HOLY FUCK…look at all these TL;DR's!
Can you write about what she actually does instead of just gawking at her? I bet she's beautiful AND has a brain.
tl;dr
While the bottom line premise of the story is correct, the rest of the write up leaves much to be desired. This Gop race is not like 2008, mainly because Democrats actually liked their candidates, they actually had policy positions that could be scrutinzed & discussed (what's Mitt's jobs plan?…I know how to create jobs” doesn't cut it!), and they are smart! Contrast that with each of the GOP candidates in 2012 (incl. the ones who've left the race), who are so unserious and full of foolishness that they are regularly referred to as clowns…there's a reason for that. Nonetheless, since the author of this article isn't listed & it's full of a lot of Hillary whoring, I can only presume that the former #1 Hillary-whore, Ben Smith, wrote it. 1. Obama was to the left of HRC on the war; 2. HRC ran out of money very early on in the contest (remember when HRC had to loan her campaign money a few times?); and 3. HRC lost the nominating contest in March 08 when Obama won 10 states in a row but the media whores like Ben Smith kept propping her up by falsely claiming that she could still get the nod. As for what you call the President's “enduring weaknesses,” note that you list only one: “Some of the economy-focused white Democrats who supported Clinton to the end remain are the swing voters of 2012.” This is a very weak example of the President's alleged “weakness.” If these folks stayed w/HRC “to the end,” does that mean that they didn't vote for him? Who are these “economy-focused” whites that you're referring to? They must be a new group cuz I've never heard of them before Obama's election. Do you just mean cracker ass crackers? If they didn't want Obama last time & he won anyway, does he really need them now? Sure, every vote counts, but when was last time a Democrat won a majority of the white vote? So, why is this a weakness now for Obama? Ben, your whoring used to be better.
The caveman diet? Please. No agriculture. No trade routes. Greater difficulty with changing seasons and weather conditions. Sure, a tribe might split up for the day to do varied hunter / gatherer activities. But without transportation, how much variety is likely within a two-mile radius of camp? A nomadic tribe might run into more variety over the course of a season, but dietary changes would more likely be as gradual as the change in location. And they aren't going to come across any gardens. How often do you go on hikes and find blueberries growing right next to strawberries? Carrots right next to onions? Nature wasn't set up like a farmer's market. More likely, people ate what was at hand, and what was present was probably repetitive—certainly more so than we with our supermarkets. Even if you mostly eat junk food, you probably still have more variety—and thus more health—in your diet than any neanderthal.
Committed heterosexual couples can reproduce, nurse, and raise their own biological children. Homosexual couples cannot. Heterosexual couples are necessary to the existence and survival of the human race. Homosexual couples are not. While homosexuals are free to engage in whatever relationships they choose in their pursuit of happiness, society does not have the same vested interest in supporting or granting benefits to those relationships as marriages. This is not hate speech, ignorance, or intolerance; it is a simple, fundamental fact of life. And no amount of name-calling, propaganda, whining, or political rhetoric will change it. While the government is not allowed to bend to the whim of any one religion, it is also not allowed to bend to the whim of irreligion over religion. When it comes to the morality of homosexual behavior, it is specifically condemned in the scriptures of the three major world religions - Christianity, Judaism, and Islam; as well as the scriptures of many minor religions such as Rastafarianism, Scientology, and Baha'i; and is traditionally prohibited in Eastern religions including Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism, though not specifically mentioned in scripture. It has also been considered immoral by the vast majority of human societies and cultures around the world throughout history up until the rise of secular humanism in the last 15 years. Thus there is a consensus among a wide range of belief systems that homosexual behavior is wrong. It is odd that liberals claim to uphold the values of tolerance and diversity while actively seeking to exclude every opinion but their own. All that said, in the case of Iowa, where voters (i.e. THE PEOPLE) voted to recognize gay marriage, though I disagree with their decision, I respect it. But in the case of California, activist judges are being used to overturn the democratic decision and Will of the People. Everyone, regardless of their political leanings, should have a huge problem with this. While many people write off opposition to gay marriage as “hate” or “ignorance,” that argument is simply not true, and quite frankly, is silly and childish, not to mention is in itself a position of bigotry and intolerance. I have many homosexual friends, I've worked with homosexuals, I've worked for homosexuals, and I've hired homosexuals. Additionally, there are other gay rights issues I have fully supported in the past including the overturn of DADT, the repeal of archaic anti-sodomy laws, and the opposition to Tennessee's “Don't Say Gay” bill. I don't hate homosexuals, I feel no animosity towards them, I wish no violence or injustice against them, and I have no desire to see them denied their rights. However the claim that gay marriage is an issue of “rights” in the first place is logically flawed. Gay people, as well as all people, already have the right to get married. Everyone is free to find a committed lifelong relationship with someone of the opposite sex and gain the privileges associated with it. But just as some people choose to live in non-committed heterosexual relationships, have multiple sexual partners, live in polyamorous relationships, or live by themselves, gay people, based on their own desires, choose to pursue relationships that do not fit the definition of marriage. It is not, nor has it ever been, that they are ineligible to marry; it is that they instead choose to engage in alternative relationships. And they're perfectly free to do so. There is also no reasonable analogy between gay marriage and interracial marriage. Interracial marriage has existed as long as marriage has existed, it fits the definition and function of marriage, and was only made illegal through specific legislation that sought to have it prohibited based on skin color. Homosexual “marriage” on the other hand never existed in the first place and does not fit the structure and function of a marriage. It was not illegal or prohibited, but was simply not a thing because it does not fall under the definition of what marriage is and what marriage means. All this said, I tend to believe that gay “marriage” will eventually be accepted and legalized widely in our society. Mostly because people are naive and are more swayed by emotional cries of “That hurts my feelings” rather than rational, logical arguments. I do not care if I am on the wrong side of history, I am more interested in being on the side of truth and reason. I will stand up for gay people and all people where their claims are sound but will oppose them when their position is flawed. And whether you want to hear it or not, gay marriage is absurd.
Hilarious advertising trick and JohanPar certainly caught onto it. I'm sure the Vatican also did not endorse The Little Mermaid, The Hangover or Never Say Never but that doesn't mean that some memo leaked from the Vatican that shows they're upset some top-secret information is leaking out. Wealse words like these are used all the time by advertisers. My two favorites are: “Nothing works better than X product!” I always think, “Um, okay then, I'll try nothing!” If the product, say it's toothpaste, is the same as its competitors then “nothing works better” tells you they're all about the same. They'd have to say something like X works better than some other product, but then they'd have to prove it and, well, that's inconvenient. “UP TO X% better than…” Reminds me of the Monty Python spoof ad for the Welsh Martial Art of Llap-Goch, which (the ad claims) “will allow you to sleep with any number of women*”
“*As long as you realise that “Zero” is also a number.” It may be some percent better than the competitor but maybe no better at all.
TL:DR
#3 (Biden) - This may seem over-the-top, but consider that it was in response to the debt ceiling debacle, in which some Republicans were basically threatening to destroy the U.S. economy; in context it’s not such an irrational statement. Also, it’s not clear that Biden actually made this comparison (though other Democrats may have). Link: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html #5 (McCaskill) - I don’t see what’s so dumb about this; it’s not as if McCaskill was saying that the recession is a good thing - she was half-jokingly talking about a small upside to an overwhelmingly bad situation (this is clear if you see the quote in context). Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/claire-mccaskill-isnt-helping-herself/2011/03/04/AFcGhuvB_blog.html #7 (Obama) - So, he mixed-up the prefix “inter” with the prefix “trans” - is that really such a big deal? If this and the bit about Jared Monti are the two dumbest things that Obama said in 2011, then he must have barely said any dumb things at all… #8 (Reid) - This is a misquote. What he really said was: “Many of our job creators are like unicorns, they’re impossible to find and don’t exist. That’s because only a tiny fraction of people making more than a million dollars, probably less than one percent, are actually small business owners and only a tiny fraction of that tiny fraction is a traditional job creator.” There’s a subtle-but-massive difference between the misquote (that millionaire job creators don’t exist) and what he actually said (that only a small fraction of millionaires are job creators in the traditional sense). Link: http://michellemalkin.com/2011/12/12/harry-reid-unicorns/ #9 (Biden) - Biden’s trying to make a nuanced point about U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan - he’s saying that our goal is not to destroy the Taliban outright, but to get to a point where it’s no longer a threat to the U.S. It seems, though, that a lot of people took his out-of-context statement (“the Taliban per se is not our enemy”) and took it to mean something like “the U.S. has no problems with the Taliban at all” - but that’s clearly not what he meant. Link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/12/18/joe-biden-on-iraq-iran-china-and-the-taliban.html TL;DR badge, please…
The poster seems to have an agenda to discredit Ron Paul even if it means stretching the truth. He “walked off” all right — after the reporter thanked him for answering all the questions. Oh, and the video does not actually show him walking off. It's telling that CNN has to go back 20+ years to find something attached to Ron Paul's name that isn't rock solid consistent. With most politicians, 20 days will do. Spend time looking at the collective body of work… can you honestly do that and think this man full of hate, or could it be that every other Presidential candidate is more worthy of such an accusation, since they all seem to support an escalation of military aggression and the police state? Granted Obama's rhetoric is different, but his actions are the complete opposite of his words. Perhaps CNN is spending all of their time asking Ron Paul about these events, while omitting that the results of previous journalistic investigations stretching back 10 years have confirmed his statements, because they are alarmed that their own recent poll shows Ron Paul can win 25% of the non-white vote. Since it's CNN's job to get Obama re-elected, perhaps they feel the need to re-educate these black men and women who didn't make the “right” decision to vote for a New World Order candiate with the correct skin color instead of someone who is interested in liberty. Ron Paul admitted that this represents an early failure as a publisher. He has been publishing books and making statements for 20 years that consistently show a different position than the one that is being portrayed. He is the _only_ candidate who supports ending economic, military, police and social policies that have been disproportionately harmful to African Americans. I'm actually glad that this kind of unfair treatment continues so blatantly in the main stream media, because people are waking up to what it means when the establishment comes after you like that. It didn't work in 2008, but they will keep trying.
Folks are always asking for new ways to react to BuzzFeed posts, so we've taken your suggestions and created a new feature that allows you to earn a variety of new special reaction buttons. You can earn them by winning badges or awards, being the King or Queen of a feed, and more! Keep an eye out for these new reactions on posts and see if you can earn some for yourself.
“We already have the statistics for the future: the growth percentages of pollution, overpopulation, desertification. The future is already in place.” - Günter Grass Thanks for dooming us all, Duggars.
The problem with liberals is that for all of their perceived intellectual superiority, they almost always demonstrate a massive deficit of social intelligence. This leaves them unsuccessful in almost all competitive endeavors except individual academics, which does not require social intelligence. But lacking social intelligence, they are unable to parlay their academic success into success outside of non-competitive fields, so they end up in non-competitive arenas like government and academia, and of course “journalism”. Not satisfied, they are embittered when they see others who may have been “C” students but have high levels of social intelligence become leaders and attain much higher levels of wealth and success. Their response: use that which they can control (government, academia, media) to dismantle merit based systems (everything from free markets to children's sports) in favor of forced “equality.” Want a six-figure salary on forty hours per week max and no chance of getting fired without committing murder? Get a job with the Federal Government. Don’t want to work at all- the Feds have you covered there too. Those who have to do real work and aren’t in the bottom 47% that pay no income tax will pay the bills for it all, even it does run 15 trillion over what we bring in. Fortunately for those of us that appreciate the good that comes of competition, the ever sanctimonious, self-righteous liberal does more to offend others than to convince them of the merits of their arguments. However, they have made strong inroads over the decades in convincing more and more Americans that the path of least resistance is to opt of out of hard work and competitive endeavors and depend instead on handouts from their big government monopoly. Behind closed doors, they long wistfully for the good old days of long bread lines in the Soviet Union where everyone was equal (except of course those who, perhaps like them, controlled the government, and hence the schools and media). Nothing screams of a complete lack of social intelligence like “from each according to his ability and to each according to his need,” especially when accompanied by the smashingly successful capitalist success story: the Che t-shirt. They have a big problem though when Americans start using that pesky Constitution to receive information out side of their hegemonous liberal media, though. With great indignation they condemn Fox News as the purveyors of blasphemous lies. “How dare they question our Annointed One?!?” Also fortunately for us, the Founding Fathers, who did not lack social intelligence but understood man quite well, first guaranteed our freedom of speech, religion, and press (actually hated by liberals for all but the right to hear their point of view and of course to view child porn— just as long as you aren’t producing it [see ACLU]). They then protected those rights and the rest with the second amendment which is the only reason they still exist. So while liberals may be able to mock those who don’t bow down before their king (in the same manner that skinny, sunken-chested nerds may mock the school quarterback), they haven’t yet devised a way to separate those of us with weapons from that which protects our rights, but not for lack of trying (reference Operation Fast and Furious). So mock all you want, but realize the more you push to separate us from what we’ve earned in the name of giving it to some dirty pothead living in a park, the closer we come to blows. I can assure you that is a fight we are going to win every time. Sic Semper Tyrannus.
Riff - there's a slight difference however. The super-skinny body image to which you refer is embraced by so many women as it's constantly glorified in the media. Look at a magazine rack and I can guarantee you that you'll see at least one cover article saying something to the tone of “I lost x pounds in y weeks!”. Everywhere you look, the idea of being lighter, skinnier, eating less etc. is forced down women's throats, so to speak; on the other hand, if there are any articles about having large breasts, I can also guarantee you that almost all of them are negative (“my boobs almost killed me!” etc.). How do you think that does for a woman's body image? Christina Hendricks should serve as an inspiration because she embraces her natural beauty; she doesn't try to be super-skinny. She has the kind of attitude towards her self-image that we should encourage; yet whenever she - or indeed any well-endowed woman - is mentioned, a lot of women (and some men) develop some kind of depraved mob mentality and start verbally attacking her, usually with petty insults, and then backing each other up. Just scroll through the comments here and you'll see what I mean. So remind me why those of us who do have something nice to say, shouldn't.
The only thing that has changed is the marketing and the fanbase. There is still great music being made. Problem is, people, for the most part are simple, easily-influenced sheep who like shiny stuff. Sad fact is, it is easier to dress up pretty people like talented musicians than it is to sell people good, real, and ugly rock n' roll. Justin Bieber probably sold a billion albums to every pre-pubescent girl on the planet, but I have a hard time believing that his adorable haircut had less to do with his success than his brilliantly crafted art. Honestly, there are bands out there who I would honestly compare to the Stones, Led Zep, etc…. The crime is not that great music doesn't exist anymore… It's definitely out there.. Problem is, rock is too real for today's consumer-driven masses…. We live in a lazy “let-the-fat-music-exec-package-and-sell-me-anything-pretty” world in which glitter sells above substance… It's devolution. Just like the film “Idiocracy”… It will only get worse with each passing generation… But fortunately, though we will decrease exponentially with each passing generation, there will ALWAYS be a faction of free-thinking people who don't rely on MTV and FM radio to tell us what to like. And there will always be free-thinking artists who continue to make great music for the underground… Regardless of how many trillion of units Bieber's talentless (yet adorable!) grandson sells 50 years from now.
Oh, I'm sorry, have you guys heard of cars? It's 2011. Horses are an obsolete technology, but a delicious meat.
England really IS a great place to live EXCEPT for a FEW annoying bits…like the British obsession with TRAFFIC FLOW and Urban Planning. Here in the UK you can have a shopping Mall that services over 10,000 people a day and yet there will be ONLY one road in and one road out…a single entrance and a single exit for the entire Mall…it's SHOCKING and ridiculous. If I want to go to one of my favorite shops, I have to make a complete block, go around a traffic circle, double back just so I can turn right into their parking lot. To leave I have to circle the entire store and make the block before leaving…The Brits don't like easy access…it's true…and for Urban Planning, I hear constant complaints over here about how CROWDED England is…England is ONLY CROWDED because the Urban Planning is so strict that people are herded inside tight corrals with Homes that are built on top of each other so that their “green spaces” (open fields of grass) can be maintained. Occasionally when pushed hard a small section (several hundred acres at best) will be opened up for development but this ends up being a bunch of small houses built smack up against each other with no space really for anything except cramped living. This is VERY FRUSTRATING and is totally reversible given the proper mindset but I'm not counting my chickens. However, that is about it as far as negatives for living here…the Nation supports it's citizens everywhere in the world if they get into a jam…medically, legally and even with a loan if necessary. The Nation Health Service with all it's faults is LOVED by everyone (except the far right conservatives who loath paying for anything that they don't receive a direct benefit from)and the food and food shopping here is world class despite what the myths say about British cuisine. I'd stack any number of British Chefs against the world's best on any day. Overall, I miss the USA but was shocked when I went back home for my Mother's Funeral to hear the vitriol on talk radio and on television (mainly Fox). It seems Patriotism is dead in America except in a very hateful form and it doesn't seem to be getting any better. I'm quite happy to live here in the UK and would give a thumbs up to anyone that wanted to emigrate…as long as you don't mind heavy, nonsensical traffic manipulation and living right on top of your neighbors.
There is nothing wrong with this. Whatever money was spent on this went directly to a small business and employed the buggy rider, buggy guard and whoever maintains the horse. This is exactly the sort of spending on local, specialized services that is good for the economy and the working/middle class. The whole wealth disparity issue has nothing to do with the existence of rich people buying silly crap. We want rich people buying silly crap. All these unemployed liberal arts majors need rich people buying silly crap to sustain a creative class. The problem with wealth disparity in America isn't that there are rich people or that there is wealth disparity in general. The problem is that wealth disparity is increasing at an accelerating rate. More specifically, the problem is that there's a tiny minority of rich uber-executives who have been financing and manipulating our political parties to inflate their share of the wealth by gutting the social services, employee benefits and local businesses that working/middle class people need to thrive which, in turn, also happens to weaken the real economy (i.e., the economy based on people actually making and trading tangible things, not inflating investment portfolios with accounting tricks).
LOL @ Chris Jackson Herman Cain’s plan has been presented in detail. The whole point of this plan is that it’s an ultra-simplified, flat tax code. 3 9% taxes with absolutely minimal credits, exceptions and loopholes. No further details are necessary. That’s the whole point. And the simple fact is that, like most flat tax plans, it raises overall tax liability on a significant portion of the population. As conservatives are so fond to argue, 47% of the population ends up not paying any federal income taxes, so obviously, getting rid of the numerous credits that make it a reality will cause that to change. You can argue that it has other merits (for example, eliminating employee contributions to FICA may increase wages, a simplified tax code may reduce the price of goods and services to a point where the 9% sales tax is cancelled out), but on the face of it, it is what it is. If you don’t like the idea of raising taxes on 80% of the population, vote for someone other than Herman Cain. There are plenty of other candidates running for the nomination, a few of which (unlike Herman Cain) actually have a good shot at winning the general election. As for this statement: “The occupy movement is an unfocused joke and that’s how it’s largely seen.” The reality is that most public opinion polls excepting the conservative-leaning Rasmussen have shown that a plurality of the population support the protests. This includes: National Journal (59% “agree” with OWS)
Reuters (38% favorable, 24% unfavorable)
Time/ABT (54% favorable, 23% unfavorable)
Wall Street Journal (37% support, 18% oppose) Notably, OWS garners better numbers than the Tea Party. So with that in mind, a more accurate statement might be “OWS is largely seen as a joke among Fox News viewers.”
So you’ve been on the street conducting interviews? You can’t get shit done without getting a groundswell of support. They aren’t down there writing legislation; they’re trying to build popular support, even if their dreads aren’t helping. So, which law firm aids Goldman on evading SEC regulations? What should be done about that? I think many of the protestors would be happy, at least for a start, for the return of Glass-Steagall. We could also make it a law that the SEC doesn’t destroy records of their investigations. These are specific policy proposals. That the media hasn’t gone nuts about that SEC stuff, and didn’t go nuts when we got rid of Glass-Steagall is a sign of how hard it is to get sensible, non-extreme policy through. Our government allows lots of terrible policy to go through and it barely makes a ruffle. What better proposal do you have to get these ideas across? I’m assuming any position that claims right and left are extremes without examining them, any position that projects mindless extremism on any effort to seek change, is BS. You are full of BS. You haven’t said one idea you are in favor of. You’ve only smugly claimed that other people who want to effect change must be full of it. This is idiotic complacency that is afraid to examine evidence or make an argument for a better way forward.
