We used to call them lawn rollers in the 50's, and we still use them today. Ours held around 300 lbs of water (20" dia x around 42" wide - around 230 l of water plus the steel weight. ) Home Depot has 'em in a variety of sizes today. Different function, identical design.

Revolutionary? If the only other choice is a bucket or a very absorbent rock, then yes. Otherwise, nuh uh.

Your video, This reimagined wheelbarrow is revolutionary., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You can find examples of that throughout history, I think it's how science has always worked. You can sum it up with the saying 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' - when something has been so reliable and proven to work, are you likely to believe the first, second or even 10th person who comes along saying otherwise?

If you are revolutionary, you go against the grain and others will criticise you for daring to be different - as did so many geniuses in all kinds of different fields.

I think that's completely fair, because whilst it sometimes puts the brakes on breakthroughs because of mob mentality, it also puts the brakes on spurious bullshit. I'd prefer every paper be judged entirely on merit, but I have to accept the nature of people and go with something workable.

To understand the wording of the second amendment, you have to take into account the history behind it. I'm not sure how familiar you are with American history, but this scholarly article is a great read on the topic, and demonstrates that guns have been kept and regulated (the most important terms of the amendment that often get completely overlooked by guns rights advocates) by Americans for both personal and collective defense since the Colonial period.

It's important to note that the Revolutionary War was literally started at Lexington and Concord when the British government, "Came fer our gunz!" That event informs a great deal of the rhetoric, and it is not at all an exaggeration to say that had the British government successfully disarmed the populace earlier, the Revolution might never have had a chance for success.

Regardless, there are an overwhelming number of legal precedents now that support the notion that the Constitution allows guns to be owned by U.S. citizens for self-defense purposes. That horse has long been out of the barn, so arguing that the constitution does not specifically use the words "self-defense" is a complete waste of time. What is not a waste of time is arguing how far the government (state and federal) can go in "regulating" the sale, carrying, and use of firearms.

I still want to see President Drumph.

The fact that he represents the biggest trainwreck that American politics has ever faced is precisely *why* I hope he gets elected. The system is already a hopelessly broken dog and pony show; maybe the faster we shit on its grave, the faster it becomes blatantly fubared enough to prompt the amount of revolutionary outcry needed to fix it.

Even if *that* doesn't happen, though, Drumph has already started the self-destruct timer on the GOP. That *desperately* needed to happen -- but the impact will be all the better if he beats out the GOP "great white hope" establishment candidates like Rubio. Drudge Report even claims that Mitt Romney will "enter the race" or possibly run as an independent (propped up by GOP $$$) if Rubio and Cruz don't make up ground.

I don't see the GOP surviving much more of this, which is a very positive outcome. So, thank you Drumph, and keep up the good (by which I mean abysmal) work!

Sadly, it really doesn't matter what they call them, because the term terrorist has become meaningless. I've said this all the way back when GWB "declared war on vague abstract concept"

The definition stated earlier is not wrong, but you can use that term for just about anything. Americans were terrorists against the British when we revolted. We also had the audacity to not march shoulder to shoulder against the Brits as was the standard for every "civilized" army back then.

The only difference is who wins and who loses. if you win, you're a revolutionary. if you lose, you're a terrorist. and if you're white, you're a militia group.

This was a calculated move by the terrorists though. I think they deliberately picked some piece of shit building of no value that no one cared about and was unused, made sure they didn't kill anyone but yet still forcibly occupied it with weapons. It's a dare...it's an attempt to goad. They want the feds or police to go in guns blazing. They want suicide by cop because it will ultimately benefit them and gain sympathy for them. They took something that is completely inconsequential other than it was owned by "the gub'mint"

The Fox pundit thinks they're peaceful? armed occupation is peaceful now? Just because they haven't physically hurt anyone doesn't make them peaceful. They stopped being peaceful the instant they picked up their weapons.

Love all the usual buzzwords and sound bites from the fox pundit without any actual specifics. Once again, who specifically is this "left wing media?" They never actually say who. more accusations of "big gov't" without any specifics. They keep talking about these intrusions into our lives, but yet, can't seem to name them.

All fear, no concrete issues. Standard geriatric (that means old, bob) Fox audience.

Good lord. I've seen less pretentious perfume adverts.

So its kind of a hovercraft without skirts? Revolutionary.

Sorry to be so flippant, I guess I just don't care much about FREEDOM.

Hahaha... seriously, what kind of passive aggressive bullshit is that? "Ignoring the theoretical underpinnings of socialism, because I've decided that that's waffling, I say Jesus was a socialist." Next time, maybe just write TL;DR and make a farting noise while rolling your eyes.

You can't dismiss the actual meaning of the word Socialist as 'semantics', if you're talking about whether or not something is socialist. That doesn't help the discussion.

In order to use socialism as you appear to be doing, you would have to first:
- ignore the history of socialism and its political development,
- ignore the entire body of academic work, current and past, on socialism, and
- ignore how the word socialism "IS used now, like it or not" in actual socialist or semi-socialist countries

By doing that you end up at your definition of the word, yes. But you had to take a pretty long detour to get to that point

Marx's quote on religion is pretty straightforward - it can be, as you say, open to interpretation, but it's generally agreed that he didn't say that your Jesus was a stand-up socialist. He is more commonly taken to mean that religion is a false response to the real suffering of the oppressed; religion provides a fiction of suffering and a fiction of redemption/happiness, that will never translate into real change. It makes the oppressed feel like they are bettering their lives, while actually keeping them passive and preventing them from changing anything.

The slightly larger context of the quote is this: "Das religiöse Elend ist in einem der Ausdruck des wirklichen Elendes und in einem die Protestation gegen das wirkliche Elend. Die Religion ist der Seufzer der bedrängten Kreatur, das Gemüth einer herzlosen Welt, wie sie der Geist geistloser Zustände ist. Sie ist das Opium des Volks."

I don't know how to make that more plain, but I can try. Religious suffering is on one hand a response to real suffering (wirkliche Elend, by which one would mean a materialistically determined actual lack of freedom, resources, physical wellbeing, etc), but it is also a false reaction against that real suffering. Real oppression creates suffering to which there could be a real respones, but religion instead substitutes in false suffering and false responses - it tries to tackle real suffering with metaphysical solutions. He goes on to say:

"Die Aufhebung der Religion als des illusorischen Glücks des Volkes ist die Forderung seines wirklichen Glücks."

This, too, seems pretty straightforward to me, but you might see 4 or 5 different things there. Religion teaches the people an illusory form of happiness, which doesn't actually change or even challenge the conditions of suffering, and must therefore be tossed out, for the people to ever achieve real happiness.

A fundamental difference here is that religious goodness is internally, individually, and fundamentally motivated. 'Good' is 'Good', and you as a Christian individual should choose to do Good. A goal of Marxism is to abolish that kind of fundamentalism and replace it with continuous criticism; creating a society that always questions, together, what good is, through the lens of dialectical materialism.

You might recognize this line of thinking* from what modern Europeans call the autonomous left wing, or what Marx and Trotsky called the Permanent Revolution, which Wikipedia helpfully comments on as "Marx outlines his proposal that the proletariat 'make the revolution permanent'. In essence, it consists of the working class maintaining a militant and independent approach to politics both before, during and after the 'struggle' which will bring the 'petty-bourgeois democrats' to power." Which sounds great, except it can also lead to purges, paranoia, and informant societies.

My entire point is that socialism and Christianity are entirely different beasts. One is a rich, layered mythology with an extremely deep academic and political history, but no modern critical or explanatory components.** The other is an academic theory of economics and politics, with all the tools of discourse of modern academia in its toolbelt, and a completely different critical and analytical goal.

TL;DR? Well, Jesus (in a lenient interpretation) taught that we should help the weak. Marx explained that the people should organize to eradicate the conditions that force weakness onto the people. Jesus
taught that greed would keep a man from heaven, Marx explained that religion, nationalism, tribalism and commodity fetishism blinded the people to its common materialist interests. Jesus taught that the meek will be rewarded for their meekness, and while on earth we should render unto Caesar what is Caesar's; Marx explained that meekness as a virtue is a way of preventing actual revolutionary change, and that dividing the world into the spiritual and the materialistic helped keep the people sedate and passive, which plays right into the hands of the Caesars.

*I'm just kidding, I know you don't recognize any of this


**There probably are modern scholars of Christianity who adapt and adopt some of the tools of modern academic discourse; I know too little about academic Christianity.

This should never have been made...it is pointless. "Adman ruins vaccine deniers" or "Adam ruins people who think it is hygienic to wipe their noses with shit paper."

Nothing he says is very funny because it doesn't reveal a single thing. And yet he says it like it is revolutionary. I get that some courts allow people to take it and a select few people still believe in it...but yeah.

This was his comment about the video.

“Who are the officers?”
Officer Aymee Race (badge #6856), she works for the Utah Transit Authority Police Department. Name and badge number are given in the video because it's in the public interest. The officers in the video are public servants acting unlawfully.

“You brought it on yourself! You wouldn’t have been given a ticket if you would have just politely complied!”
I knew that if I stood up for my rights they were going to give me a ticket (or worse), but $50 is a small price to pay for my dignity. “The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose.” –Fredrick Douglas

“You set up the video! You went there to harass the cops!”
No. I didn’t. This is my only youtube video, and frankly I wish it had never happened.

“You should never insult police officers! You’re only going to make them mad and get it worse!”
You’re the problem with America. Bootlicking cowards like you make me sick. You all deserve the government you have.

“You should never give an officer your I.D.! “
Utah is one of the few states with a show me your papers law. I had a busy schedule that day and I couldn't afford to be arrested. But thanks for the amateur legal advice.

“You’re grammar is horrible and discredits your point!”
I’m not very computer savvy so I had a cheap Bangladeshi freelancer edit the video through skype. I didn't even take the time to review his work. I didn't notice it had posted and gone viral until months later.

“Did you sign the ticket?”
Yes, with the words “by coercion” written next to my signature. Like I said, $50 is nothing, and I had very important things to do that day, I couldn’t afford to be arrested.

“Is the UTA private property or public property? Why are police working security?”
Both unfortunately. The UTA is a great example of crony-capitalism. It’s a tax payer subsidized private company.

A note from the owner of this channel:

Since this video first went viral I have received many death threats and I’m sure the officers involved have received death threats. I was once a very outspoken anarcho-capitalist, but as time has passed my political views have matured. All I want now is to tend to my business and live my life. All the anti-police violence is not conducive to freedom. Things are getting bad. And it’s only going to get worse. A lot worse. I want nothing to do with it. When the shit hits the fan I'll be watching the U.S. government and the revolutionaries have at it from my laptop on the beach in Tahiti. I'm not going to support changing an evil system for a slightly less evil one (or a worse one). A real revolution is a philosophical one, once a revolution becomes violent it is already lost. And frankly the human race has let me down. I know now that human beings are just not ready for peace. What are human beings fit for other than being ruled? It is what it is. I’m now a social darwinist, I'll support whoever benefits my business and my family. ..and political instability is not beneficial to either one. Anarcho-Capitalists like to compare livestock to people and say that animals (humans) would be able to live free without the farmer (ruling class). Well, I disagree; some species of animals are so stupid, so domesticated, that they would starve without the farmer. And I think that is the case with 99% of the human species. Human beings need government, and they usually get the government they deserve. Don’t get me wrong, I do have empathy for the people being oppressed, but I now understand the ruling class, I see were they’re coming from. Again, I want nothing to do with politics. I’m not a social activist. All I care about is my business and my family. So please leave me alone.

Here's a liberal hero: Michael Moore. Speaking truth to power, taking it to GM or whatever. Loves Cuban healthcare.

Here's a liberal hero: Margaret Sanger. Abortionist, racist, wanted abortion for black babies.

Here's a liberal hero: William Ayers. Bomb maker, terrorist, intellectual.

Here's a liberal hero: Che Guevara. Murderer, revolutionary, fashion icon.

Smart Pipe: A revolutionary new startup has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach on that post.

Smart Pipe: A revolutionary new startup has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach on that post.

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, December 17th, 2014 10:19am PST - promote requested by eric3579.

Too Many Cooks has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Smart Pipe: A revolutionary new startup has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Another brilliantly wtf adult swim infomercial. *promote

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Too-Many-Cooks
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Smart-Pipe-A-revolutionary-new-startup