the keys. If you can still use your hands 5 minutes later, it's yours.

Hrm...

"whatever you humanist fuckheads are arguing for"

"I'm sorry, did I trigger you? Did I piss in your safe space? Aww."

Why is it that people that go out of their way to offend suddenly complain when it comes back at them?

I had a pretty reasonable response brewing to the post where you came up with the fuckhead bit, and trashed it because reasonable didn't seem what you were interested in. So why waste my time trying to reason with a person who is unreasonable right?

And hey, that's my presumption. Mebbe I caught you on a bad day, mebbe I'm being the ass here, it's entirely possible.

But this conversation is pretty much as pointless as vocal 3rd wave feminism. It's going around in circles, people occasionally getting mad, and the majority of the sift probably peaked in and decided they couldn't be fucked wading in among the 10 or so people dedicated to perpetuating the "conversation"... And of course it's not really accomplishing anything, we're all still being relatively civil to each other even if a bit terse...

The battle for equality isn't won, but it's pretty close (well, at least in the west, just forget about the majority of the worlds women who still live in conditions that make the 50's seem blissful...). 3rd wavers aren't fighting massive social injustice anymore, they are battling things like #gamergate and feedback against Sarkeesian, Tucker Max or that Return of Kings mob (who seem to be the biggest trolls on the planet but w/e).

Seriously, they are spending a lot of time and energy arguing with the lowest common denominators (who by and large love the attention). There used to be a time you could safely ignore the village idiot because, hey, he's a fucking idiot. Now, any dumbass can post on the internet and people will descend on them like the proverbial plagues of Egypt, followed shortly by supporters showing up. Not because those one offs are indicative of even a significant minority in broader society, but because it generates plenty of online hype to see "some guy" say something fucking awful and then the sides line up to start yelling at each other...

So I'm not overly concerned if we end up agreeing because in the grand scheme of things, it's also fairly pointless. We're both entitled to our opinions and they seem to be vaguely in the same park aka "equality good, hate and oppression bad", seems like a good place to stop.

If there was anything to this video, it was lost behind the dumbass narrator.

No, capitalism is cynical and manipulative in general. It also promotes freedom in general, ie., the antithesis to community. Is it no wonder we bemoan the fact that kids are more into their ipads then the dinner table? But we promote that as entitled, and how dare someone tell you how to live. Etc., so forth and so on.

And btw, sleazier ads sell better than wholesome ads. So "they could have done it better" is actually only your opinion but makes very little economic sense. I used to say the same thing about Jerry Springer, then I looked at the dumbass audience that watches it...

Dumbass dog owner. Perfect example that he's not fit to own such a large dog. He can't control that dog.
Next time it's going to be a human or another dog, not a kitten.

Dumbass!

I have to admit that I'm partially on the "wrong" side of this one.

Housing, not being fired for being gay, that kind of stuff, I'm with John Oliver 100%.

But restaurants, bakers, etc. ... I dunno, I'm a little torn.

Places like Big Earl's in the clip put up a sign that says "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason". I tend to think that is a right that we should allow private businesses (NOT things that are set up for the public good like utilities, gas stations, govt. agencies, whatever) to have.

That is NOT to say that I approve of the way that these clowns exercise that right. Dude doesn't want to make cakes for same-sex weddings ... fine. You're a retard, passing up potential customers for a really stupid reason, and also possibly discouraging business from other people that empathize with those that you are denying service to, but ... hey, it is your goddamn business. If you don't want to make a cake for people who's name starts with a Q, I'd support your right to make that (equally dumbass) decision.

Kinda the same thing goes for Big Earl's. That might even be one of the cases where the comfort of your standard clientele (redneck bigots) is potentially more important/beneficial to your bottom line than the potential lost business that your discriminating policy causes. In other words, from a purely capitalistic viewpoint, the policy might be a net positive to the business. Maybe.


The one thing that gives me pause on those more private businesses being allowed to "deny service to anyone for any reason" is shifting from LGBT equality to race equality. If that cake maker refused to make cakes for a black wedding, I'd be more accepting that we need some government intervention. I know that my opinion should be the same in both instances, but I can only honestly admit that at the gut level, I have a different reaction to those 2 scenarios.

I sorta think that even the racist cake-maker should be allowed to continue to be racist (so long as we're talking cakes, and not something more *necessary* to public good), because a racist cake maker will probably put themselves out of business without the need for any government intervention. BUT, I'm sure there are places in the US where that wouldn't have been true (and where it wouldn't be true today), and we needed the push of federal mandate to force such people to remove heads from asses. Maybe the same thing is true for LGBT discrimination.

But I do still feel conflicted about it. Even though I know I shouldn't.

Why they would even want white people? Iunno. "Our thing is so simple, even dumbass, hipster roundeyes can use it!"

But that label is so useful!

Couldn't you, like, add a 'bloody' or 'dumbass' or other word in the mix there to get it past the idiom police?

"Hahaha. Turn it over and spank its butt. I don't know. Hahaha."

Umm, hello, dumbass. Pull over and call 911 maybe? Perhaps turn the freaking camera off or put it down, pull the car over, and comfort the baby and baby mama? Freaking comedian.

Knowing the police they'd probably pull you over and give you a ticket for no child seat. At worst you could get t-boned or rear-ended and... not good.

"Look at this idiot. If I wait until the right moment, then hop around a bit, he gets all confused and drops his food right in front of me. No wonder these dumbasses never learned how to fly. I gotta try this on more of them."

Dumbasses.. Also his gun isnt 'jammed" with a knife. its a Bayonet. 100% endorse the guards actions here.