Nice idea (obviously.... a roomba with a knife, what's not to love), but I'm curious to know how long the unedited match took. I can't imagine that much excitement after 10 minutes.

The Matrix paired with the perfect Rage Against The Machine song and a brilliantly choreographed light show. What is there not to love.

too simple to be believed. no way. it's just ridiculous. a conservative bitter about power at any cost - from the other party?!! too unreal. come on. even the former president couldn't get infrastructure, or medical or medicine reform introduced into congress. geez, b33 get real.

to believe johnson wasn't concerned...well...yeah, he isn't the sharpest tool in the shed...or congress...but he should have been. had the idiots made it into the senate chamber, he was just as likely to die as any other non-descript senator.

most constituents can't identify their representatives, let alone, some other state's members. that's been proven yearly, and over decades of investigations.

it was racist. and undefendable.

...and caring? name the issue. then match the effort(s). HR1 is a better measure than any GOP bill offered in the last 20 yrs.

caring? reread that whole shat pile about abortion, murder, illegals, death, debauchery, and destruction...then explain how that's thoughtful and constructive.

personally, not a fan of most of that...but debauchery?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG_KZPeRpR8
what's not to love?

Icelandic Christmas kitties that eat children. What's not to love? *promote

I was wrong once.

1) You only need to be correct about ONE thing 100% of the time.

2) When you lose the one you love and suffer their loss, you will feel you did the wrong thing. Feeling tricked. You will feel VERY ALONE. This is not where love was supposed to take you. You will be left with one decision. Do you continue to love knowing you will be sending the people you've loved and who love you, into the same hell you are stuck in or do you take the chance that those you love can band together with all those who chose to love you and them?

3) You will only need to make one decision to get beyond the hell and grief that love delivered you into.

The bleeding hearts and artists are waiting for you.

Love is all you need. -Beatles

The blacksmith and the artist
Reflect it in their art
They forge their creativity
Closer to the heart
Yeah, it's closer to the heart -Rush

--------

Thank you for breaking my heart
Thank you for tearing me apart
Now I've a strong, strong heart
Thank you for breaking my heart -John Charles Reynolds / Sinead O'connor



As far as the guy with the poop, yeah, I think you're right.

Hate is born of fear. We become what we fear. I will catch you. That's a fact.

You "do not gotta love them." You can be them.

No sir...I do not gotta love them.
There's nothing wrong with hating retarded idiots who know nothing but constantly contradict those with actual factual information.

Ha!
I thought it was more like making Trump the Time magazine person of the year, about quantity, not quality. Love or hate her, you must admit her brand is huge.

John Oliver + pot? What's not to love?! Thank you kulpims

Love is an action word; it is something that you do. People today think love is a feeling but what happens when the feeling runs out?

"I'm not in love with you anymore" = I don't feel love for you anymore

This is an inferior type of love which is based on feelings and physical desire. In greek it is called Eros.

There is another type of love called Agape love, which is unconditional love. It means I love you whether I feel it or not, and regardless of whether you return it to me or not.

Eros is selfish love, and Agape is unconditional love. Many marriages have ended because they were based on Eros, and not Agape love.

"Cats and Star Wars ... what's not to love?"

Uhhh, Star Wars.

/ducks

True, sometimes music is meant to be shared, like in your home or at a concert....but when you are on a bus or in other public areas, that's not the time. Not everyone loves your music, no matter what music that may be. Only totally brain dead narcissists think that because they enjoy one type of music that everyone likes it. How is Nick going to like it when I sit next to him and blast some M.O.D., Carnivore, or Fearless Iranians From Hell in his ear?

I think this is a *terrible and ridiculous ad for a poorly thought out product that's going to cause innumerable fights over people abusing the public with their inappropriate music and noise.

Also, in regards to age... I'd say ayahuasca is definitely for older people, when I was in ceremony almost everyone was 30+. And it makes sense, it is definitely not just love and good vibes with some slight alterations to your normal perceptions

To add to that - Santo Diame considers taking ayahuasca "THE Work". They take it at church every weekend, including their kids (lol), they are very serious about it as an integral spiritual/religious tool.

I, like most, don't need absolute proof, proving that kind of thing unless it's ridiculously done in writing is impossible. The appearance is enough, but more than that, it's clear, I have no question about it and would require some incredible evidence to the contrary to think differently at this point. It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it swims like a duck, it flies like a duck, it lays eggs like a duck...I'm just going to go ahead and call it a duck. DWS cheated and lied to force a Clinton nomination. The DNC purged it's voter rolls, gave Sanders zero support and actually worked against him while doing whatever the Clinton campaign asked them to, no matter how biased it was, under her leadership, then she was given an important job in the campaign and will likely get a cabinet position for her immoral, unethical work done for Clinton's benefit. If that's not quid quo pro, it doesn't exist.

Yes, Clinton and her campaign have had zero insight on how they appear, and are still indignant about people not just loving her because....woman.

Clinton helped put her in position to help win the election, then hired her when that work got her fired. her job WAS to regulate elections to be fair, and her complete and utter failure in doing that job is why she has a job as the head of Clinton's campaign today....and is one reason Clinton will lose.

Perhaps a few might say that, they're wrong. It was stolen by every means possible, no matter how unethical it was to purge voter rolls in poor areas but not affluent areas, or to close most polls in poor areas and limit the hours of the few left opened, but actually increase the hours and number of polls in affluent areas. He lost for a number of reasons, but largely because the DNC did their job for Clinton and worked actively against him the entire election while smiling and lying to our faces about 'fairness' and 'impartiality'. No leap at all to make that claim, my feet don't have to leave the ground.

Yes, since she REWARDED DWS's guilt with a top level position in her campaign and a promise of more important jobs to come, that guilt transfers to Clinton. Had she come out publicly and said 'this behavior is inappropriate, unethical, and I won't have anything to do with a person who clearly has no respect for the rules/laws' she might not be so guilty...but she did the opposite.

Um...didn't Bush himself say her name in a public interview? That's how I recall the Valerie Plame incident.

I'm talking about a person who's job it was to be impartial who was clearly heavily biased and lied about it for a full year publicly....and the person she performed these unethical acts for that rewarded her after it became public.

You're helping Trump win because Clinton can't, and shoving her down our throats as the DNC and her supporters have guarantees a Trump win. She's unelectable, and her supporters have blinders on to her myriad of faults and flaws.

In this country, we are supposed to vote for a person we want to win, not against someone. If people did that, there might be a chance at not having Trump, but because Dumbocrats and Retardicans both vote against the other, and every idiot follows along, we get this.

"Most qualified? Most experienced?" Not more so than Johnson, who has more experience actually governing than she does by far. You might not agree with his policies, but he's not immoral, not unethical, not hated by a majority of Americans, not batshit crazy, and is a candidate. he only has less chance of winning because people think like you and want to vote for someone who sucks ass because they're against someone who is an ass. That leaves us all covered in shit, no matter who wins.
Sanders has far more experience governing than she does. What the hell are you talking about? She has one thing going for her, her stint as Sec of State, but her record there is abysmal and not a positive for most Americans when seen as a whole. She has no experience in domestic policy beyond her short time as a senator, while Sanders has been one for how long? Again, what the hell are you talking about?

Rewarding incontrovertibly unethical behavior with a top position says everything that need be said.

OK, if you want the most reliable president, why didn't you vote for Sanders, who actually keeps his stated positions and votes on them, completely unlike Clinton.

I agree with your characterization, but it's the Clinton campaign that's the rolling dumpster fire and the Sanders campaign that was a Honda Accord that got hit by the rolling dumpster fire and pushed off the road. Now it's a rolling dumpster fire VS a leaky 40000 gallon septic tank, and they're both poised at the top of the hill with all of us stuck in the danger zone.

*promote the not so love *bugs