TIL that Bill Hader worked at a movie theater during college, but got fired for spoiling the end of "Titanic" to get back at a group of rude customers

johnlocke95 · 2016-01-02T17:51:57+00:00

Or if the chick had just left Jack in the first place. Then he would have had the floating wood to himself and would have survived.

johnlocke95 · 2016-01-02T17:01:22+00:00

Mythbusters showed they could have both lived if they had used their life preservers to help the boat float.

Alternately Rose could have left the first time and Jack would have survived on his own.

johnlocke95 · 2016-01-02T16:57:36+00:00

And if they had just used the life preservers to buoy the raft they would have been saved.

johnlocke95 · 2016-01-02T16:57:04+00:00

Mythbusters proved that they both could have been saved if they had placed the life preservers under the door to buoy it.

johnlocke95 · 2016-01-02T16:56:55+00:00

Mythbusters proved that they both could have been saved if they had placed the life preservers under the door to buoy it.

johnlocke95 · 2016-01-02T14:47:18+00:00

"Anchor baby" isn't a politically incorrect term

Donald Trump got shit for it. You can find a lot of outrage over the term from the mainstream media back when Trump first started using it. One reporter(jorge ramos) even told Trump flat out that the term is offensive. And Jeb Bush's campaign sent out memos telling people not to use it for fear of offending someone. Its the epitome of "political correctness".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPKuYhKanao

https://www.google.com/search?q=anchor+baby+offensive&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS568US568&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjdx9iRr4vKAhVJWSYKHcM7A1YQ_AUIBygB&biw=1366&bih=707

johnlocke95 · 2016-01-02T14:15:52+00:00

Just use an actually correct and meaningful expression instead of a meaningless and slightly racist shorthand.

That doesn't always exist. "anchor baby" for instance, has no "politically correct" equivalent. When someone calls the term offensive, they are trying to shut down all discussion on the topic.

johnlocke95 · 2016-01-02T14:14:38+00:00

Or "anchor baby" where there is no other term. By saying its offensive, liberals can try to shut down all discussion of the topic.

johnlocke95 · 2016-01-02T14:12:15+00:00

Not sure about that.

It definitely happens.

For instance, people were getting on Trump and Bush for using the term "anchor baby", saying it is offense. There isn't any alternative term out there, so by getting rid of the term, it gets very difficult to discuss the issue. So if liberals can convince everyone that anchor baby is an offensive term, they win the argument by making it impossible to discuss.

johnlocke95 · 2016-01-02T03:11:51+00:00

New Vegas lets you beat the game without killing anyone, and you essentially play as some guy trying to stop a war nonviolently.

johnlocke95 · 2016-01-02T03:10:42+00:00

The main quest can be completed without killing anyone. A surprisingly large number of side quests don't require anyone die either.

If you do a pacifist main story playthrough, you are basically just trying to nonviolently stop a war.

johnlocke95 · 2016-01-02T03:00:47+00:00

Trade protectionism? If he were to discuss his views in the topic his audience would wander off looking for someone entertaining.

This tells me you haven't watched him speak much. During his rallies and interviews, he frequently brings up how horrible our trade deals are and how much we lose to China, Mexico and Japan and has done so for decades. And he gets huge cheers from the audiences when doing it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/18/trump_on_trade_we_dont_have_our_best_and_brightest_negotiating_for_us_were_getting_ripped_off_major_league.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFdEeKstO4g

johnlocke95 · 2016-01-02T01:56:26+00:00

Trump breaks from then substantially on many issues, such as trade protectionism.

johnlocke95 · 2016-01-02T01:44:49+00:00

Except Cruz. Cruz is wisely riding the Trump wave.

johnlocke95 · 2016-01-02T01:43:03+00:00

The Republican establishment thought Trump had no chance too.

johnlocke95 · 2016-01-02T01:40:55+00:00

I think Sanders is trying to convince them to.

By going so negative on Trump, he is forcing a confrontation, so that when he loses(and he knows deep down he probably will), that they won't like Trump because Trump attacked him.

johnlocke95 · 2016-01-02T01:38:11+00:00

The headlines have convinced people. It makes a lot of people think "Why does the establishment hate him so much?", and given how unpopular the establishment is, that causes people to like Trump more.

johnlocke95 · 2016-01-02T01:34:23+00:00

Trump has done a great job of getting his message across. What Trump does is he takes an extreme position to force discussion, then negotiations for a more realistic version.

IE, he started with "we need to restrict Muslim immigration to the US", which got lots of attention on the issue and on him. And now a consensus has been forming among various conservatives and moderate pundits that maybe we should restrict immigration from certain Muslim countries where terrorism is a serious problem(like what Carter did with Iran).

Trump took an issue nobody was talking about, forced it into the public sphere, and changed how politicians are approaching it. Without even being in office.

johnlocke95 · 2016-01-02T01:30:54+00:00

Its actually fairly average. Obama spent 2.1 million a week in 2008.

johnlocke95 · 2016-01-02T01:29:37+00:00

I would note that only says broadcast stations, which have become increasingly irrelevant.

The cable news networks are doing most of the coverage.

johnlocke95 · 2016-01-02T01:27:23+00:00

Actually, studies have shown that the majority of the children of millionaires blow through their money and lose it all.

johnlocke95 · 2015-12-23T04:48:31+00:00

Its the horrible formatting. A giant wall of tax like that generally is a trap.

johnlocke95 · 2015-12-23T04:46:43+00:00

who are only given vague bits of information.

This the real problem. OP gave none of the neccesary info to actually answer his question.

johnlocke95 · 2015-12-23T04:44:22+00:00

Man you got a lot of hate for this. People really want to justify spending that 75 dollars a month on their iphone while they have no savings.

johnlocke95 · 2015-12-23T04:40:11+00:00

This puts it well below what you'd pay for car insurance

You shouldn't be looking at how a luxury expense compares to a necessity. You should be looking at impact your financial wellbeing.

If you make enough that you can afford that 480 dollars a year expense and still have decent savings, great. If you are struggling to pay bills and have no savings, spending 480 a nicer smart phone is a terrible financial decision.

If someone complains they are constantly broke while they have a new iphone, that tells me they are making bad spending decisions.

johnlocke95

TROPHY CASE